It doesn't matter who Pelosi supports. They are all liberals and will sell the country out for 30 pieces of silver.

America is in for a very bleak period.

Well, the voters took their "retribution" against war supporters in the elections, so is it really that unreasonable for House leadership to represent that fact?

What other intelligence agency thought Iraq had a WMD program? Oh, okay, maybe the ones that got their information from the CIA.

I don't think that intelligence services claimed that Iraq had WMD as much as they were willing to assume that it did until proved otherwise. Primarily, this was a result of being burned by the existence of a nuclear program in Iraq (although I'm not sure that it was much of one). Once Cheney et alii, started banging on about it, there seemed to be resistence to the idea, thus requiring multiple trips to Langley, and convenient misplacing of CIA memos in re the state of the union speech, et cetera.

After all, nearly half the Democratic caucus supported the resolution, and we really don't want to declare every one of these folks unfit for further duty on committees related to national security.

Really? Why not? Are you saying that being spectacularly wrong on the key national security question of our time shouldn't somehow be disqualifying? If being wrong on Iraq doesn't deserve a demerit, then what on Earth does? Here's a simple idea: let's promote the people who were right and put aside the people who were wrong. I know, I know, pushing this makes me a crazy radical hippie, but maybe it's so crazy it just might work....

Karl Rove would have a field day with that, wouldn't he?

Rove? Who's he? Fuck that loser. As if he's still relevant.

Karl Rove would have a field day with that, wouldn't he?

Yeah, just like he had a field day in the November 2006 midterms...oh, wait.

Read Glenn Greenwald's post today, Kevin.

There's a reason this appears to be a soap opera.

Rush Holt would be a dynamite choice as Intelligence Committee Chair. A Princeton physicist must have plenty of intelligence. :)

Put another way, who would you rather have in that key position -- the smartest person in Congress or a crooked judge?

Sad to say, of the two, only the crooked judge is in contention for the job.

Kevin,

You would be well served to read Glenn Greenwald's piece on this issue. It is urgent that Jane Harman not be named to head the House Intelligence Committee, because of her track record of swallowing everything the neocons fed her and her support of illegal wiretapping. The dispute between Pelosi and Harman is substantive, and the media have presented it like it is some kind of girl-catfight.

Also, there is no seniority rule for the intelligence committee; Pelosi can name whoever she wants.

Finally, it was not universally believed that Iraq had an active WMD program; Scott Ritter said otherwise, and was promptly smeared as a possible Iraqi agent. After that, other skeptics got the message and kept their heads down.

It doesn't bother me if pre-Iraq invasion some Democrat thought the Iraqis had WMBs. After all didn't Don Rumsfeld still have the receipts.

What I would love to see is someone who realizes there are and should be significant differences between American and Isreali foreign policy.

Everybody talks about the riff between Harmon and Pelsoi as being some sort of vindictive cat fight, but that isn't the way I see it.

What is going on, and isn't being reported much, is the battle the Israelis, and their neocon allies, are fighting to continue domination of our intelligence and foreign policy thinking. I don't blame them for trying. I blame us for forgetting that Israel is a foreign power and naturally has a different point of view. I blame us more for forgetting that the neocons have been wrong about everything they have ever touched.

I would prefer a congressman who was impeached for plan old bribery running the house intelligence committee to someone who shows more loyalty to a foreign power than to the United States of America. That is what you get if Pelosi caves to Jane Harmon.

Sad to say, of the two, only the crooked judge is in contention for the job.

Yes, sad to say, as compared to when the Republicans were in power and it was all crooks.

Karl Rove would have a field day with that, wouldn't he?

Karl Rove? Doesn't ring a bell. Oh wait, isn't he that jolly old fat guy down at the Mickey D's?

Whoops. Sorry Stefan.
Posted before reading down the thread.

Cheney, you screwed up. It is "the Democrat Congress" not "the Democratic Congress."

I am shitting myself shitless in anticipation.

There's also seems to be more than a whiff of retribution here against any Democrat who supported the war resolution, and that strikes me as pretty counterproductive.

655,000 dead Iraqi Civilians and 2880 dead American troops disagree.

PS. This whole appointments sideshow is nothing more than an attempt by the Corporate Newsmedia to try to paint Pelosi in a bad light, to take the wind out of the sails of those who voted for change in the last election.

I don't ever recall hearing this much controversy over committee appointments in any congressional election in the past. That's because the controversy in this case, is artificial.

No worries, ckelly.

Annoying, isn't it, the tendency of pundits like Drum to keep buying into the GOP spin of Rove as some sort of mastermind, even in the face of clear and incontrovertible evidence that Rove is a loser? Shows how hard it is to shake a master narrative off once it's established itself.

which shouldn't be a surprise since at that time a belief that Iraq had WMD programs was shared by virtually every intelligence agency in the world, including the CIA.

Christ, and here's another bit of repackaged Republican spin courtesy of Drum. The reason "virtually every intelligence agency in the world" believed Saddam had WMD isn't because they had come to an independent conclusion about it, it was because they were told so by the CIA and believed us. After all, it's not as if Norway and New Zealand and Japan etc. etc. had many independent intelligence assets in Iraq, or that they were running their own spy operations there. We told them a lie, they believed the lie, and we then used their belief in our lie as further justification for the lie, in an endless feedback loop of deception.

In any case, it sure seems to me that Nancy Pelosi should make a decision about this ASAP, if only to keep idle fingers like mine and Neil's from chattering about this stuff endlessly. For better or worse, she ought to put this to bed.

Yeah really, can Pelosi lead are will we continue this "infighting" past Christmas?

Stefan is on the case today, in spades.

Kevin, does your ass hurt yet?

Being in charge of the Intelligence Committee is not only about who was unafraid to speak out against the WMD disinformation and who was not. It is also about who understands some of the other disinformation. Rush Holt understands that the Bush Administration's missile defense program is an utter failure in testing, but a widely propagandized and massively funded program. And even during the worst of times when anybody who spoke out against BushCo was at risk of being smeared a traitor, he made a public statement.

When the program's testing was jiggered to produce favorable results despite failure, he signed on with the other Congressional physicist to denounce it.

[...] Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), one of only two physicists in the House of Representatives, and an international arms control expert, said: "Science has once again been trumped by politics. This amounts to another 'Mission Accomplished' declaration by the administration." [...]

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/scientists-find-plans-to-deploy-us-missile-defense-system-ignore-technical-realities.html

So I see Charlie/Thomas/Jeffery is back to calling himself Cheney again. Run out of other nyms, dickhead?

In any case, it sure seems to me that Nancy Pelosi should make a decision about this ASAP, if only to keep idle fingers like mine and Neil's from chattering about this stuff endlessly. For better or worse, she ought to put this to bed.

Sorry Kevin, but this tripe is really inane. Do we really want Pelosi making key decisions based on the intersection of an average blogger’s IQ and their idle finger time (even in jest)?

I think it would be great if anyone who was wrong on Iraq was banished from the intelligence and foreign service establishment. I don't care especially who we start with, but I see no need to reward failure among our electeds or senior civil servants.

Yes, matt, it's not like the Dems who were fooled are not being allowed into the House cafeteria. It's just that we should have the smarter, more ethical ones in charge of what's called, you know, Intelligence.

After all, nearly half the Democratic caucus supported the resolution, and we really don't want to declare every one of these folks persona non grata on all issues related to national security.

Yes, by all means, let's give them another chance to fuck up. After all, this time their mistake only cost hundreds of thousands of dead, millions maimed and wounded, and devastating damage to America's military readiness and strategic position in the Middle East and throughout the widcer world. With credentials like these, why not let them take another bite at the apple?

Jesus, the reluctance to hold people accountable for their mistakes is truly astonishing.

After all, nearly half the Democratic caucus supported the resolution, and we really don't want to declare every one of these folks persona non grata on all issues related to national security.

Or, in simpler terms: nearly half the Democratic caucus were gullible idiots, and we really don't want to declare the gullible idiots persona non grata on all issues related to national security.

Does it make more sense like that? Because it still reads like nonsense to me....

Good thing he cheated his lying ass off then, wasn't it? I mean, otherwise he couldn't have turned a 1% victory into a crowning mandate permitting absolutely everything.

I've got a better idea - let's dismantle the CIA entirely. In many respects, they are the ones that got us into the geopolitical mess we find ourselves in, by funding Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and various other sundry homicidal maniacs.

The CIA is also very likely responsible for killing both JFK, with George H.W. Bush and Richard Nixon playing supporting roles, and Bobby Kennedy. The CIA, formed as a result of the misnamed National Security Act of 1947, in any case, is unConstitutional since they do not report their receipts and expenditures to Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Pelosi should keep dragging her feet. Right now, there are bucketfulls of wingnuts looking for something to get upset about with the new Congress. What's wrong with them being upset about the fact that Pelosi is considering Hastings? She isn't going to actually choose Hastings, so in the end all of the doomsdayers will look stupid for caring about such a non-issue.

After she chooses the Chairs, the wingnuts might start complaining about things that matter. It probably won't happen, but one always has to be prepared.

O Kevin! I bow before you, with humble thanks for the gift of linkage!

I see that Stefan has never heard of:

the Mossad
MI6
DGSE

each of these agencies, utilizing their own assets, independently assessed Iraq as having active WMD programs.

(I agree that this was at least partially a result of missing the extent of the Iraq nuclear program in the past as well as missing the Pakistani program -- but that was the historical context.)

Kevin, you're naive if you think that the Beltway chattering class won't keep this alive after the decision has been made if they don't get Harman.

Here's Holt's commentary on the vote. Of course, this seems to be an ex post facto recounting of his reasons, so it's not as good as if we could get some quote from him from 2002:

I voted against the Congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq, primarily because there was no evidence of an Iraq connection to 9/11, because there was no evidence that Saddam posed an immediate threat to us with WMD, and because I believed the President's new-found enthusiasm for a "preemptive war" doctrine was both unconstitutional and dangerous.

I see that Nathan doesn't understand the phrase "virtually every." If he did, he would have understood that I was referring to Drum's statment that "this belief was shared at the time by virtually every intelligence agency in the world," and not specifically to the Mossad, MI6, and/or DGSE. While each of those agencies may have made an independent assessment, it is irrelevant to my correction of Drum's statement about "virtually every" intelligence agency in the world coming to the same conclusion.

Perhaps to Nathan three is the same as "virtually every," but to those of us who speak English the meaning is not quite the same.

Cheney, read the BBC link. The CIA almost certainly was involved in Bobby's assassination. With JFK, we will never know, although Oswald was a known CIA operative and JFK was hated by the Agency for firing John Foster Dulles and threatening to break the CIA into "a thousand pieces". Just be aware that the CIA will never be part of the solution, but rather part of the problem.

Cheney, read the BBC link. The CIA almost certainly was involved in Bobby's assassination. With JFK, we will never know, although Oswald was a known CIA operative and JFK was hated by the Agency for firing John Foster Dulles and threatening to break the CIA into "a thousand pieces". Just be aware that the CIA will never be part of the solution, but rather part of the problem.

Quick: How many WMDs were found in Iraq?

Cheney's Soul:

actually, MI6 still stands by their report that Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Niger. that there were dissenting opinions within their own service is also true.

Stefan:

those were the three agencies with assets of their own in Iraq. (I assume the FSB and Iranians had some as well but I don't know what their assessment was.)
Since virtually every other intelligence agency in the world did not have independent assets but instead relied upon U.S. or British or French intelligence -- that doesn't say much.

the fact of the matter is, virtually every agency with independent intelligence on Iraq concluded that they had active WMD programs.

thus, Kevin's statement was correct.

Kevin,

I haven't read Political Animal for a while, and I guess I'm a bit surprised to see that it's been hijacked by conspiracy theorists and revenge-minded "purists." Whatever happend to rea and your other very intellectual posters?

Holt is a good guy, and his reasons for opposing the war resolution showed good judgment. He'd probably do fine as chair of the Intelligence Committee.

Plus, the fact that his name is "Rush" will keep dittoheads flummoxed for months. Bonus!

Like the public gives a shit about any of this normal jockeying within the halls of (semi)power. It gives the nuts something to bloviate about (Dems in disarray!) but what perecentage of the population even knows who Pelosi is, let alone how House committees work?

If the electorate cared, or knew, about how congress is supposed to operate in a democratic system, well, they wouldn't have permitted BushCo to hijack the nation so easily. But the way this is covered, if at all, by the "mainstream" media is like everything else in politics is addressed these days: all strategy and no substance.

A cursory search of the web proves that Cheney is making insupportable allegations about foreign intelligence agencies:

www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html - 5k

I'm for retribution against those who supported the Iraq War resolution. All of them. The only reason for a Democrat's supporting it was political cowardice.

11 -- see Charles Duelfer report

How many were NOT old moldy rusted out sarin shells from 1980?

my guess is the WMD went to Syria.

And all those stockpiles were moved without our knowledge and under our satellites? What about laboratories? Facilities? Centrifuges?

my guess is the WMD went to Syria.

Then Bush's war is an even more spectacular FAILURE than I had previously imagined.

DBL -- There's lots of us intellectuals here. We just think that anyone with half a brain would not have supported the Iraq war resolution. In fact you didn't even have to be an intellectual to oppose it.

Iraq changed everything. It really did.

And all those stockpiles were moved without our knowledge and under our satellites? What about laboratories? Facilities? Centrifuges?

And the scientists? Technicians? Engineers? The guys who cleaned the lab at night, and who ran the cafeteria, and who drove the trucks? Did they all disappear in a puff of implausibility?

Then Bush's war is an even more spectacular FAILURE than I had previously imagined.

Bush cannot fail. Reality can fail to meet Bush's demands, but that is reality's failure, not Bush's.

Uh, no, Kevin.

Karl Rove will have a field day if Nancy appoints the gutless and gullible who can't think for themselves.

Karl Rove will shit a brick if Nancy appoints the brilliant and courageous.

Cheney continues to prevaricate. There are so many sources on the web that refute his claims, that he is becoming laughable:

www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0601-02.htm - 27k

Cheney-The question is, Why are you lying? What is your agenda?

Sorry, David, I just double-checked and Pelosi voted "Nay" on H.J.Res. 114 -- I was thinking Daschle -- 81 House Democrats voted "Aye" though. all of them have to go, right?

Posted by: Cheney

Just say the word -- they're history.

(As if anybody ever listens to me. Actually, I think Kevin's hypothesis that someone's, who exactly I don't see, purism on the Iraq vote is behind the push for Holt is silly. I mean, except for me and a few other hotheads on this thread, and perhaps a few million ordinary citizens, nobody seems to give a damn about that vote. But, you know, personally, given a choice between someone who voted for and someone who voted against the war, I'd take the latter; I just don't get that vote much.)

None of the 81 is now, or ever has been, my representative, Cheney.

By the way, I don't understand the fantasy by which those who were not on the ground in Iraq say there were weapons of mass destruction there, while, both before and after the hostilities began, those who actually were in Iraq said there weren't. Christ, Saddam couldn't even save his own ass; what makes people think he could save any WMD he might have had? Or would want to? He'd have tried to use them if he had them, not send them to Syria, for heaven's sake.

This is one of Kevin's silliest statements:

"There also seems to be more than a whiff of retribution here against any Democrat who supported the war resolution, and that strikes me as pretty counterproductive."

I am not aware of any evidence whatsoever for this, and was startled to see that Josh Marshall has picked it up from Kevin. I'd really like to know if Kevin has any factual basis for this conjecture.

Kevin has facts? Which ones?

Saddam (and his sons) could have easily left Iraq, rich and alive, with his ass intact.

Don't be too sure.

Even the Very Slimy Pinochet is currently (once again) under house arrest, awaiting yet another trial - perhaps Justice will finally find him too.

If Justice can find this smarmy hellspawn, it certainly would have eventually found Hussein.

Look, don't let Cheney keep changing the argument. My proposition, by which I stand, was that given Saddam's lack of ability to save himself or anything else of his, he certainly wasn't sufficiently organized to save any WMD's he might have had. If he could have gotten them to Syria, he could have gotten himself there do and he didn't do either.

Furthermore, Hans Blix never found a thing, we gave him every lead we had; there wasn't anything. Our Army found nothing. Only beneath the fevered brow of the false and the real Cheney were there ever WMD's.

"After all, nearly half the Democratic caucus supported the resolution, and we really don't want to declare every one of these folks persona non grata on all issues related to national security."

Of course not. And that retribution stuff is a gross exaggeration. There isn't a withhunt against liberals hawks, but there are serious concerns about the right choice for a very special job, chair of the Intelligence Committee. It should be obvious that this position requires someone with good judgment skills. A representative who mindlessly supported the warmongerers, who didn't question any of the faux evidence, didn't show those skills. More than half of the Dem caucus displayed better judgment on this critical matter, almost every one of them would be better qualified.

Well, Cheney's posted about 36 comments out of 93 so far. About 38% of the posts. Smells like Jeffery to me.

I had hoped that the Left would become slightly less insane after the Democratic victory. Fat chance.

However, if Holt made any firm statements questioning the existence of Iraq's WMD programs back in 2002, I haven't been able to find them. He appears to have believed Iraq had an active WMD program as much as anyone...

What’s this foolishness about WMD programs?

Have we adopted Bush-speak here?

A program can be anything.

The point is, always has been , and always will be that Iraq actually had no WMD and there was no evidence that they would WMD in the near future.

Turns out Holt is both smarter and wiser than Bush, Cheney, or Charlie/Jeffery/"Little Dick" Cheney.

Justice dictates that we impeach Bush and Cheney, make them take turns working Charlie's greeter shift at Walmart during weekend furloughs from Gitmo, and bump Holt up to President where he's much more capable than the last moron to hold that office.

Unemployed Charlie/Cheney can sell his blood plasma when he's not selling his ass on Sunset Boulevard for quarters.

Sure it's constitutionality is questionable, but it's fair. We can take a page from the Republican playbook and find some nutball to develop a theory around it.

Consider it the first act of the Unitary Democratic Congressional Majority.

Sorry, we don't discuss impeachment plans with ass-whores.

In any case, it sure seems to me that Nancy Pelosi should make a decision about this ASAP, if only to keep idle fingers like mine and Neil's from chattering about this stuff endlessly.

How about if you just talk about something else on your own?

I, for one, hope Ms Grandma Speaker waits until January 2nd to name the House Intelligence Chair, if for no other reason than to watch the sputtering heads keep on babbling about something they know nothing about. Glenn is dead on BTW.

There is a rumor floating around locally that Norm Dicks (D-WA) is one of the possibilities (I don`t think so but anything is possible). It appears that this comes from a MSNBC/Newsweek babble.

Silvestre or Russ would be fine IMO.

I can wait until she is ready to name someone, even if that is after "Opening Day".

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Sha

The Duelfer report is huge, but here’s the beginning of the WP article that reported on the report. Note the article is written by two writers who have a little credibility with regard to their reporting on Iraq.

U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons

Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush Administration Claims

By Dana Priest and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 7, 2004; Page A01

The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."

How about if you just talk about something else on your own?

Ain't it the truth. Let Pelosi do her job. This is still November.

(Someone posting as) Cheney >"Sorry, daCascadian, but Norm Dicks voted..."

If you had bothered to actually read what I posted you would know I am not suggesting Dicks. But why should I expect you do something like actually think ?

Lotta smoke here & minimal fire.

Go Grandma, go !

"...It is those who describe me as an extremist who happen to be the extremists against whom I am warning the electorate." - George Soros

Kevin you write:

Kevin Drum writes (and Josh apparently supports):

"There also seems to be more than a whiff of retribution here against any Democrat who supported the war resolution, and that strikes me as pretty counterproductive."

There is a huge difference between supporting the war resolution and enabling the President. Harman supported the war (forgivable) and was a cheerleader for all kinds of other Bush initiatives (NSA spying, etc. . . ). Holding people to account for consistent bad judgement is at the core of representative politics, democracy. Anything less would be like giving Bremer a Medal of Freedom.

I posted my feelings about this matter on another blog. Harman has the seniority and experience to chair the committee. She along with 2/3 of the House and 90% of the Senate didn't question the pre-war intelligence. Time to forget bickering and petty differences. Hastings will just bring ethic howls, deserved or not. Harman's AIPAC problems aren't that serious or they would have been headlines before Nov 7th.

Ignore the Cheney blether: go back and read Ron Byers post at 2.19pm. It is one of the few actually on the subject K Drum began and is also most cogent.

All the b.s is presumably to make anyone serious not bother to read and then to comment. I notice both Byers and Stefan got on with other things more interesting as 'Cheney' got either drunker or his meds wore off.

All the b.s is presumably to make anyone serious not bother to read and then to comment. I notice both Byers and Stefan got on with other things more interesting as 'Cheney' got either drunker or his meds wore off.

Well, that, plus, unlike Cheney, we actually have lives outside this blog.

For better or worse, she ought to put this to bed.

I disagree. She needs to do the right thing. Most likely, supporting Nancy Harmon is the right thing, since her first objection to Harmon in the first place was personal, and Harmon was the ranking member (I think that's the term) by being best qualified. I repeated "first" for emphasis.

I really don't give a rat's ass about Harman's position vis a vis the Gulf War. I'm more concerned about what she's said, done and *not* done in regard to Bush's illegal warrantless wiretapping program. This is an issue that we direly need the intelligence committee to address soon. The fact that she's rubberstamped Bush in every way imaginable on this issue is enough to disqualify her for the chairmanship.

"There also seems to be more than a whiff of retribution here against any Democrat who supported the war resolution... nearly half the Democratic caucus supported the resolution..."

All craven windvanes, not leaders. Hang them out to dry.

Rush Holt sounds fine. It shouldn't be Harman or Reyes, for reasons that go far beyond one resolution.

In the months before the war, Hans Blix was very clear that he had found no evidence for WMD other than some marginally illegal missiles. The IAEA inspector ElBaradei found "no evidence" of on-going nuclear programs.

Duelfer found that

"Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security
of the Regime. ... the starting of any
WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and
jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring. "

And

"ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn
possessed WMD stocks in 2003"

And

"The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither
was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam."

---

"Virtually every intelligence agency in the world" apparently doesn't include the
The US Department of Defense or ISIS, both of whom are on record before 2002 that Iraq had no WMD.

The link to ISIS above (http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html) is the only actual citation of intelligence agencies on this thread, and it shows neither Russia nor France believed in WMD. I am not privy to the secrets of MOSSAD, but neither is "Cheney."

Apparently, just about everything Cheney has written on this thread is false: from his idiotsyncratic interpretation of Blix to his misstatements about Duelfer. I do wish we had better quality trolls. But maybe they were attracted, like flies, to Kevin's unjustifiable attributions to world intelligence agencies.

裸体图片 美女自拍 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房 性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 看免费电影 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 美女脱衣电影 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 色情图片 黄色小说 黄色电影 强暴电影 乱伦图片 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 夜曲 为什么相爱的人不能在一起 约定 不得不爱 触电 秋天不回来 求佛 太美丽 发如雪 生日礼物 那年夏天 我想更懂你 手放开 香水有毒

"Blix publically complained that the U.S. was NOT sharing all of its intelligence on suspected WMD sites." We couldn't share the stuff we simply made up, of course, 'cause it didn't exist.

cheney: my guess is the WMD went to Syria.

ckelly: And all those stockpiles were moved without our knowledge and under our satellites? What about laboratories? Facilities? Centrifuges?

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites." - GWB in speech to the nation – 10/7/2002

yeah...where are they?

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

-Rumsfeld on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction 3/30/03

Mr. Drum is wrong that the CIA believed Saddam had WMD in 2002. He should read a few of the many books that have been published recently on this subject, especially Ron Suskind's "The One Percent Doctrine". Many if not most CIA analysts studying the question in 2002 had large doubts about Saddam having any WMD program, and there was extremely little CIA support for the only WMD threat that may have justified the war: a nuclear capability. George Tenet may have presented an "official" CIA position to Bush that Saddam was a WMD threat, but there is a tremendous amount of evidence that this was an expedient lie. Of course we don't know for sure because there has never been an official investigation with subpoenas and sworn testimony from all the principals including Bush, Tenet and Cheney, but let's not adopt the official neocon position that everyone, including the CIA thought there were WMD in Iraq in 2002. That is a falsehood.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Josh says that Hastings is being told later today it is not he who will be Chairman.

Josh had a post on the subject yesterday with lots of interesting comment.

"bmastiff" at 9.54pm and 10.17 was very cogent on the subject of Harman.

Wonderfully, there was no al/jeffery/cheney, an extra bonus.

Don,

It is polite to give the reference to posts you rip off from other places (http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php), even when your post adds nothing substansitive to the conversation.

Mr. Meaker's comments evidently aimed at mine, are irrelevant. Most everyone in 2002 THOUGHT they KNEW for sure that Saddam had WMD because he was a bad guy and at one time he did have such weapons. But the intelligence analysts didn't know that for sure, and none of the people quoted by Mr. Meaker are intelligence analysts--they are politicians. The biggest lesson that the Iraq debacle teaches is that we cannot believe politicians--we need hard facts. And in 2002, Mr. Meaker, the facts were unknown. Mr. Bush's crime is that he insisted the facts were known and went to war before the facts could be ascertained by Mr. Blix' weapons inspection team.

This is all old news Mr. Meaker.

Order Generic drugs Buy Generic drugs without prescription

Allergy

Order Allegra Buy Alegra without prescription

Order Claritin-D Buy Claritin-D without prescription

Order Flonase Buy Flonase without prescription

Order Nasacort Buy Nasacort without prescription

Order Singulair Buy Singulair without prescription

Order Zyrtec Buy Zyrtec without prescription

Pain Relief

Order Butalbital Buy butalbital without prescription

Order Fioricet Buy fioricet without prescription

Order Tramadol Buy tramadol without prescription

Order Ultracet Buy ultracet without prescription

Order Ultram Buy ultram without prescription

Order Motrin Buy motrin without prescription

Order Celebrex Buy celebrex without prescription

Erectile Dysfunction

Order Cialis Buy cialis without prescription

Order Levitra Buy levitra without prescription

Order Viagra Buy viagra without prescription

Digestive Health

Order Bentyl Buy bentyl without prescription

Order Nexium Buy nexium without prescription

Order Prevacid Buy prevacid without prescription

Order Prilosec Buy prilosec without prescription

Order Ranitidine Buy ranitidine without prescription

Order Zelnorm Buy zelnorm without prescription

Herpes

Order Acyclovir Buy acyclovir without prescription

Order Famvir Buy famvir without prescription

Order Valtrex Buy valtrex without prescription

Order Zovirax Buy zovirax without prescription

Weight Loss

Order Phentramin Buy phentramin without prescription

Order Xenical Buy xenical without prescription

Order Hoodia Buy hoodia without prescription

Muscle Relaxer

Order Carisoprodol Buy carisoprodol without prescription

Order Cyclobenzaprine Buy cyclobenzaprine without prescription

Order Flexeril Buy flexeril without prescription

Order Skelaxin Buy skelaxin without prescription

Order Soma Buy soma without prescription

Order Zanaflex Buy zanaflex without prescription

Anxiety

Order Buspar Buy buspar without prescription

Order Buspirone Buy buspirone without prescription

Women's Health

Order Alesse Buy alesse without prescription

Order Plan B Buy Plan B without prescription

Order Diflucan Buy diflucan without prescription

Order Ovantra Buy ovantra without prescription

Order Fluconazole Buy flucanazole without prescription

Order Ortho Tri-Cyclen Buy ortho tri-cyclen without prescription

Order Vaniqa Buy vaniqa without prescription

Order Motrin Buy motrin without prescription

Order Ortho Evra Patch Buy ortho evra patch without prescription

Order Mircette Buy mircette without prescription

Order Seasonale Buy seasonale without prescription

Order Yasmin Buy yasmin without prescription

Order Estradiol Buy estradiol without prescription

Order Naprosyn Buy naprosyn without prescription

Order Levbid Buy levbid without prescription

Skin Care treatment

Order Aphthasol Buy aphathasol without prescription

Order Atarax Bu