I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
State of the Union address 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/r...0030128-
19.html
"25,000 liters of anthrax""
"38,000 liters of botulinum toxin"
"500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent"
"30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents"
"an advanced nuclear weapons development program"
"Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"
"he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons"
Amen!
They forgot that all that stuff degrades constantly, and if it even was maintained, would have to be tested to see if it worked.
Yes... you are dead...
But they forgot to tell me before I got to heaven that I had to spend the rest of eternity with these self-righteous blowhards.
If people like Bush are in heaven, I'd rather be in hell kickin it with Ghandi.
whee, so Atrios now promotes Iraq to having been one of the US's "major allies".
Is he ignorant, credulous and lied to, or is Atrios just a liar?
hat. um, learn to read.
>whee, so Atrios now promotes Iraq to having been one of the US's "major allies".
He meant Iraq was an enemy of one of our major allies. Clumsy wording, but not ignorant or lying.
Dear hat,
you wrote:
"Is he ignorant, credulous and lied to, or is Atrios just a liar?"
I think you misunderstood what Atrios wrote. Atrios wrote:
"...When there is a country which has been explicitly the enemy of the US and one of our major allies for years..."
I took it to mean "a country" - meaning Iraq - "explicitly the enemy of the US" - true enough - "and one of our major allies" - meaning Iraq is the USA's enemy, AND is also the enemy of one of our major allies - namely, Britain.
Or, you could say that Iraq was an ally of the US. Iraq and the US certainly had a relationship in the 80's.
But I think my first reading is the right one.
Maybe Atrios can clear it up.
Hat: no, he's just being historical. Remember that the Cold War polarised nearly all nations into 'with the US/NATO' or 'with the USSR'.
On the ever-strange "Real Time with Bill Maher", actor Ron Silver and Representative Darrell Issa took on Al Sharpton over Iraq. As one would expect, Silver and Issa were both trying to gloss over the "WMD" issue, while reinventing the Iraq invasion as one of "liberation". Sharpton was asserting that we weren't sold the war as one of "liberation", and unsurprisingly did not get a clear response to that fact.
When North Korea was raised as an issue, Silver argued that we couldn't invade North Korea because... they have weapons of mass destruction. Sharpton attempted to point out the internal inconsistency - if we can't invade nations with WMD's, doesn't it follow that we knew Iraq didn't have them? - but to little avail. Issa was savvy enough to keep his mouth pretty much shut on the issue.
It was an interesting microcosm of the "debate" over the war, with the Bush Administration's defenders angrily (Silver) or cautiously (Issa) avoiding either acknowledging or responding to the concerns over defective intelligence, or whether the White House (regardless of motive or intent) overstated the case for war.
But it does seem clear that the Bush Administration's defenders don't believe for a second that we should invade a nation which unquestionably could inflict major damage on our troops or on its neighbors with WMD's - and that, of itself, says something.
The whole "imminent" thing is one of the dumbest things for them to try and distort.
Either Georgie and his handlers deceived us as to the imminence of this threat (they did; any reasonable person would draw such an inference) or the invasion of Iraq was nothing but a war of pure aggression. You know: precisely what the Nuremberg defendants were executed for.
As one of Kevin's commenters notes, "it was completely obvious the administration did not believe there were WMD as there was no plan to secure them (or anything else for that matter) and insufficient personnel to do so." This is correct.
Yeah, that is a real give-away plus they did not have a plan to secure what all we even knew was there, it was not contraband, it had been there for years, the leftover nuke waste from before which the UN inspectors had sealed and secured it, but they left it loose and not just anybody could cart it off to who knows where, but innocent villagers also carted it off to use the containers and heaven alone knows how sick they and their children got.
Why did they bust in and why did they make our troops march on insufficient rations, what was the big rush.
Why did they say we gotta go before summer when they have not just been there all summer long, they are still there and will still be there all summer this year too.
.....
Iraq as an ally was sooo 80's...we danced the whole decade with Saddamarama playing on the Pentagon speakers!
Oh, dear: my anger is coming back, I can't stop it...ahh...
***
Is he --
ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Many people on this site, without the benefit of any intelligence reports, doubted the existence of the WMDs for the simple reason that the W goon platoon insisted they did. Why would one of the greatest collection of liars on earth suddenly begin telling the truth?
Teh peaceniks were right - the chickenhawks were wrong.
Refute that, moronic brownshirt fucks.
BudMan has (perhaps inadvertently) the answer:
all that stuff degrades constantly
...all Shrub needs to do now is tell us they underestimated just how fast it degrades!
I, for one, must now join Tony Hendra in apologizing.
And, one final word on the whole "they never said it was imminent!" nonsense. When there is a country which has been explicitly the enemy of the US and one of our major allies for years, and when the Vice President says about the leader of that country "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," I and every other rational person would conclude that there is indeed an imminent threat. I mean, what the hell kind of weapons of mass destruction are they if they a) exist, and b) are not a threat?
Ha, ha, good point, it is simply laughable the way all the rightie bloggers and others wiggle and squiggle about that.
.....
Blitzer has another Dean poll:
http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Progr...litzer.reports/
Looks better for Dean so far.
I just sent a letter to CNN feedback. I kept it nice. Let's all ask them nicely to report on this huge WMD thing.
And, one final word on the whole "they never said it was imminent!" nonsense. When there is a country which has been explicitly the enemy of the US and one of our major allies for years, and when the Vice President says about the leader of that country "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," I and every other rational person would conclude that there is indeed an imminent threat. I mean, what the hell kind of weapons of mass destruction are they if they a) exist, and b) are not a threat?
Ha, ha, good point, it is simply laughable the way all the rightie bloggers and others wiggle and squiggle about that.
.....
Plus the way Bushie busted around the country it looked plenty imminent, why doesn’t he look the American people in the eye and say, dudes, the threat was never imminent, I gave you bogus info about the reconstituted nukular program and uh, those WMDs, honey, guess they weren’t there after all, why does he have to dance around and be 2 cute by half and wiggle around the issue.
.....
Anyone know if the candidates have ever made note of mentioning and detailing every piece of information and acts of flawed logic on the part of this administration just once?
Do we know if even Dean ever stood on a podium for all to hear and listed out each point by point detail that suggest this whole WMD issue was a lie? Did he or anyone else ever discuss the logic behind their accusations and compare it to the logic of the administration's?
Have any of the candidates ever try to win this argument based on common logic and obvious answers to the questions about what happened and why?
Or are they simply standing around saying this was was wrong, and that Bush misled us rather than say he just lied out his ass?
Are they just repeating the same anti-war commentary, but not the facts that lead those of us on the left to take this side of the argument?
So far I haven't heard anything to suggest they've done anything more than spit out speaches, but not facts.
MYOB'
.
Now that this news is out, part of me wants to believe that the Bush "true believers" are going to have to do some fancy mental gymnastics. But the truth is that the MBFs couldn't give a rat's ass one way or the other. They got their war, they got their contracts, and they got to kick the living fuck out of some brown folk which sure as hell makes them feel better about 9-11.
I mean, what the hell kind of weapons of mass destruction are they if they a) exist, and b) are not a threat?
The kind that gets Dubya a war that profits Dick's old/current bosses and a chance to flex American muscle and maybe distract from problems at home? After all without 9/11 and Iraq what has Dubya got?
cough
steve gilliard | Email | Homepage | 01.24.04 - 1:51 pm | #
Kos said you were in the ICU?
Hope your doing all right Steve.
I'm fucking DYING!
All the brownshirts wish!
I also thought of the same point the commentor over at Calpundits site makes. If they were really worried about WMD they would have secured the sites.
But then I remembered Duhbya during the second debate with Gore, remember when he got all excited and animated when talking about executing those sick fucks who dragged James Byrd to his death? My god, I thought he was going to start giggling like a little school girl. He loves having the power to order the death of other human beings. And he enjoys using that power immensely.
No I don't think the sick, twisted bastards currently occupying the WH would mind at all if some leftover VX or mustard gas was "discovered" by a group of dirt-poor Iraqi looters. After all what's a couple dozen dead Iraqi civilians compared to "proof" that this war was justified?
Well I have no doubt that Atrios meant what he said as it has been explicated, but, Saddam was an ally of the US - that's no secret. You know, Rummy shaking hands and all? We sold them the chemcals - remember? Saddam was our "savior" against Iran. So in fact, no matter which way Atrios meant it, it's true.
All it his logic is confusing me. ERetreat! Retreat!
Ah, the warm buttery solace of cable news. All better now.
Steve,
Hang in there, I hope it's not as bad as you sound like it is.
Now that this news is out, part of me wants to believe that the Bush "true believers" are going to have to do some fancy mental gymnastics. But the truth is that the MBFs couldn't give a rat's ass one way or the other. They got their war, they got their contracts, and they got to kick the living fuck out of some brown folk which sure as hell makes them feel better about 9-11.
Right, they don't care. Never did and never will.
The funny thing is, even if terrorists DO destroy NY and DC with nukes someday (god fucking forbid) the Herd will go through the same motions again.
The "imminent threat" spin is ludicrious. If the threat was imminent, then where are the weapons? If not, then the Iraq War was "preventative" was, which is illegal under the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions.
Not that this crew cares about that, but lots of other people do.
I this this a troll posing as Steve. But I'm sure the real Steve will read best wishes soon.
I _think_ this is...
Plus, now that the weapons have failed to materialize, Bushco is trying to lay the blame and fault at the doorstep of the Intelligence Agencies.
Suppose we are to believe this line of thinking for a moment, the intelligence was wrong and failed us. Then, how can we trust the intelligence we get from these same people on any issue of national security? If this is truly the case and Shrub's priority is ensuring our safety, then why the heck isn't Shrub actively doing everything in his power to find out how and why the intelligence failed? Why isn't he trying to get to the bottom of this monumental failure that goes to the heart of national security? One would logically think this would be Shrub's #1 priority right now if this was indeed the truth.
Perhaps the simple answer to this has to do with the fact that Shrub knew Iraq never had the amounts of weapons the OSP (Cheney/Rummy's shadow gov't agency )cherry picked and claimed in the first place.
Bush's behavior proved Iraq's threat wasn't as serious as he claimed: if you see someone (Hussein) about to shoot an innocent person (America), the proper resopnse is not to file a police report (UN).
I (think) this is a troll posing as Steve...
Yes, the real Steve is in the hospital, where he can't post.
Ignore the moronic brownshirt fuck.
Once again, this is all less a statement on the Bush administration - we expect this from them - this is much more a statement on the pathetic nature of liberals and Democrats.
What prominent Democrat is calling for impeachment over what are clearly "high crimes?"
Does anybody truly believe that if it was a Democrat who lied to perpetrate an illegal war, does anybody truly believe that President wouldn't have already been impeached?
No, this is far more an indictment of the Democrats and liberals than anyone else...
the troll "steve gillard", that wasn't very nice and please respect the real Steve Gillard by not using his name.
I hope he gets better.
Bush's mentally defective.. er really mentally defective
And, one final word on the whole "they never said it was imminent!" nonsense.
I guess we were preempting an imminent containment.
What triggers our poliy of preemption, anyway?
What happened to Steve? (Get well soon!)
Stop it!
Steve's at the hospital having serious surgery, you can go here to send some good karma.
I mean really, if a blogger over at mentally defective was in the hospital for heart sugery, I wouldn't be going around BFB imitating that person. It's disrespectful.
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/
MG...GA39HGVTPD.html
Kinda OT: This AP report about Cheney at the World Economic forum includes some pretty incredible quotes.
"Cheney was asked about a quotation from Benjamin Franklin that he used in his Christmas card: "If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it likely that an empire can rise without His help?"
He replied that the quotation was chosen by his wife, but continued: "It shouldn't be taken as some kind of indication that the United States today sees itself as an empire."
If the United States were a true empire, he said, "we would certainly preside over a much greater piece of the earth's surface than we currently do."
In other words, you can tell we're not an empire because we haven't kicked your ass and stolen your land out from under you. Just bear in mind that we can at a moment's notice, though.
Here's another favorite; "Democracies do not breed the anger and the radicalism that drag down whole societies or export violence," (Cheney) said.
Not a drop of irony. Not one.
Poster 'smartone' on the Calpundit site makes the claim that I was very aware of during this process which also seems to have been dropped off the antiwar's radar screen.
The fact that Cheney and Rumsfeld set up an entirely unique, and no doubt political, intelligence gathering group inside the DOD. This department would be subserviant to Rumsfeld's, a.k.a. the administration's, goals alone.
Why? As has been noted on this board on more than on occasion, the failure of the CIA to play ball, and suck Cheney's d**k when it comes to 'coming up with intelligence that prove's Iraqi guilt', compelled Cheney to create a DOD subgroup that is nothing more than a KGB styled intelligence gathering and spinning organization.
There is no disputing this.
The logic supports it 100%
If the CIA was so flawed, why not remove the flaws, and flawed persons, and reexamine policy and procedures? Instead they ignored them completely and created another office which had no purpose other than to fit Cheney's CIA needs, without having to put up with the more honest CIA officers.
MYOB'
.
From Left I on the News back on September 9:
"Bush knew very well there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If there were really good evidence on which to make an educated guess that there were, then the administration wouldn't have had to fabricate nearly every bit of evidence it presented in order to make its case (read this particularly detailed analysis of Colin Powell's speech to the U.N. for elaboration of that point). Besides for the fact that you don't go to war and kill tens of thousands of people on a "guess", if you did go to war because you thought there were WMD which might find their way into the hands of terrorists (the ostensible purpose for the war, since it was 100% clear that Iraq itself had no way of attacking the U.S. with any weapons at all), then you would have spent months preparing for an immediate, massive effort to seize them and prevent them from getting into the hands of terrorists. Instead, we saw a decidedly lackadaisical search, with known nuclear facilities left unguarded, teams not even ready to go for months after the fall of Baghdad, etc."
Just ignore the brownshirt. Every reaction of outrage just gives him another reason to jerk off into Mommy's panties.
Wait! Isn't that her car coming up in the driveway!?! Better go look, motherfucker - you can't afford not to...
Meaning enemies of us and our allies of course.
...It is easier to have military officers follow devious orders since they can be court martialed if they disobey based on their moral convictions. The CIA offiers can just resign, and co to the press. No real punitive damages can be done unless they can prove that the national security leaks were more important than the revelations of corruption and fraud.
The logic is there. Just follow it.
MYOB'
.
Of course, the brownshirts wouldn't be so pissed at Gilliard if he hadn't been absolutely, positively 100% right about the clusterfuck Iraq has become, and just who exactly is responsible for it.
Sucks to be you, doesn't it, brownshirt?
Perhaps the simple answer to this has to do with the fact that Shrub knew Iraq never had the amounts of weapons the OSP (Cheney/Rummy's shadow gov't agency )cherry picked and claimed in the first place.
emal
hey, he got the results wanted, big contracts for his contributors (Halliburton, Bechtel, Worldcom, and all that oil, etc), big profits for the Carlyle Group companies to replace the weapons used/destroyed, got to show Poppy that he wasn't a fuck-up since he got Saddam, and he got that mural off the floor of the Al-Raishid hotel as soon as he took over Bagdad
OT; Here's an item just in from Faux news no less. Faux quotes Newsweek's latest poll as showing Kerry AHEAD of Bush by two points!
Remember when it came out that Bush Sr. was tranked out on Halcyion? Maybe it runs in the family...
http://www.apfn.net/
messageboard...sion.cgi.4.html
"When Halcion hits you," according to the Times column, "it's as if an angel of the Lord appears in your bedroom and tells you that nothing is important, that everything you were worried about is happening on Mars and that nirvana, Lethe and the warm arms of mother are all waiting for you.
"People who have used heroin tell me Halcion is better than heroin for making bad thoughts simply disappear. . . . It clouds judgment and forecloses careful analysis. It makes the user alternately supremely confident and then panicky with an unnameable dread. It causes intense, truly terrifying forgetfulness, as well as a serene bliss about that forgetfulness."
This news was not picked up by the Associated Press or the mainstream media despite the warning in the penultimate paragraph that a "president with a chemical between himself and reality is the last thing America needs."
Journalists traveling with the president have expressed concern about Bush' s zany behavior, irritability and difficulties in syntax, all of which may be related to his drug problem. For example, the president complained to an aide over a microphone he thought had been turned off that he was tired of the snags that had embarrassed him at press conferences. His staff makes a list of questions to be asked by the audience and then hands him prepared answers. One question had been asked out of order and the president later blew his top. "We've got to get this sorted out here," he said testily. "It happened last week, too. . . . If I think it' s going to be here [on the card with the answer] I don' t listen to the question. I just look at this."
Please Atrios ban the imposter troll "Steve Gilliard".
He is not commenting on political events and is painfully inappropriately trying to make a joke out of Steve's plight.
From what I read and surmise Steve was discharged to finish recovering from a pulmonary infection at home, but something unexpectedly went wrong that involved his heart valve.
He needed to return to the hospital and is now being treated in the ICU for the infection as well as being stabilized cardiovascularly to get him in shape for an "urgent" valve replacement tentatively Tuesday.
Without hyperbole this is a life and death struggle. Not a joking matter.
I have to agree with ABH - Steve Gilliard's condition is not something that anyone should be making fun of.
What triggers our poliy of preemption, anyway?
Patriotboy
second largest known oil reserves maybe?
To me whether they said Iraq was an "imminent threat" or not is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVAN.
It's one of two things:
a) They belived Iraq was an imminent threat and that's why they attacked: We all know now that Iraq did NOT represent a threat.
b) They did NOT belive and did NOT say it was imminent threat, in which case WHY THE HELL DID WE ATTACK THEN?
It's a self-defeating argument to say they never said it was imminent.
re newsweek poll...actually it's an online live poll...go take it...kerry is far ahead. the poll includes other Dems as well.
newsweek.com
Here's the deal on the WMD:
Hello! They lied!
They lied because they had to. They lied because they knew that no one in the press/media or the Democratic Party would bother to challenge them. They lied because they knew no one would call them on it once the truth came out because troops are in the field. They lied because they knew that Americans swallow and act on lies every day of their lives. They lied because it got them what they wanted. They lied because they could.
Oh, so right we didn't have a plan to secure even known WMD sites, such as Saddam's old nuclear power plant and its warehouse of nuclear waste. Read what happened to the poor Iraqi families nearby as a result:
http://electroniciraq.net/news/1...news/
1341.shtml
And what happened to all the Iraqi drones, capable of transporting chem/bac weapons for over 550 miles? Mushroom clouds over NY? Mobile weapons labs?
To be honest, I don't think Bush is smart enough to have known the truth. I think HE believed what he was told, and since he doesn't exactly have an inquiring mind, would have accepted it at face value and not questioned a single comma.
C
Ensley - as much as I believe that Bush is an idiot, I think he is only a partial idiot. I believe completely that he knew that Iraq didn't have what he was claiming they had. I think he knew it and didn't give a good goddamn - he simply wanted to know what his advisors thought the people would swallow as a justification for doing what he wanted to do the second he took office.
and one final word on the whole "they never said it was imminent!" nonsense.
And let's remind the blowhards who spew this nonsense that the Bush-holes were so hysterical about the "threat" from Saddam they, wouldn't even wait 3 weeks for all the troops and equipment to arrive by ship after being denied passage through Turkey.
Invade now! Now I say!! We can't wait for a mushroom cloud!!!
munguza - thanks for bringing that up - with everything else that has happened, I had forgotten this part. I can't believe I forgot, since I was jumping up and down screaming "what's the fucking hurry," when it was going on.
Couldn't wait for the inspectors to finish, since they weren't finding anything. Had to invade right that second. That alone was sending the alarm bells in my head into overdrive.
Not securing the nuclear facilities or being prepared to secure any found weapons are only two of the clues that they didn't believe there were really "vast stockpiles" of WMD in Iraq.
Our troops don't even have the equipment they need to fight this war - vests, armor, etc.
We couldn't even get water and food to the front lines - what would have happened if we needed to get medicine to them?
The hospital situation at Ft. Stewart and Ft Knox (?) showed clearly that we were not even prepared to handle "run of the mill" light casualties, let alone something as catastrophic as a biological attack.
and what's up with running out of freakin' flu vaccines here in the "Homeland"?
BushCo's bald-faced lying is exposed by their total lack of interest in securing Iraqi sites they stated they KNEW FOR CERTAIN had WMDs. If BushCo believed for one second that WMDs were there, and intended to be given to terrorists to use in the US, securing the "certain" locations would have been job one during the invasion.
It wasn't. Troops weren't immediately sent to secure these locations, or they stood idley by watching looting take place. So much for the other "threat" of a Saddam-al Qaeda connection.
The looting was allowed and even encouraged for new fearmongering about WMDs being moved to [fill in the next enemy Bush needed to point his pathetic stuffed crotch at].
The WMDs in Iraq are the thousands of tons dropped there by the war criminals in this administration. Iraq suffered a month of 9/11s. Bush should fry for it.
From what I've seen on a few other boards, the Right are shifting their argument again back to the Al Queda "links" with Iraq, including in those "links" Ansar Al Islam. Who were based in the US protected Northern Autonomous regions. And who were fighting to overthrow Saddam. Mmm... disonance!
Report: WMD Gone Before War, Rumsfeld Says 'My Bad'
(2004-01-24) -- Within hours after David Kay, the outgoing head of the Iraq Survey Group, told Reuters news agency that Saddam Hussein "got rid of" his WMD stockpiles before the March 2003 invasion, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld issued an apology and announced plans to return Mr. Hussein to his presidential palace.
"It's clear now that Saddam Hussein was in full compliance with all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions," said Mr. Rumsfeld. "I accept the blame for the misguided ouster of Mr. Hussein. I should have known that Clinton-era CIA reports were wrong, especially because we still have President Clinton's CIA director on board. I misinterpreted Saddam Hussein's unwillingness to cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors. I should have known that when someone appears to be hiding something, it means they don't have anything to hide. Even though the United Nations tried in vain for 12 years to get Mr. Hussein to disclose his banned weapons activities, and he failed to produce evidence of the destruction of previously acknowledged WMD stockpiles...despite that, I should have felt in my heart that Mr. Hussein had destroyed all his WMD."
Asked if President Bush shouldn't take the blame for these errors in judgment which led to an ill-advised invasion of Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld patted his chest with his hand and said simply, "My bad."
"Other than WMD, there was no good reason to interrupt Mr. Hussein's 25-year benevolent reign, which by all accounts had stabilized the region and served as a beacon of peace and freedom for the Arab world," said Mr. Rumsfeld. "I have done a great disservice to the Iraqi people and the entire region. I'm sorry."
He also issued "a heartfelt apology" to France, Germany and other nations which "like Howard Dean, lead with their heart not their head and stood with integrity against ousting Mr. Hussein."
The secretary said Mr. Hussein would be returned to one of his presidential palaces as soon as U.S. troops complete the repairs and renovation.
The Secretary then went on to say that he'd never been able to understand the philosophical problems of the unfalsifiable negative, and had never even heard of what it was. But that now Saddam was going to be put back in power, something only the childishly simplistic American Right was making as an argument, he'd very quickly repair the damage done to America's international reputation by giving everyone pistols, medieval spiked hammers and even a pair of golden cowboy spurs... as long as they stopped being so mean to America, because our skin is so thin, gosh darn it.
The trolls are like children, aren't they?
I just love how the problems are:
Clinton's CIA's fault.
Saddam was "hiding" something.
The CIA's fault.
Other countries fault.
It's always somebody else's fault with these clowns.
I guess the buck never stops, after all.
What happened to Honor and Integrity?
I love this part:
Other than WMD, there was no good reason to interrupt Mr. Hussein's 25-year benevolent reign, which by all accounts had stabilized the region and served as a beacon of peace and freedom for the Arab world...
Yah. 15 years of which he was our bosom buddy, during which time we actually SOLD him the WMD we later accused him of having.
LOL
They're like children alright. Retarded children.
If I ran into a room and said Bob had a gun, and he had it pointed at his head, you would think Bob was going to kill himself?
I could deny ever saying Bob was going to commit suicide, right?
Monkey - well, I'd consider Bush's administration the Dada presidency, except that it's been so fucking deadly.
It has the same feel as Marcel Duchamp entering a urinal in an art show as a piece of legitimate art. Just not so witty when it's a surreal war instead, with pretend threats but real people's lives.
Let me toss into this discussion the absolute best question (there was not much competition) from Bush?s news conference just prior to the invasion. Given what we now know about those WMDs, it would appear that evidence was clearly lacking then and that is why so few of our allies supported us. The first part of the question was:
?Q Mr. President, you have, and your top advisors -- notably, Secretary of State Powell -- have repeatedly said that we have shared with our allies all the current, up-to-date intelligence information that proves the imminence of the threat we face from Saddam Hussein, and that they have been sharing their intelligence with us, as well. If all these nations, all of them our normal allies, have access to the same intelligence information, why is it that they are reluctant to think that the threat is so real, so imminent that we need to move to the brink of war now??
Bush answered another part of the question and then said:
?You asked about sharing of intelligence, and I appreciate that, because we do share a lot of intelligence with nations which may or may not agree with us in the Security Council as to how to deal with Saddam Hussein and his threats. We have got roughly 90 countries engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom, chasing down the terrorists.
We do communicate a lot, and we will continue to communicate a lot. We must communicate. We must share intelligence; we must share -- we must cut off money together; we must smoke these al Qaeda types out one at a time. It's in our national interest, as well, that we deal with Saddam Hussein.
But America is not alone in this sentiment. There are a lot of countries who fully understand the threat of Saddam Hussein. A lot of countries realize that the credibility of the Security Council is at stake -- a lot of countries, like America, who hope that he would have disarmed, and a lot of countries which realize that it may require force -- may require force -- to disarm him.?
Of course, Bush doesn?t answer the question. It struck me then that the administration simply didn?t have the evidence. The last nine months have only confirmed that realization.
"If the United States were a true empire, he said, "we would certainly preside over a much greater piece of the earth's surface than we currently do."
That is a threat, not an observation.
These guys are so secret social-manipulation.
Maybe we should have a lottery who gets to pull the lever which drops the floor under these traitors' feet.
Maybe the families of some of the 80,000 lives (Iraqi, US, Brit...) they have destroyed should each get their turn to confront these freaks of unamericanism in their cells first.
I think the best way to put the imminent issue is this:
We never said Bush said the Iraqi threat was "imminent"; we said Bush said it was imminent.
The reason why he specifically avoided using the adjective imminent is that "imminent" is a legal word of art used in giving the justification for self defense against deadly force.
One may use deadly force in self defense when one is confronted with the imminent use of deadly force.
What the son of a bitch did is what every con-man does: describes the situation so that only one conclusion is justified and let the yokels draw just that conclusion. Then, if any one questions him the Con says "I didn't say that". Boys and girls, this is a Flim-Flam.
"Terrorists do not find fertile recruiting grounds in societies where young people have the right to guide their own destinies and to choose their own leaders."
To quote the Daily Show commercial:
'Who would the Supreme Court vote for???"
'Hey, Dick, you don't mind me calling you Dick, do you, Dick? Hey, you want some of this trophy stuff the Marines dropped over? Mostly ears and stuff, but there are some cool blood-spattered army boots. You want some, Dick? Heh-heh-heh. Well, take what you want---I ALWAYS DO! I'm the Prezinit!'
"If you've never been to the Oval Office...it's oval." (actual Bx quote)
hylander - yes, it is flim flam, and it was intentional.
I seriously believe that it is time for articles of impeachment to be drawn up. Bush clearly lied about this and there is no excuse for a failure to hold him responsible. I think he should be impeached for the huge intentional lie in the SOTUS, if nothing else. But there is so much more.
planning? in this maladministration? i bet not one was a fuckin boy scout. shit, bet there ain't even a girl scout. they don't need no steenkin planning.
The most damning piece of evidence that this was a con job from the very beginning is the fact that not one single person has been fired for conveying bad intelligence about the WMD! Not one! Same thing with the 9/11 breakdown -- not one person has been fired!
If this was a business and someone had committed such monumental fuck-ups, their asses would be either in the unemployment office trying to get a job at McDonald's or they'd be in jail.
No, they weren't fired because they did exactly what they were supposed to do, and to fire them now would result in in super-decibel whistleblowing like this country has never heard before.
C
25,000 liters of anthrax""
"38,000 liters of botulinum toxin"
"500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent"
"30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents"
"an advanced nuclear weapons development program"
"Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"
"he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons"
EssJay | Email | Homepage | 01.24.04 - 1:42 pm | #
WMD...Not WMD programs.....
So, where are they, huh??? Looks to me like they were figments of someone's immagination.....And that someone (and administration) should be thrown in Guatanamo as terrorists. When you terrorize another country because of lies, you are guilty of terrorism... RIGHT????
They weren't lying in this case, I don't believe. It's much worse, far scarier. They willed themselves to believe in the scant evidence pointing to WMDs that they chose out of all that was stovepiped to them (read: Cheney). They haven't been caught in a Big Lie in this case; their gargantuan incompetence has forced them into a Big Lie coverup. These guys are a monumental disaster.
For example, the president complained to an aide over a microphone he thought had been turned off that he was tired of the snags that had embarrassed him at press conferences. His staff makes a list of questions to be asked by the audience and then hands him prepared answers. One question had been asked out of order and the president later blew his top. "We've got to get this sorted out here," he said testily. "It happened last week, too. . . . If I think it' s going to be here [on the card with the answer] I don' t listen to the question. I just look at this."
Susan from Philly---- link? cite?
I do not doubt this is true, just surprised it got reported. I would guess they go to great lengths to hide Shrub's deficiencies!
And yes, honey, one more thing, if they are claiming that they never said the threat was imminent, what was the rush about, could somebody please explain, what exactly was so Posh about the Time of their Choosing. Looks like they made a big blunder about the time they chose, right. It’s not like they can say they stopped something from going down, it’s not like there was a hot zone conflict like the Balkans or Rwanda or Liberia, right.
What was so Posh about that time, did they finish it and get out, no, are they still there, yes, could they have gotten a much better handle if they waited and got Turkey and allies, oh heck yes, so what was so Posh about the time of their choosing. They can’t explain, right, so there.
.....
Bush stated that it could be tomorrow, or the next day, but terrorists could strike with Saddam-brand WMD.
I don't have a link to the exact quote, but it's floating around.
If you assert that Saddam could strike tomorrow, that's pretty much an imminent threat.
If they are so confident about the Time of their Choosing why are they making the kissy face with the Euros and with Kofi Annan now?
.....
EssJay thanks for linking to the SOTU 2003 - instructive to re-read it in all its glory esp this bit:
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.
fiery pants - I'm telling you, that entire speech is just begging to be used as evidence in the impeachment hearings.
Layers. Intel climbs up through layers. Each layer, a chef, adding his own spice and spin the farther it gets away from the source.
Tonkin Gulf, Missile Gap, Iran-Contra, Unplugged Baby Incubators, WMD--each starts as a tiny turd birthed by ulterior motives, and eventually, the professionals have to hold hold their noses and their tongues at the Coronation. Let's hope the O'Neills and Kays and McGoverns keep jumping up out of the crapper.
President Bush - October 7, 2002
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.
Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network
There is no more concise justification for the war than this.
1. Saddam is harboring terrorists.
2. Saddam has WMD.
3. Saddam cannot be trusted.
4. Saddam's WMD presents an unacceptable risk (either that he will use them or distribute them to those who will).
Only #3 still seems to stand. We went to war with Iraq because we could not trust Saddam.
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
"On any given day" could mean today, tomorrow, the next day.
Today, tomorrow, the next day would clearly be considered imminent
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us,"
If this is the quote from Cheney's interview on Russert, you're being disengenuous and deceptive, Atrios. Cheney meant 'programs', not 'weapons'. It was corrected right on the show.
You have to get a load of the "Iraq - Deception and Denial" graphic on the White House web page I linked to a moment ago.
It's perfect.
Denial and deception indeed!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/r...20021007-
8.html
(look at the header graphic)
Please notice that they have framed the discussion so that, should a forgotten stash of mustard gas show up, they can crow: 'See,see, I rest my case!'
It will be instructive to see the difference in how the Bush/Cheney junta reacts to the "no WMD" confession and how Tony Blair does.
Tony will go ape, he's got real worries since he's got a real press to worry about. And that's in addition to Question Time.
Bush is sitting pretty. There is no effective press in the United States and no mechanism for questioning him in public about the crazy quilt of lies covering his administration.
Powell seems to realize that if anyone's going to catch it he will. His lies were huge, told in front of the world at the UN and Bush/Cheney won't think twice about throwing him to the wolves to lighten the sled. His name is so sullied he might as well forget a place in history. At least the one he might have hoped for.
If this is the quote from Cheney's interview on Russert, you're being disengenuous and deceptive, Atrios. Cheney meant 'programs', not 'weapons'. It was corrected right on the show.
You're probably thinking of the episode where Cheney said "we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." He did later in the interview discuss Iraq's fictional nuclear weapons in terms of "programs" or "pursuit of nuclear weapons" and similarly loose language.
The quote Atrios used is from a speech Cheney gave at the VFW National Convention on August 26, 2002.
And since you brought up "disingenuous and deceptive," here's a list of other Bush regime lies.
From the White House Press Gaggle, February 10, 2002--
Q: What about NATO's role? Belgium now says it will veto any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this something the administration can live with, or is it a major obstacle?
MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article IV of Turkey. And I think it's important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose.
Q: What can you do about this veto threat?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think what's important to remind NATO members, remind the international community is that this type of request under Article IV goes to the core of the NATO alliance.
Q: Is this some kind of ultimate test of the alliance?
MR. McCLELLAN: This is about an imminent threat.
But, but, but, we NEVER SAID "imminent threat!!!!"
God, people. Give it the fuck up already.
The game is over. It has now been proven, as if more proof was needed, that at the very least, Bush (and his administration) exaggerated the threat from Iraq to drum up public support.
Can you stop trying to convince people that this is not the case? Because it's really pathetic.
I believe Bush lied outright. Many people do not. Fine, let history be the judge. But it's clear they greatly exaggerated the threat from Iraq.
Iraq's WMD (if it even existed) was not an "imminent threat" to the US.
As such, the war was illegal under the laws, treaties, and international accords that the US signed, and claims to uphold. It was a war of agression, in the lingo of diplomacy, undertaken for the same reasons many a dictator has given to attack his neighbors: "to prevent him from attacking me."
That's illegal without proof, and we just can't seem to find the proof we were crowing about.
Now, it's still possible that the massive cache of imminently threatening weapons will show up. But it's looking increasingly unlikely.
Someboy fucked up, big time. For that alone, there should be people, from the Director of the CIA, all the way to the top, resigning in disgrace.
If the CIA info was that bad, they fucked up, so fire them.
If the people at the top whose job it is to make the call fucked up, and were so willing to believe the weapons were there that they ignored MANY people who warned them otherwise, then there needs to be a housecleaning.
Deception or incompetence. Take your pick.
I was surprised that the claim of a Weather Control Machine was never made.
Deception. And incompetence.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
