Apr 10 2008
Best Reason I’ve Seen For McCain As President And The GOP In Congress
One thing America is sick of is the use of the law to settle differences of opinion. And the cutthroat crap in DC has been debilitating to the functioning of our government and juvenile in its claims. And so when the wacky left remind us they have plans for payback for Clinton’s impeachment, they make the best case why not to vote dem this year:
War Crimes
09 Apr 2008 07:11 pm
A provocative headline, I know, perhaps needlessly so, but it remains one of those hidden secrets in Washington that a Democratic Justice Department is going to be very interested in figuring out whether there’s a case to be made that senior Bush Administration officials were guilty of war crimes.
If a democrat Justice Department is going to spend any time investigating the man who stood upon the rubble of the World Trade Center and promised the terrorists they would be hearing from all of us soon enough, and then did what he promised he would do with Congressional and public backing at the time he did it, then there is no better reason to make sure there is a GOP Justice Department in place come next January. And we might as well neuter any similar dumb ideas in Congress as well.
101 Responses to “Best Reason I’ve Seen For McCain As President And The GOP In Congress”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Obama doesn’t have the balls. This is a fever swamp wet dream, Fitzmas times 100. Will not happen.
Ah, I see. So “following the rule of law” now means you are exclusively a member of “the wacky left”. Got it.
So – lying to the country, lying to the UN, lying to the Red Cross, and torture — none of those are worth “investigating”. But I assume having impeachment hearings over a bj is still okay, right?
Also – if Bush “did what he promised”, then where is Osama Bin Laden?
Breschau, using lies to accuse one of lying doesn’t advance your credibility.
Lying to the country (quite a few examples, I’ll use the “Saddam-9/11″ one here):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
Lying to the UN:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/18/iraq.iraq1
Lying to the Red Cross (and then prosecuting the JAG who blew the whistle, in a nice touch):
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002819
Torture:
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/story?id=4583256&page=1
So, Missy – exactly where did I lie?
Breshau:
This has nothing to do with the law, it is politics plain and simple. But go ahead and run on it, it is the best news McCain could hope to get.
There is no point explaining to the Left what a lie is. These are the same people who supported the man who actually lied under oath (vs. have a difference of memory with a newscaster’s memory) and said, as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, “it depends on what the meanin of is, is”.
There is no hope for those who are deranged. And by the fact that they can’t see the decency and courage of George W. Bush, it tells us a lot about them.
Explaining what a lie is to the left is irrelevant. What is happening is America is coming to the realization the left lies to itself, it is delusional.
Mentally unstable people rarely win elections.
Of course, Bush could issue pardons on his last day for any possible actions that could be related to the administration of the GWOT.
Let me be clear:
1) I think most of the Bush Administration should be investigated. If they are found innocent or unprosecutable, fine. If not, charges should be filed. (Taxpayer money can be spent investigating why Lieberman’s website crashed, but not on the concept of if the Executive Branch broke the law? That’s an interesting set of priorities you all have.)
2) The investigations will never happen. This entire concept is wishful thinking amongst frustrated members of the left.
But the Right’s rank hypocrisy is stunning, nonetheless – given their behavior during the 1990’s.
And the inability of any one of you to address even a single issue I brought up – to even *attempt* to disprove a single point – says much about you.
Simple concept: what did I lie about? Prove even one.
Breschau,
Trying to disprove a lie that never happened is a difficult thing to do and you know it…so let’s start slowly…
Where exactly did President Bush say that Saddam was responsible for 9/11?
Thank you for putting words in my mouth which I never came close to saying. Please look above, and point out where I stated: “President Bush said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.” In fact, the link I provided was when (years afterwards), Bush finally had to *admit* that there was no tie between Saddam and 9/11.
Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were responsible for 9/11. (And where is Osama nowadays, anyway? Wasn’t Bush supposed to bring him to justice?) But Bush has consistently pushed the idea of a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda that has just never existed.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
Obviously, I need to be more specific for this group. So let’s try this very specific example instead:
Bush said “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” in his State of the Union Address. Bush had been informed by intelligence officials months before his speech that the sale likely never took place and that the documentary evidence had been forged.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html
breschau,
To this day the UK stands by their assessment. And it was none other than Joe Wilson who investigated and reported back to the CIA on his first trip to Niger that Saddam’s reps were in that country.
And no one used the Niger forgeries for the claim about the contacts. Those came much later.
You don’t lie, your just plain ignorant.
Breschau,
“Lying to the country (quite a few examples, I’ll use the “Saddam-9/11″ one here):”
That pretty much says it all! Since you now state that you didn’t say that Bush said there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 then what exactly did “Saddam-9/11″ mean when referencing his lying?
Whippet1:
Uhh – okay. I guess I need to repeat myself:
Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were responsible for 9/11. (And where is Osama nowadays, anyway? Wasn’t Bush supposed to bring him to justice?) But Bush has consistently pushed the idea of a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda that has just never existed.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
Breschau,
Wrong again. The reason Iraq was a risk was the good chance Saddam and Bin Laden would team up to create a lot of future 9-11s. That was the risk we took out. It was not a link to 9-11, it was the risk of future 9-11s. Anyone who doesn’t get this is looking for extinction.
Liberals are always looking in the mirror – no wonder the bumble and bump into messes all the time.
AJStrata:
“Ignorant”? Well – thanks for keeping the mood civil around here. I really didn’t expect you to be the first one to go for personal insults.
“it was none other than Joe Wilson who investigated and reported back to the CIA on his first trip to Niger that Saddam’s reps were in that country”
Oh, and did Wilson ever report that Saddam was trying to purchase uranium? Because he says pretty clearly that he did not:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
And are you really saying that Bush should have trusted the British government over *his own intelligence people*? Wow.
AJ,
I’m unable to link from work for some reason, however if you are interested Flopping Aces has a great series on the connections between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. I’d post them for Breschau if I could but I’m sure he wouldn’t be interested in following the links… those kinds of details tend to get in the way of his talking points, I’m sure.
I will try it again later.
Breschau, “ignorant” in your case is no insult – it’s simply a very accurate diagnosis of your mental condition, 0ne which you could cure with just a little bit of effort on your part.
i don’t remember him standing on the rubble and saying he was going to out covert agents, spy on us citizins illegally, and torture people. maybe i missed it.
From your short post it is apparent you missed a lot Norm.
Breschau,
“Oh, and did Wilson ever report that Saddam was trying to purchase uranium? Because he says pretty clearly that he did not:”
Oh, really…
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005354
Norm,
Why wouldn’t you have missed that, you’ve missed everything else that puts to rest the Bush lied, outing covert agents, spy on U.S. Citizens and torture.
See your problem is that you don’t believe in our legal system and the rules that are in place. You don’t like Bush so you want to change the rules in the middle of the “game”… Over 7 years later and you libs still can’t get over that the American people elected George Bush…twice.
“lying to the country, lying to the UN, lying to the Red Cross, and torture”
Just how long do you clowns think you can milk this BS? This statement from you alone, Breschau, is more evidence to investigate you than there ever was to investigate Bush. Playground antics.
Right on 75, and I didn’t know we lived in the United Fascist states of Liberalism that “investigate” their enemies at will…just because they feel they should be investigated…to prove their innocence.
Wow.
We should investigate/charge Norm and Breschau with torture.
Their twisted logic is torturing the rest of us. LOL
first of all whippet i’m not a lib. most of you all are so far out on the extreme fringe that moderates look liberal. second…what you think has been put to rest hasn’t necessarily been put to rest…i think that’s the point. take outing a covert operative for instance. justice was obstructed and perjury was commited. what that means is that the outing was never fully investigated. as far as torture…it’s pretty clear we have. those who destroyed the tapes of it admitted as much. it’s a matter of finding someone who is actually interested in the rule of law. clearly you are not. as for illegal spying on citizens technicallities stopped the legal proceedings. an administration who is more interested in the rule of law than covering their arses may be interested in going further. we shall see. soooo…let’s review shall we? the legal system to date has been stymied by obstruction and perjury, technicalities, and in the case of torture conflict of interest. so yes i do believe in our legal system — and i believe in actually letting it work…not just gaming the system to get the answer your hyper-partisan view wants to get and then calling it a day.
ordi…you probably beilive in granting the telcoms full immunity for their role in spying on american citizens…nothing is more fascist.
I can do this all day, Whippet.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0506missing.htm
From the link:
“[A] former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.
The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy’s debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted — except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway. ‘It’s disingenuous for the State Department people to say they were bamboozled because they knew about this for a year,’ one insider said.”
Any attempt to say that Wilson told anyone that it was even slightly likely that Saddam had attempted to purchase uranium from Nigeria is strikingly delusional.
And none of this affects the fact that Bush was told months beforehand by his own intelligence community that it wasn’t true, and went forward with it anyway. This is what we in the reality-based community call “a lie”.
The “law” for the left is nothing more than a tool for their own use against their own domestic enemies and nothing more. Bogus cases against Tom DeLay, Scooter Libby, and worse…Jamie Gorelick’s machinations to coverup Clinton’s crimes before 9/11 are proof enough that the left puts party and liberalism ahead of any law. They care as much about the “rule of law” as I do about airport foot baths.
Ohhhh – he brings out the word “fascist” Ohhhh
Norm name the american citizen(s) that has been spied on
go ahead we are waiting………………
75:
I have provided links to back up every single thing I’ve said. One might call this “evidence”.
I notice you have provided nothing to support your claim that they are “bs”. One might call this “a lack of evidence”.
As such, it is not too surprising to me that you (and others here) are somewhat confused by the concept of “The Rule of Law”.
breschau
Whippet1 also provided a link to “evidence” which you seem to have ignored.
You appear to be good at the game of putting your hands over your ears and screaming LA-LA-LA-LA-LA
Nice try, Bresch. We already know that it was Wilson who was lying…and in fact, Saddam had attempted buying yellow cake more than once. Apparently Bresch subscribes to the same carpetbagger sales pitch methods as Norm and Truthy…just keep repeating the crap until someone buys it just to get rid of the stench!
YO NORM
name the american citizen(s) that has been spied on
go ahead we are STILL waiting………………
Ordi:
“Norm name the american citizen(s) that has been spied on
go ahead we are waiting”
Oh, come *on* – that’s brazenly dishonest, and you know it. How is anyone supposed to pull names from a *secret, illegal program* when the records have never been released, and the administration is doing everything in its power (including telecom immunity) to prevent that from happening?
The NSA spied illegally on American citizens. This is an undeniable fact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html
Your question is equivalent to:
I have a dry erase marker in my hand right now.
name the color of that marker
go ahead we are waiting….
ordi…sorry that response was meant for ivehadit…who brought out the word fascist.
anyway – as for who has been spied on…that’s the technicality. but i would not be afraid to wager that most of us have been.
leftby75…big f’ing talk coming from the far right fringe that spent millions investigateing absolutely anything clintonian.
breschau
It was not me who brought the “alleged” american citizen(s) that has been spied on.
It was Norm that was brazenly dishonest to bring it up without “evidence” not to mention him using the word “fascist” to attempt to scare me off when in fact he is the one that ran away.
As for the color of YOUR marker – that is easy – yellow or is it red???
LOL
Now stop being brazenly dishonest yourself.
Just to let breschau and Norm know I am leaving to go to an appointment. I am not running out on a good debate. bbl
ordi…
Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications technician, submitted an affidavit in support of the Electronic Fronteir Foundation’s FF’s lawsuit against AT&T. He testified that in 2003 he connected a “splitter” that sent a copy of Internet traffic and phone calls to a secure room that was operated by the NSA in the San Francisco office of AT&T. He heard from a co-worker that similar rooms were being constructed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego. From “Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room”, Wired News, 4/7/06
I haven’t provided evidence that the sun rises in the east either.
Norm just saw your last post – for future reference using the word “fascist” in a debate is NOT a good idea. I don’t give a shit who used it first. it is bad form no matter who uses it.
“Whippet1 also provided a link to “evidence” which you seem to have ignored.”
*sigh* Okay, here’s the big revelation from Whippet’s link:
“[Wilson had] reported that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki had told him of a 1999 visit by the Iraqis to discuss ‘commercial relations’.”
This was then *interpreted* by others to imply that it might have been about uranium. Wilson NEVER suggested it – and people who were in his briefing have said exactly that — from my link above: “that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.”
I hope you all take note of the group dynamic here, btw – I’ve been civil and polite to everyone here, and have attempted to respect your opinions, even if I vehemently disagree with them. In return, I’ve been insulted time and again: accused of lying, “ignorant” (twice), “deranged”, “delusional”, “Mentally unstable”, “looking for extinction”, “clowns”, “bs”, the thought that I should be investigated,
“Playground antics”, “Fascist”, “carpetbagger”, etc.
I hope you are all proud of yourselves for your behavior today.
So Norm, does it concern you that the NSA wants to protect your sorry ass? Or do you think the NSA has a hard-on for your late night phone sex sessions? Which seems more plausible to you? I ask, because, well…frankly…most in this group aren’t exactly sure just how you’ll answer that one. I know how we’d answer it but a loose cannon like yourself? Anything’s possible.
Uh, Breschi…hint:
Wilson lied.
Norm, wake up will you? The Clinton administration was the most criminal ever to occupy the White House. Perhaps if you wanted to save the millions going after him, you should have voted for a real candidate rather than the equivalent of a Little Rock whorehouse mob boss.
75:
“So Norm, does it concern you that the NSA wants to protect your sorry ass?”
Okay, *that* is truly funny. The idea that the government would never, ever abuse eavesdropping powers, and would never spy on, say, political opponents has been disproven by… well, every adminstration that’s ever done it. Ever heard of the Church Committee?
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/church/contents.htm
Ask yourself this question: if Hillary Clinton was President, and you found out the NSA was spying on American citizens illegally, would you just assume that of course she was only going after suspected terrorists, and would never even consider listening in on, say, the RNC, or Karl Rove, or the Senate Minority Leader?
My goodness
I must be misinformed, I have been told
The left has this election in the bag, it’s a slam dunk
The right won’t believe a thing we more elite have to say so why waste our time
We are headed for sweeps like none have seen before
With two of their best to choose from and we still have to hear all this incorrect input from all these who just want to clutter up threads.
The must be scared that old geezer on the right might actually win this thing.
You have to admire all their dedication to spilling their wrong information into the threads.
Now if only they could put all that energy into something useful….
like getting a job…I already did mine I’m retired.
Breschau,
Keep on twisting…
I should be checking AJ’s archives for this information as I’m sure it’s there but we may as well go right to the source. “Report on the Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq”
http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf
specifically pages 40 to 44 for the intentionally misleading Joe Wilson and Pages 72-83 for the Niger conclusion.
When you accuse the President of the United States of lying about connections to 9/11, torture, war crimes, illegally wiretapping citizens, etc…. you are insulting most Americans including us. You got exactly what you deserve.
ordi…maybe you should talk to the extremists on this site who use the word fascist for anyone who happens to disagree with them whether it applies or not. i was simply explaining the proper application of the term to someone who insisted on mis-using it.
75…i expect the government to protect the constitution…period. i am not so afraid of anyone that goes boo that i’m willing to give up all my rights. i realize that most of the far right fringe on this site are willing to. a lot of people died to protect those rights and i find it disgraceful that so many take that for granted…but i also realize that fearful people make poor decisions.
We’re fearful? LOL! Denial is fear…and you are in denial. And by the way, what rights have you had to give up lately?
Breschau,
here do you people come from? Living in a cave like OBL?
The Saddam/AlQaeda connections have been thoroughly discussed and documented here and elsewhere. The Saddam WMD PROGRAMS have been documented. The Saddam interrogations even revealed his intentions. Bush’s honesty has never been credibly challenged.
The investigations that deserve to be made are press disclosures of secret information and Democrat attempts at foreign policy with foreign governments.
And to help you out, catching OBL is a detail in the GWOT. Defeating and dismantling Al Qaeda and the web of terrorism is much more than one man.
whippet…if the administration would stop obstructing justice and stonewalling congress and involving the doj in conflicts of interest i could tell you for sure. if denial is fear then you are petrified. why else would you possibly support the death of well over 4000 troops and the deficit expenditure of at least two trillion dollars for someone who posed no threat?
In spite of all the paranoid raving to the contrary there is no evidence that Bush spied on anyone. Year after year the left rants and raves about this crap and yet they can not come up with one single victim.
They are just partisan idiots trying to win an election, the truth means nothing to them.
Obstructing justice my ass. That is so lame.
I remember when the Democrats won in 2006, they promised to bring down the price of gas and cut the deficit. Thus far they have done neither. In fact, just the opposite. They do not care about the people of the United States, they just want to investigate and investigate and investigate.
Well maybe they should investigate themselves.
God knows between Obama and his weird friends and Hillary Clinton and her billionare buddies there are plenty of thieves to check into.
Bresch, the only government entities with a history of abusing eaves dropping powers were the Cllinton administration. The reason you all fear your own government is because it’s exactly what you would do when in office. Hell, Rockerfeller is even on record saying that’s what he uses sensitive intel for.
There’s Norm drawing that “4000″ pistol again. Not very imaginative, Norm. You say it often enough…perhaps you should yell it louder…or hit the keys harder.
And Norm…if you are to continue quoting budget amounts in the trillions, at least go to the effort of A) getting the correct number and B) citing the same number.
$3 trillion, $2 trillion, back to $3 trillion. You’re spewing so much crap that you’re getting it on yourself. What a pathetic group this party has.
75…first off they are not budget amounts they are estimated costs carried out over time…you will have to show me where i said three trillion…i (almost) always use two trillion because that is the most conservative estimate…the correct number is probably going to be on the order of 5 trillion especially with bush abdicating the responsibility for his choices to the next administration. i do notice that you don’t have a number with which to counter my argument…you only bring personal attacks to the discussion.
Norm,
What’s a few trillion amoungst friends, right? It’s just a number. Doesn’t have to have any factual relevance. Unless of course, you are some super-duper idiot savant with numbers that you know all the projection formulas better than those specialists in our government. I know you must have been a General serving in at least one military conflict/war or served many many years at the government level in a military capacity to be such an expert on what the military has done wrong (since there is no right in your mind.) Oh yeah, and a lawyer at a high state or federal level since you are certain that high crimes have been committed even though after 7 years of investigations nothing has been found. But you know better!
The “Conservative” media told you so!!!!!
Hysterical.
Note to Norm.
Budget amounts are estimated costs.
And even if you had said only a trillion, you’d still be way off. You must be reading Lancet crap again.
75,
The Guardian carries the 3 trillion number…but then I’m sure Norm thinks they’re a “conservative” paper!
Oh boy…
missed this one earlier…
“Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications technician, submitted an affidavit in support of the Electronic Fronteir Foundation’s FF’s lawsuit against AT&T. He testified that in 2003 he connected a “splitter” that sent a copy of Internet traffic and phone calls to a secure room that was operated by the NSA in the San Francisco office of AT&T. He heard from a co-worker that similar rooms were being constructed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego. From “Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room”, Wired News, 4/7/06 ”
I guess that one “Whisle-blower” unbelievable expert on the NSA program who heard someone who knew something is the TRUTH!
There is no chance at discussion with people who buy into this delusional stuff. With them there’s a conspiracy around every corner.
Norm
You wrote: ordi…maybe you should talk to the extremists on this site who use the word fascist for anyone who happens to disagree with them whether it applies or not. i was simply explaining the proper application of the term to someone who insisted on mis-using it.
No sorry you are wrong you used it on me – WHEN IT DID NOT apply.
You also wrote: sorry that response was meant for ivehadit
So in reference to you and I talking YOU were the one who used it NOT me. So don’t try to blame someone else for its use.
Like I said: for future reference using the word “fascist” in a debate is NOT a good idea. I don’t give a shit who used it first. it is bad form no matter who uses it.
NORM
Mark Klein was NOT spied on try again
name the american citizen(s) that has been spied on
go ahead we are STILL waiting………………
“Bresch, the only government entities with a history of abusing eaves dropping powers were the Cllinton administration.”
That is, without a doubt, the funniest thing I have ever read – ANYWHERE.
Umm… ya have heard of this guy “Nixon”, right? Used to be President? Did you just skip right over the URL to the Church Committee?
Tell ya what, here’s about a week’s worth of reading that would do you all some good, and maybe teach you what happens with the government is allowed to operate with no oversight whatsoever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee#Sections_of_the_Church_Committee_report
Whippet:
“specifically pages 40 to 44 for the intentionally misleading Joe Wilson and Pages 72-83 for the Niger conclusion.”
Thanks for that link – I hadn’t seen that report, and you’re right, some of it doesn’t make Wilson look very good. But if you continue on to page 45, you’ll find:
“An INR analsys said when he saw the report he believed that it corroborated the INR’s position, but said that the ‘report could be read in different ways.’”
And that’s how I feel – if you want to find something incriminating on Wilson, you’ll see it. But, if you think Wilson’s opinion the entire time was “there was no chance this might actually happen”, you’ll see that too. Personally, I don’t think it proves anything in-and-of itself.
See, that’s one of the differences between you and I – I think intelligent people can have differing opinions on a subject (even an important subject) without insulting or mocking the other person.
Also, please check page 73:
“Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador’s trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts’ assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal.”
So, to blame Wilson for those “16 words” in the speech seem somewhat dishonest.
The Macker:
“The Saddam/AlQaeda connections have been thoroughly discussed and documented here and elsewhere. The Saddam WMD PROGRAMS have been documented. The Saddam interrogations even revealed his intentions. Bush’s honesty has never been credibly challenged.”
Well, that’s one perspective, I guess. Can you please provide links for the above? Thanks.
Bresch,
From the report:
“(U) Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador’s trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts’ assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq. ”
First, I didn’t blame Wilson for the “16 words” in the speech. However he was up to his eyeballs in deception is his reporting back to the intelligence agencies about what he found.
You are being deceptive by linking only part of conclusion 13. The CIA (of which Valerie Plame was an employee and who suggested her husband for this little fact finding mission), are the very analysts that didn’t change their assessments on the uranium in question. To be more specific…they continued to accept that Iraq was probably trying to purchase uranium. It was the INR that felt Wilson’s report supported that there was no Iraq/uranium connection. Very convenient for the Wilson’s. He was playing both sides of the intelligence community and then turns around and blames Bush for his own failures(deceptions).
You said:
“[Wilson had] reported that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki had told him of a 1999 visit by the Iraqis to discuss ‘commercial relations’.”
You didn’t add the part where Mayaki believed it to be uranium that Iraq was seeking.
Then you said:
“And none of this affects the fact that Bush was told months beforehand by his own intelligence community that it wasn’t true, and went forward with it anyway. This is what we in the reality-based community call “a lie”. ”
Yes, it was Wilson’s lie. Bush had conflicting information from the intelligence community, primarily because of Wilson and his CIA wife. And he ALSO had the corroborating UK assessments. The President had to err on the side of protecting America not risking it’s safety.
And finally, and I will try to be kind…
You said:
“Thanks for that link – I hadn’t seen that report, and you’re right, some of it doesn’t make Wilson look very good.”
Come on… How can you try to debate with any knowledge if you don’t read the actual report…? Don’t trust the soundbite, or the snippet of a quote…or someone else’s interpretation because it’s generally meant to deceive. Read, watch and listen to the whole of everything. That’s the reality.
Macker / Bresch,
Macker, If I may butt in and add a plethora of documentation for Bresch on your behalf.
http://www.floppingaces.net/category/the-iraqi-war/saddam-documents/
I’m telling you that we need NOT to answer norm/truthie/sooth. They are compiling our comments to prepare Obama for debates. They are taking what we write and composing their rebuttals.
We really need to stop giving them our ammo for November. Timing is everything. LOL!
But they are entertaining. And it is comical to call regular posters on this site “fringe”. They (norm/truthie) truly know not of whence they post.
Ivehadit,
Boy isn’t that the “truth!”
We’ve all pretty much found our common ground with them around though haven’t we? heehee
Well, I know that the Democrats have certainly managed to screw the economy up since they took Congress.
Crosspatch,
Remember all of the talk about gas prices before the last elections? It was all Bush’s and the Republican congress’ fault…and now look where we are. Of course when there’s a Rep. Congress it’s Bush’s fault and when there’s a Dem Congress it’s still Bush’s fault!
IVEHADIT:
“I’m telling you that we need NOT to answer norm/truthie/sooth. They are compiling our comments to prepare Obama for debates. They are taking what we write and composing their rebuttals.”
Uhhh.. ok. So, do you really think that Obama is preparing to rebut the following kind of statement in a Presidential debate?
“The Saddam/AlQaeda connections have been thoroughly discussed and documented here and elsewhere. The Saddam WMD PROGRAMS have been documented. The Saddam interrogations even revealed his intentions. Bush’s honesty has never been credibly challenged.”
Do you expect that to get even 5 seconds worth of coverage?
Self-inflate much?
Whippet:
Thanks, again, for the Flopping Aces link. He’s rather partisan, so I don’t usually surf that way. But, I’ll take a portion of tomorrow and go through what he has. (1600 pages from the Pentagon? Am I supposed to digest this tonight?)
And while I’m at it: thank you, all of you, for today’s debate. I like to pop over here on occasion to see what “the other side” thinks. And I do appreciate the effort made by those of you who decided to do more than just insult or dismiss me. Whippet – I disagree with almost everything you think concerning Bush and Iraq and everything surrounding it, but I would defend unto my death your right to say it, and I think that we can disagree on these issues and still respect each other as men.
Those of you who have cast aspersions with nothing to back them up: if you can, if it’s possible – try to wonder why, okay? And if you wonder if I’ve been “Living in a cave like OBL?” I’d appreciate if you’d ask yourself – do you think it’s possible for an American citizen to A) love America, and B) disagree with you? Or, alternately, B) disagree with the policies of the Bush Administration?
If not, then how are you possibly not falling into the definition of “Authoritarianism”? Is it possible for a human being to 1) Love this country, and 2) hate the President? If not, how do you explain how you all felt during Clinton’s run?
Whippet:
Tell ya what – I’ll give you a clean and complete victory:
Joe Wilson appears to be an asshole of the first degree. I wouldn’t trust a report coming from him about Iraq any more than I would my 5 year old when I ask “Did you eat that bag of Skittles”?
However, in an above comment, AJStrata states that we got this entire “Iran/Niger/uranium” story because of Joe Wilson. That is demonstrably false, since he was only contacted by the CIA (yes, because of his wife) because of the rumors of the yellowcake thing, *AFTER* we got reports from British intelligence (which is a whole other topic).
I would challenge that *that* hypothesis is completely false. If AJ thinks I am misquoting him, he can respond here. Nobody in the US formed their opinion on the Iraq/Niger link based upon Wilson’s report, which AJ outright stated with:
“And it was none other than Joe Wilson who investigated and reported back to the CIA on his first trip to Niger that Saddam’s reps were in that country.”
Do you agree with this statement, after reading the full report? Was Wilson the original (or sole) origin of this meme?
Whippet:
I would appreciate any links to where Democrats running for Congress in 2006 promised to lower gas prices.
Or, for that matter – where they promised to lower the deficit.
It is not enough to simply claim something, and proclaim that it is fact. One must prove it, if one expects to hold up under public scrutiny.
Don’t you think?
-Breschau
An d yes, I know I’ve provided the last 4 (now 5) comments, but I would like to point out that the blog owner is probably quite happy that this conversion is happening.
Comments on this article as of 1:00am: 79
Comments on the article before this: 3
Comments on the article after this: 36
Yowza.
Bresch,
Yes, I do think! I will find the gas price information but right now I feel like I’ve been sourcing term papers all day! I think it was Pelosi and Reid but that one may take me some time.
I appreciate the sentiment and believe it or not A.J. and I along with many others here have debated with great passion about things we disagree about. I have stated many times that I may disagree but I will also defend everyone’s right to voice their opinion. So we can agree on something. And yes, I do think that we can disagree on these issues and still respect each other, but not as men… because I’m a woman! What is it with the sexist men around here…AJ made the same assumption!
And any number of pages from the Pentagon are hard to digest so I suggest if you choose to read them all that you take lots of time. I’ve been reading him for quite awhile so it hasn’t been so daunting.
On Wilson/Plame… In my opinion, the whole Wilson/Plame mess is what it is because of Wilson/Plame. We may have had intel from the U.K. but when the CIA sends someone to determine the validity of that intel you would hope the agency would send someone qualified to investigate the information and then deseminate it appropriately. I believe that Wilson intentionally confused/deceived/twisted his findings in an attempt to discredit/embarass the Bush Administration. And then he/they used his wife’s position at the CIA to manufacture the deception of outing a covert agent.
I still believe that A.J’s hypothesis is correct because even though the intelligence community may not have formed their opinions about the Iraq/Niger link based on the information from Wilson he helped to create the lack of consensus within the entire intelligence gathering community by either creating doubt or creating confirmation. I also suspect he also intended to exploit the friction between the different agencies for his own purposes. It’s a sad commentary on the intelligence groups.
And then when the CIA (again, with his wife as the employee) didn’t require a confidentiality agreement (don’t think that’s the right term) he became the media darling. No one questioned his motives or his conflicting/misleading stories. He was a former Ambassador for God’s sake. He couldn’t be that incompetent. And his recent history showed that he wasn’t honest. I would prefer to trust your 5 year old before I trust Wilson/Plame. Skittles or no skittles…
I think people here are very receptive to discussion and I have enjoyed this debate we’ve had even though we disagree. It got started a little rough but we came around…Lately, there have been a few commentors who I believe have been more interested in hijacking the comment threads with inane rhetoric instead of discussion. That’s when you showed up!
I read other sites that I don’t agree with at all to see what people are thinking and why. I would never think of commenting there and certainly never in the manner that a few have done here recently. Honest debate is fine, but trying to wreck someone else’s home is not acceptable. And I’ve gone after AJ before for criticizing someone for being a name-caller as he calls them some name and now I’ve become a name-caller myself of late. I expect AJ won’t give me a pass on that one…which he shouldn’t.
I’m off for some sleep…to debate another day!
Bresch,
I couldn’t resist and it turned out to be an easy find. The gas price promise link:
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/April06/Rubberstamp.html
Brescahua,
I would not state something I could not immediately prove with a link from this site. You, my friend, need to listen to one Joe Wilson about when he was first in Niger. Doh!
And you thought yourself an expert on the matter? How quaint.
Oh, and Breschau,
At Libby’s trial it was revealed the first report that hinted at Iraq’s interest in Niger was from Wilsons 1999-2000 trips. Cheney was asking about Wilson’s first report. That is how Wilson was able to weasel in another trip in 2002, being the source for the original reporting. And it was the Senate that determines Wilson’s reporting gave more credence to the theory Iraq wanted Uranium.
Now please try and learn about things you don’t know, don’t assume you know everything – that is as false for you as it is for me.
B stands for brainwashed, imho. LOL!
AJStrata:
Okay, sorry for the delay – this took a LONG time to go through. Correct me if I’m wrong here:
You believe that the US first learned of Iraq’s attempt to purchase uranium from Niger through Joe Wilson because of these notes from Judith Miller:
“the arrival of a delegation in 1999 this delegation was seeking a broader trade relationship, since Niger only had one export, officials had concluded that Iraq was interested in uranium, Author of this report was Joe Wilson”
Now, I can see how you think this, but I believe you’re wrong. Let me walk through it:
“the arrival of a delegation in 1999 this delegation was seeking a broader trade relationship” — this is referring to an *Iraqi* delegation that arrived in 1999, not Joe Wilson.
In fact, Wilson referred to this, along with the “since Niger only had one export, officials had concluded that Iraq was interested in uranium” idea in his 2002 report. It’s referred to in the Report on Iraq that Whippet linked to above, on page 43:
“Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, [redacted] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss ‘expanding commerical relations’ between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted ‘expanding commercial relations’ to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.”
So yes, Wilson was in Niger in 1999, the same year the Iraqi delegation was there (this wasn’t surprising – there was a coup, so plenty of people would be there, trying to make inroads with whoever was running the country now). But Wilson did NOT produce a report for the CIA in 1999 – the only report was from 2002. And that 2002 report *referred* back to the issue in 1999 between this Iraqi delegation and Mayaki. In fact, that report was when they first found out about it.
I admit it’s rather confusing – but keep in mind that what’s quoted at the top were Miller’s notes, not a direct transcript or the final article. They’re jumbled, but they were never meant for publication – so long as she remembered what she meant, it didn’t matter.
She was never trying to say Wilson wrote a report in 1999 about a 1999 meeting. She was saying we found out about the 1999 meeting in his 2002 report.
So, I’m sorry – but your assertion that we originally found out about Iraq pursuing uranium from Joe Wilson is, quite simply, wrong. We found out about it in the way that it’s described in the Report on Iraq, on the top of page 36: “from a foreign government service”, “on October 15, 2001″.
As a wise man once told me:
“Now please try and learn about things you don’t know, don’t assume you know everything – that is as false for you as it is for me. “
Breschy, you still trying to squeeze blood out of the Joe Wilson turnip? Move on. Geesh.
Ah. So I assume “Move on. Geesh.” is your code phrase for “Whoops, looks like we were wrong. How embarrassing.”
Okay – thanks for playing.
And thanks for the heated debate, Whippet. I do apologize for assuming you were a man – that’s rather unlike me.
See y’all.
Ah. So I assume “Move on. Geesh.” is your code phrase for “Whoops, looks like we were wrong. How embarrassing.”
Ah no. Unless you are being incredibly sarcastic, you got that wrong, too. LOL!
Ralph Nader doesn’t need my counsel to whip any of his two rivals decisively, which is why he will be barred from the debates.
Breschi must have a high threshold for pain. Whippet makes an ass out of him and he’s STILL clinging to Wilson. Either he wants a whipping again from everyone here or he has a bizarre sort of man-love thing with Blow Joe.
That’s true Truthy!! Nader is a complete moron even without your assistance.
Truth is using the Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid ♀♀♀♀♀ “EVERYTHING IS A BLOODY DISASTER!” Turing Machine ™ to make his posts.
Vince, sometime for fun just check out Truthy’s sources that he links to here for us. It’s a who’s who of the of the finest in misinformation.
75: The great thing about folks like Truth is that everything they say has been said about 49576025792839673280672968349-6725890 times before.
Yet each time they say it, that individual acts like he’s received a revelation from Mt Sinai and he’s now going to benefit us by sharing his new sophisticated understanding of the world or history with us uninformed nubes.
Though they are utterly silent when it comes to a) suggesting a future course of action and/or b) anticipating the consequence if they do manage to come up with some future plan.
Thus every thread , blog, comment, article,story, video etc.. that has anythign to do with the problems we’re facing, you’ll find these fools LOUDLY and ARROGANTLY and ONLY assigning blame for things done in the past.. even if the past isn’t the subject.
Talk about increasing the size of the standing army, and you’ll hear the 408 things Bush did wrong in 2003.
Talk about what the consequences of Iran going nuclear will be .. and you’ll hear about the alledged arming of Iraq by Reagan in the 1980s.
Talk about what the geopolitical situation in South America will be next year, and you’ll hear about the CIA overthrowing some Inca warlord in 3942 BC.
That’s all they have to offer.. their repetitive constant blaming jag.
LOL! Those are good…especfially the CIA Inca intervention of 3942 BC. I think Woodward wrote on that one as well.
Vince, they are what I call “soup pissers”. Their idealogy changes with whoever’s bowl of soup they want to piss in at the moment. They been born of and educated with the protest movement of the 60’s so that being loud, irritating, boorish, or otherwise just clogging the gears is more important than their actual viewpoint. It’s why normal polticial groups like the Heritage Foundation or the NRA have memberships, meetings, and conventions and behave with civility.
Soup pissers are bitter no one comes to their meetings so they take their viewpoint to the blowhorn and scream it in our face.
In the end, itt matters little WHAT Truthy actually is; libertarian, lefty, Jihadi wannabe, or hippy reject…he believes himself to be the great foil to better minds when in fact he’s nothing more than our entertainment. He’s the kid in class who the bully always beat up and no one bothered to care…the kid who always smelled, blew snot bubbles, and had head lice. A loser destined for irrelevance.
Normally I’d feel almost pity for someone this clueless but he’s made it clear
that he cares little for anyone else.
A friend of mine came up with a good term for the behavior you describe. They’re pigeons (the birds).. they fly in.. cause a bunch of commotion, defactate all over, create a huge mess,,and then fly off unconcerned.
That sounds more like what Rush Limbaugh refers to as “the drive-by media”…they show up on the scene of an event, spray their false stories all over the place about the event, and then drive off leaving someone else to clean up the mess.
Back to Pelosi for a minute…did you see this?
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/04/south-american-news-reports-paint.html#links
Yes, I saw that ealier today.. that’s only HALF the story…
Check out think for the full scoop on the treason of Nancy Pelosi.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/04/pelosi-perfidy.html
The world is too dangerous for this half wit to be doing this crap. She should be arrested.
Figures…we knew “preemptively” that she was up to no good when she went over there.