Bush Tries to Deceive Us About Deceiving Us

[bigpoppanils]

Bush Tries to Deceive Us About Deceiving Us: Margaret Carlson

Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush pushed back hard against his critics in a Veterans Day speech at the Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania.

Bush reprised the address at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska on Nov. 14, three days later, just as Senate Republicans were gearing up to attach an amendment critical of the Iraq war to a defense bill.

Neither speech got him much. What Bush did in both instances was engage in deception to defend himself against charges of deception.

There's been no Senate investigation exonerating the administration on prewar intelligence. The Senate investigators specifically kicked the question of the who and the why of intelligence failures down the road as too politically radioactive.

With the speeches, Bush changed course from his earlier defense that everything he believed was right to everything he believed was wrong, but, hey, who wasn't fooled? He also contends that everyone saw everything he saw and then concluded (rightly) as he did that Saddam had to be taken out. But the Congress never has access to the intelligence that the president has.

`Everyone Knew'

What Bush's latest effort reflects is the exhaustion and fear of a White House staff that would let the president go public with so feeble and transparent a case. With one top aide indicted and the leak investigation continuing, staffers are no longer willing to work behind the scenes to smear, deride, and muzzle critics, even family friend Brent Scowcroft. So Bush has to do his own dirty work, personally, in broad daylight.

Bush's ``everyone knew what he knew'' argument was being undermined even as he was making it by new information brought to light by Senator Carl Levin on Nov. 4 and reported in the New York Times on Nov. 6. The recently declassified information puts a lie to the administration's reason for going after Saddam, one pumped directly and repeatedly into the American bloodstream by the president himself.

``You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror,'' Bush said in September 2002. In a speech in Cincinnati in October 2002, he said American intelligence had learned that Saddam had trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poison gas in camps in Iraq. In February 2003 the president said, ``Iraq has provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.''

Reliable as Chalabi

The documents released by Levin show that Bush's Pentagon intelligence operation, the Defense Intelligence Agency, didn't believe those statements at the time and said so -- at the time.

``Everyone'' didn't know that the DIA had concluded that the source of this information, an al-Qaeda military trainer out of Afghanistan named Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, wasn't in a position to know what he was saying about Saddam. Not only did he lack authenticating details about weapons and locations, he was ``intentionally misleading the debriefers'' in an effort to retain their interest in him, the agency said. He was hoping to buy his way out of detention with information.

This guy was as reliable as so many other administration sources -- like Iraqi defector Ahmad Chalabi and his brother-in- law -- with an obvious motive to make things up and no real expertise in what they were saying about aluminum tubes, yellow cake uranium, aerial rockets or nuclear materials.

Cheney's `Evidence'

That other piece of intel that ``everyone'' believed was peddled by Vice President Dick Cheney in two appearances on ``Meet the Press'': There had been meetings in Prague and other places between Saddam's senior intelligence officials and al- Qaeda. This assertion has been shot down by the unanimous conclusion of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission, which said there was no evidence that such meetings ever happened.

Should Democrats have pressed harder for more proof and pursued every footnote and caveat buried in the intelligence they did get access to? Yes. But to sweep them up in the ``everyone believed as Bush believed'' argument is to blame the victims of a misinformation campaign conducted at the highest levels of the U.S. government.

``Everyone does it'' is a weak enough excuse when invoked by a teenager caught drinking by his parents. From the commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful nation, it's pathetic, so obviously so that Bush immediately shored it up with his default argument that anyone who criticizes him is ``deeply irresponsible'' and sending ``the wrong signal'' to the troops, as well as providing solace to the enemy.

Critics do no such thing. And Levin isn't a partisan taking potshots at the president. He's a public official putting out documents from Bush's own hand-picked intelligence officials bent on giving him a slam-dunk case.

But they couldn't. Bush and Cheney and their acolytes knew this. Everyone else didn't.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&cid=carlson&sid=a2t0THS4sN9M

[drlogic]

What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JANUARY 30, 2004 | Printable Version

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

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

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton.

- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

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

- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

[igloo]

Add bigpoops to the list of useful idiots falling for the current political opportunism waged repulsively by Dems, and some GOPers worried about midterms......fucking shameless and disgusting, and a sad commentary on the state of affairs in this country.......

[drlogic]

I'm wit ya' Igloo!

Liberals and moderate Repz are too worried about holding on to their power or trying to get more power. I think it's pathetic. On the flip side, I think this is a fight which must be fought!

Let's lay out all the cards. Let's debate this shit! Let America see where libz and conservs stand and let the people decide.

[bigpoppanils]

and some GOPers worried about midterms

I could not be happier now that the moderate Republicans are standing up for themselves against the unholy alliance of the Christian Right & Neo-Conservatives. America in general isnt happy with their agenda, as evidenced by the President's and Congress' approval ratings. The Senate's rebellion against the White House on torture is some more evidence.

Can everyone say McCain in 2008? I can.

[bigpoppanils]

Liberals and moderate Repz are too worried about holding on to their power or trying to get more power. I think it's pathetic.

do you agree with Bush on every issue? gay marriage? RU-486? stem cells? constructionism? vouchers? farm subsidies? free trade? corporate welfare? medicare? social security?

there's more to this world than foreign policy.

[drlogic]

do you agree with Bush on every issue? gay marriage? RU-486? stem cells? constructionism? vouchers? farm subsidies? free trade? corporate welfare? medicare? social security?

there's more to this world than foreign policy.

Right! of course! last time I checked, it's democrats who refuse to call their own onto the carpet! Can you say moraly bankrupt? Lack of principles maybe?

I think Bush is getting what he deserves for trying to play nice w/ Democrats. He's spent money like a drunken democrat in the hope they'll play ball and all it's broght him is more attacks. They view that as a sign of weakness and only try to get him and his staff thrown in jail because they have no chance of winning at the ballot box. Politics is complicated. I think Bush's mistake was playing nice w/ the demz. Before any good can come out, the enemy must be soundly defeated. At home it's the demz, ,abroad it's terrorism. I say, TAKE NO PRISONERS AND CLEAN HOUSE! We've got the majority,,,,,SO RAM THE CONSERVATIVE AGENDA DOWN THEIR THROATS! Abroad, blast them all to kingdom come! PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH!

The people chose you GEORGE W. BUSH and rejected liberalism! RAM THAT AGENDA DOWN THE THROATS OF THE CRITICS AND LET THE CARDS FALL...........

PEACE!

[igloo]

I could not be happier now that the moderate Republicans are standing up for themselves against the unholy alliance of the Christian Right & Neo-Conservatives.

Dear God shut the fuck up

[bigpoppanils]

Dear God shut the fuck up

sorry. I dont want the US turning into Saudi Arabia.

[igloo]

sorry. I dont want the US turning into Saudi Arabia.

Give it a rest dickhead....save the lame dramatics for your "anti-conservative" penis pulling parties

[igloo]

I could not be happier now that the moderate Republicans are standing up for themselves against the unholy alliance of the Christian Right & Neo-Conservatives. America in general isnt happy with their agenda, as evidenced by the President's and Congress' approval ratings. The Senate's rebellion against the White House on torture is some more evidence.

Can everyone say McCain in 2008? I can.

AIDING & ABETTING

By JOHN McCAIN

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email Archives

Print Reprint

November 17, 2005 -- IRAQ is today in the throes of another critical moment in its post-Saddam history. There is both great hope and great difficulty, with a new constitution and an ongoing insurgency, with parliamentary elections in a month and violence plaguing many areas.

At home, the American people wish to see us succeed in helping bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, but express increased uncertainty among the way forward. Now is the last time we should send a message that withdrawing troops is more important than achieving success.

Unfortunately, the Senate considered two amendments this week — one of which was approved with 79 votes — that did just that. In the version that passed, 2006 is designated as "a period of significant transition to full sovereignty . . . thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq."

These words are likely to be examined closely in Iraq, by both friends and enemies. They suggest that the Senate has its priorities upside down, and I voted to reject them.

Anyone reading the amendment gets the sense that the Senate's foremost objective is the draw-down of American troops. What it should have said is that America's first goal in Iraq is not to withdraw troops, but to win the war. All other policy decisions we make should support, and be subordinate to, the successful completion of our mission.

If that means we can draw down our troop levels and win in Iraq in 2006, that would be a wonderful outcome. But if success requires an increase in American troop levels in 2006, then we must increase our numbers there.

Morality, national security and the honor our fallen deserve all compel us to see our mission in Iraq through to victory.

But the amendment suggests a different priority. It signals that withdrawal, not victory, is foremost in Congress' mind, and suggests that we are more interested in exit than victory.

A date is not an exit strategy. To suggest that it is only encourages our enemies, by indicating that the end to American intervention is near. It alienates our friends, who fear an insurgent victory, and tempts undecideds to join the anti-government ranks.

And it suggests to the American people that, no matter what, 2006 is the date for withdrawal. As much as I hope 2006 is the landmark year that the amendment's supporters envision, should it not be so, messages like these will have unrealistically raised expectations once again. That can only cost domestic support for America's role in this conflict, a war we must win.

The sponsors may disagree with my interpretation of their words, saying that 2006 is merely a target, that their legislation is not binding and that it included caveats. But look at the initial response to the Senate's words: a front page Washington Post story titled "Senate Presses for Concrete Steps Toward Drawdown of Troops in Iraq."

Think about this for a moment. Imagine Iraqis, working for the new government, considering whether to join the police force, or debating whether or not to take up arms. What will they think when they read that the Senate is pressing for steps toward draw-down?

Are they more or less likely to side with a government whose No. 1 partner hints at leaving?

The Senate has responded to the millions who braved bombs and threats to vote, who put their faith and trust in America and their government, by suggesting that our No. 1 priority is to bring our people home.

We have told insurgents that their violence does grind us down, that their horrific acts might be successful. But these are precisely the wrong messages. Our exit strategy in Iraq is not the withdrawal of our troops, it is victory.

Americans may not have been of one mind when it came to the decision to topple Saddam Hussein. But, though some disagreed, I believe that nearly all now wish us to prevail.

Because the stakes there are so high — higher even than those in Vietnam — our friends and our enemies need to hear one message: America is committed to success, and we will win this war.

Sen. McCain (R, Az.) is one of only 19 U.S. senators — including just 13 Republicans — to have voted against a Senate resolution Tuesday pushing for an eventual draw-down of U.S. troops from Iraq.

[bigpoppanils]

AIDING & ABETTING

By JOHN McCAIN

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email Archives

Print Reprint

November 17, 2005 -- IRAQ is today in the throes of another critical moment in its post-Saddam history. There is both great hope and great difficulty, with a new constitution and an ongoing insurgency, with parliamentary elections in a month and violence plaguing many areas.

At home, the American people wish to see us succeed in helping bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, but express increased uncertainty among the way forward. Now is the last time we should send a message that withdrawing troops is more important than achieving success.

Unfortunately, the Senate considered two amendments this week — one of which was approved with 79 votes — that did just that. In the version that passed, 2006 is designated as "a period of significant transition to full sovereignty . . . thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq."

These words are likely to be examined closely in Iraq, by both friends and enemies. They suggest that the Senate has its priorities upside down, and I voted to reject them.

Anyone reading the amendment gets the sense that the Senate's foremost objective is the draw-down of American troops. What it should have said is that America's first goal in Iraq is not to withdraw troops, but to win the war. All other policy decisions we make should support, and be subordinate to, the successful completion of our mission.

If that means we can draw down our troop levels and win in Iraq in 2006, that would be a wonderful outcome. But if success requires an increase in American troop levels in 2006, then we must increase our numbers there.

Morality, national security and the honor our fallen deserve all compel us to see our mission in Iraq through to victory.

But the amendment suggests a different priority. It signals that withdrawal, not victory, is foremost in Congress' mind, and suggests that we are more interested in exit than victory.

A date is not an exit strategy. To suggest that it is only encourages our enemies, by indicating that the end to American intervention is near. It alienates our friends, who fear an insurgent victory, and tempts undecideds to join the anti-government ranks.

And it suggests to the American people that, no matter what, 2006 is the date for withdrawal. As much as I hope 2006 is the landmark year that the amendment's supporters envision, should it not be so, messages like these will have unrealistically raised expectations once again. That can only cost domestic support for America's role in this conflict, a war we must win.

The sponsors may disagree with my interpretation of their words, saying that 2006 is merely a target, that their legislation is not binding and that it included caveats. But look at the initial response to the Senate's words: a front page Washington Post story titled "Senate Presses for Concrete Steps Toward Drawdown of Troops in Iraq."

Think about this for a moment. Imagine Iraqis, working for the new government, considering whether to join the police force, or debating whether or not to take up arms. What will they think when they read that the Senate is pressing for steps toward draw-down?

Are they more or less likely to side with a government whose No. 1 partner hints at leaving?

The Senate has responded to the millions who braved bombs and threats to vote, who put their faith and trust in America and their government, by suggesting that our No. 1 priority is to bring our people home.

We have told insurgents that their violence does grind us down, that their horrific acts might be successful. But these are precisely the wrong messages. Our exit strategy in Iraq is not the withdrawal of our troops, it is victory.

Americans may not have been of one mind when it came to the decision to topple Saddam Hussein. But, though some disagreed, I believe that nearly all now wish us to prevail.

Because the stakes there are so high — higher even than those in Vietnam — our friends and our enemies need to hear one message: America is committed to success, and we will win this war.

Sen. McCain (R, Az.) is one of only 19 U.S. senators — including just 13 Republicans — to have voted against a Senate resolution Tuesday pushing for an eventual draw-down of U.S. troops from Iraq.

when did I say that pulling out of iraq is a good idea?

[igloo]

when did I say that pulling out of iraq is a good idea?

I didn't say you said that...I was just wondering how you felt about your boy McCain supporting a policy decision made by the 'unholy alliance"

[bigpoppanils]

I didn't say you said that...I was just wondering how you felt about your boy McCain supporting a policy decision made by the 'unholy alliance"

i happen to agree with McCain on this issue, but not for the same reasons.

i take comfort in this:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/arizona/articles/0612mccain-bush.html

At odds with Bush

Jon Kamman

The Arizona Republic

Jun. 12, 2005 12:00 AM

Sen. John McCain repeatedly has taken maverick positions that have put him at odds with President Bush's administration and rankled his party's right wing.

Among McCain's stances that differ from those of Bush:

Tax cuts: Two-thirds of any revenue surplus should be used to shore up Social Security and pay down debt, and tax cuts in times of shortfalls only make the deficit worse.

War: Troop levels in Iraq were inadequate, especially for rebuilding the country and controlling insurgency.

Domestic spending: It's out of control, and Bush should have vetoed some of the budget-busting measures.

Campaign-finance reform: Bush opposed banning unregulated contributions and only reluctantly signed the sweeping McCain-Feingold bill in 2002.

Medicare: The 2003 reform package was a "disgrace," a $7 trillion burden on future generations.

Drug importation: Americans should be allowed to obtain lower-cost prescription medicines from other countries.

Stem-cell research: New lines of embryonic stem cells should be made available to scientists.

Environment: Republicans have gone "astray." Also, automobile fuel-efficiency standards should be raised, and the United States should do more to reduce greenhouse gases.

Patients' rights: McCain joined with Democratic Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards in passing a patients' bill of rights.

Judicial appointments: A filibuster sometimes is appropriate to block the appointment of a federal judge.

2004 campaign: Ads attacking Kerry's patriotism and military history were inappropriate.

Igloo: have you taken any issue with ANYTHING that the shrub has done?