The Volokh Conspiracy

Jonathan, not sure what the point would have been to call for impeachment in October 1974 when he stepped down in August.

Senile dementia is a terrible thing to watch

After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign.

Eventually McGovern did call for Nixon's impeachment--based on the Watergate cover-up, which took place largely after the election, not for Nixon's campaign illegalities. McGovern did not rewrite history.

When did Bush claim that the threat was "imminent"?

Bush specifically said the threat was NOT imminent; his point being, if you wait until the threat is imminent, it's too late.

Ah, George- as full of fail as always.

Like Jimmy Carter, the failure-prone George McGovern continues to fail to comprehend the big bad world out there.

The fact that foreign correspondents are flocking around Obama calling him a wonderful candidate is beginning to scare me into reconsidering any positive thoughts I had about him.

McGovern just never was ready for Prime Time, Carter wasn't either, but the US had a momentary lapse and elected a fool for president, though it recanted after one term.

Obama seems to come out of that mold. Invading Pakistan ain't a good idea, Barack. But unlike Carter, Obama does speak a known language!

As for McGovern, he was well-meaning, but dead above the neck, especially after he promised to support Sen. Eagleton "1000 percent" as his VP &then s**t-canned him the next day!

Sadly, the Democrats never seem trustworthy on foreign policy. Iran's revolution was partly due to Carter's ineptitude, as I can attest from being in the State Dept &watching him treat the Shah like a Human Rights offender. Carter is a bad joke that keeps on drawing laughs.

Sheesh! I hold no brief for McGovern, but to call omission of a qualifying adverb "misleading" and "rewriting history" strikes me as a bit over the top.

But then I don't consider the quibbles over qualifiers (such as "many" and "some") regularly seen in heated comment threads (as once in usenet threads of old) to be particularly incisive or enlightening discussion either.

And, McGovern's statement above is qualified: "After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign."

Nixon's misconduct in office after 1972, not during the election campaign, is what prompted the House in early 1974 to direct the Judiciary Committee to investigate whether grounds for impeachment existed. Of the three articles of impeachment returned by the Committee, only the first substantially addressed actions before or during the 1972 election. And even the first was not solely concerned with those actions, rather with the subsequent coverup.

So I see McGovern's statement as at worst insufficiently qualified in niggling detail to satisfy the most picayune, but hardly an attempt to "rewrite history".

All that said, I don't think McGovern is wise to advocate impeaching President Bush. He'll be gone by operation of law almost as fast as Nixon was gone by resignation -- unless one believes the more bizarre conspiracy theories that there will be no elections this year.

Adler wrote:

I suppose McGovern could defend his column by arguing that he did not support Nixon's impeachment in the immediate aftermath of the 1972 Presidential election, and only supported impeachment later on. Yet if this were the case, he should have qualified his claim, perhaps by writing "Immediately after the 1972 presidential election." As written, his article is misleading, if not worse.

McGovern said:

After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign.

?

I don't think the argument that McGovern only disavowed his support for impeachment due to "misconduct during the campaign" does the trick. According to the abstract of an Oct. 27, 1973 NYT story, McGovern cited a list of Nixon's offenses, including "bribery, forgery, burglary, perjury, unlawful wiretapping, . . .," a list that clearly refers to Nixon's "misconduct during the campaign."

JHA

He's still alive? Who knew?

Clinton wasn't impeached for a piece of ass, he was impeached for felony perjury in a sexual harassment case. If you didn't screw him, he screwed you. Typical for a Democrat, Eh?

Truth Seeker &EricH:

To be fair to McGovern, he didn't argue that the administration had said that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks, nor did he argue that the administration said that Iraq had nuclear weapons. Instead he argues that the administration "led the public to believe" these things.

Frankly, I agree with McGovern - this is horrifying. I can accept an administration which lies, but one that makes us think things? Via, apparently, telepathic mind control? Fiendish and unprecedented! I'm simply curious why the administration hasen't used these power to "lead McGovern to believe" that impeachment isn't called for... Perhaps he has been wearing his tin foil hat?

pre·var·i·cate (prĭ-vār'ĭ-kāt') Pronunciation Key
intr.v. pre·var·i·cat·ed, pre·var·i·cat·ing, pre·var·i·cates
To stray from or evade the truth; equivocate. See Synonyms at lie.

eric: "When did Bush claim that the threat was "imminent"? "

Here are some relevant statements, in chronological order.

Rumsfeld, 9/19/02:

Hussein has been actively and persistently pursuing nuclear weapons for more than 20 years. But we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons

Bush, 10/7/02:

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

10/16/02:

QUESTION: Ari, the President has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.

1/26/03:

BLITZER: ... is he an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home? BARTLETT: Well, of course he is.

Perle, 2/12/03:

as long as he possesses the weapons that we know he possesses, there is a threat, and I believe it's imminent

5/7/03:

QUESTION: Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true? MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely.

Pre-war, Bush himself also used the following terminology: "unique and urgent threat," "a threat of unique urgency," "a grave threat," and "a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."

By the way, I think words like "urgent," "grave" and "immediate" are reasonably synonymous with "imminent." Likewise for "on any given day."

Later, once it became obvious that we were not finding what Bush et al promised we would find, lies were told which denied the existence of the statements I just cited. In other words, Bush decided to cut and run from the idea of "imminent threat" in very much the same manner he eventually decided to cut and run from "stay the course:"

McClellan, 1/27/04:

I think some in the media have chosen to use the word "imminent." ... Those were not words we used.

3/14/04:

Schieffer: ... if they did not have these weapons of mass destruction ... why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?
 
Rumsfeld:  You and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase immediate threat.  I didn't, the president didn't.  And it's become kind of folklore that that's what's happened.

Note that Rumsfeld himself had used that exact phrase ("immediate threat").

And of course, the usual righty suspects (press and bloggers) parroted the new line, and proclaimed that no one had ever said anything like "imminent" or "immediate." But that was a lie.

By the way, I realize that Bush also said this: "some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent." I agree that this statement implies that the threat is not imminent. Trouble is, this doesn't wipe away the various statements I cited, and other similar statements. In other words, Bush delivered a mixed message. Nothing new about that. Standard procedure.

Bush et al told us the threat was imminent, and this is a big problem because that was not just a falsehood but also a lie. We know it's a lie because the underlying intel did not support such a statement. One way we know this is from Tenet himself (2/5/04):

... analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an “imminent” threat.

We were told that it was absolutely certain that Saddam had WMD. We were also told he was an imminent threat. These ideas were not supported by the underlying intel. In other words, they were lies.

truth: "I don't think it ever said anything like that. [led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks]"

We were constantly reminded that AQ was behind 9/11. We were also constantly told that Saddam was in bed with OBL. 1+1=2.

Cheney said Saddam and AQ had an "established relationship." Feith called it "an operational relationship." Bush personally said that Saddam and AQ worked "in concert." All those claims were later disavowed by a GOP-controlled Senate which said this: "Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qa’ida."

jukeboxgrad - You have listed a lot of people who could apparently be impeached for giving out incorrect information, but with the generally accepted knowledge at the time from the intelligence services around the world, one would not be Bush. Of course, many of those you quoted are already gone, notably Rumsfeld and Fleisher. Impeachment of them would seem to be impossible now. Sorry.

When you cite the President for what turns out to be an erroneous statement about chemical and biological weapons, and when that was the conventional wisdom at the time, you are attempting to make mere human errors impeachable. Here was someone who was actively aiding terrorists, had gassed his own people as well as Iran's, and had refused to account for all the chemical weapons that he had had on hand at the end of GWI.

The natural progression, or slippery slope, would be to impeach President Hillary! for predicting that the economy will go up, when instead it goes down, or more likely just stays in the recession that we might be entering an extra year.

Let me suggest that the difference between Bush and both Nixon and Clinton, is that the later two personally committed crimes. I have never heard a credible claim that this President Bush ever personally did the same. Of course, the Democrats have held the House for almost a year now, and can vote out Articles of Impeachment any time they want to... but likely know that would be the fastest way to lose the House in the next election.

these days is so bad that

Perhaps I haven't looked into this deeply enough, but what did the Bush II (and his administration) say about Iraq, WMD, and terrorism that Clinton I (and his administration) did not?

New York -- A U.S. Federal Grand Jury in New York on Nov. 5 [1998] issued an indictment against Usama Bin Laden alleging that he and others engaged in a long-term conspiracy to attack U.S. facilities overseas and to kill American citizens.


The indictment noted that Al Qaeda, Bin Laden's international terrorist group, forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with the government of Iran and with its associated group Hezballah to "work together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States."


Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons development.

Clinton was prosecuted to the letter of a law that he signed. If anybody should have been reamed by that law, it was the man who signed it.

But remember, if it is a Democrat, it is a piece of ass, if it is a Republican, it gets you thrown out of office, viz Packwood.

"How long would it take for articles of impeachment to get out of the House"

I, for one, hope they do it as quickly as possible. They will either never get the votes to impeach (because I doubt very seriously they can make a case for impeachable offenses for reasons others have cited upthread), or he'll be impeached. Then we'll have the spectacle of either the Senate voting him guilty (which would be a real hoot insofar as Clinton actually did commit a crime but wasn't found guilty; any sane person would see the blatant hypocrisy of this) or he'll be found not guilty and we'll get to go on and on for years about how they impeached him for...what? It wasn't like he got a blowjob or anything. If it happens, we'll see an unending cycle of impeachment attempts as the two parties trade off the WH. Move on. (Hey, that's catchy. Think I'll start using it)

Please explain how simply citing statements constitutes an attempt to make "human errors impeachable". I don't believe jukeboxgrad has weighed in, either in support or opposition, to McGovern's call for an impeachment, at least not in this thread.

Not in so many words, but he did not merely "cite statements." He went on to call those statements lies. But the case for Bush as a liar is a weak one. Perhaps the CIA performed terribly in generating accurate intelligence on Iraq, but the intelligence that Bush received was that Iraq had chemical weapons and aspired to generate a nuclear weapons program. And it is not as if Bush was a fool to believe that -- everyone did, including the previous administration. In addition to that, Saddam clearly had chemical weapons in the past, had used them, and for many years following would not allow UN inspections, even upon a threat of invasion. The most logical inference was that he had something to hide. Moreover, in a post 9/11 world, those UN resolutions needed to be enforced. Bush made that case, issued ultimatums, and acted only after Saddam thumbed his nose at us. Bush did not lie to get us into a war; Saddam forced us into it.

bruce: "with the generally accepted knowledge at the time from the intelligence services around the world, one would not be Bush."

You're suggesting that the claims Bush made were congruent with "the generally accepted knowledge at the time from the intelligence services around the world." Uh, no.

Lots of people had concerns (especially in 1998, but even in 2002), but Bush et al took the lead in expressing the problem in terms of "absolute certainty." Statements like this went beyond what almost anyone else had been saying (including and especially our IC and others). Trouble is, the underlying intel was very far from absolutely certain. In other words, they lied. When you pretend to know something you don't actually know, here's what you are: a liar.

"many of those you quoted are already gone, notably Rumsfeld and Fleisher. Impeachment of them would seem to be impossible now."

My point in mentioning them is not to suggest that they should be impeached. My point in mentioning them is to respond to the false claim, heard regularly, that Bush et al never told us the threat was imminent.

"When you cite the President for what turns out to be an erroneous statement about chemical and biological weapons, and when that was the conventional wisdom at the time, you are attempting to make mere human errors impeachable"

Uh, no. The "conventional wisdom at the time" did not express "absolute certainty." Bush did. That's the problem, in a nutshell.

"Here was someone who was actively aiding terrorists"

A GOP-controlled Senate said this: "Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qa’ida." So I'm surprised you're still flogging that false claim.

"had gassed his own people as well as Iran's"

Indeed. And Reagan and Rummy helped Saddam with useful goodies like cluster bombs, anthrax, bubonic plague and deadly pesticides, right at the moment that Saddam was gassing Kurds.

Anyway, Bush did not just tell us that we had to go to war because we were dealing with "someone who was actively aiding terrorists, had gassed his own people as well as Iran's, and had refused to account for all the chemical weapons that he had had on hand at the end of GWI." That wasn't enough. Bush also issued specific claims, with "absolute certainty," regarding certain items of WMD. Trouble is, those claims were not supported by the underlying intel.

The essence of the lie is not that Saddam didn't have what Bush claimed Saddam had. The essence of the lie is that Bush did not have the information he pretended to have.

"The natural progression, or slippery slope, would be to impeach President Hillary! for predicting that the economy will go up"

If President Hillary, or any president, pretended to have information about the economy that they didn't actually have, that would make the person a liar. Needless to say, the significance of the lie is infinitely greater when people die as a result.

Please consider these two statements:

A) I think we should go to war, because it's my gut feeling that we should. And I'm concerned that Saddam might possess items X, Y and Z, although I really don't know for sure.

B) I think we should go to war, because I know with "absolute certainty" that Saddam possesses items X, Y and Z.

Big difference. Bush said B. It was a lie, because he was pretending to have information that he didn't have.

"the Democrats have held the House for almost a year now, and can vote out Articles of Impeachment any time they want to"

It would be nice if we had a two-party system.

The discussion over the significance of "imminence" hasn't cited the great debate over Bush Doctrine at the time, which was concerned with preemption. The whole point of preemption is acting before someone is capable of acting themselves.

U.S. citizens are amazingly capable of getting things dead wrong. We chuckle (or cry) at the surveys that show Americans can't find Canada on a map and so forth, but then when Americans think Iraq was involved with 9/11, some of us immediately believe that the only possible explanation is insidious propaganda by Bush/Cheney.

I find that ridiculous. Americans are idiots in general (survey says), but the moment we're idiots on certain topics, it's not possibly on account of our general idiocy, but can only be on account how vulnerable we are to political demagoguery.

Has it occured to anyone who thinks this way that Americans who don't know where Canada is on a map are probably not the ones listening to White House press conferences where imminence crops up?

We were told that it was absolutely certain that Saddam had WMD

By Democrats and by President Clinton.

Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Facts are a bitch, aren't they?

"And Reagan and Rummy helped Saddam with useful goodies like cluster bombs, anthrax, bubonic plague and deadly pesticides, right at the moment that Saddam was gassing Kurds."

Leaving aside the point that at one point in time those biologicals were readily available from the ATCC (not Reagan and Rummy), did you know that the USSR was (gasp!) our ally during WWII? No really, Google it. It's patently silly to argue that arming Iraq in the '80's was bad. Hell, we should have been at war with Iran before Iraq (wonder if we'll get our embassy building back? We should take it out with a Tomahawk, just to make a point). Then again, we were in sort of a nondeclared war with Iran during the '80's, as we were in combat against them. Our unwillingness to retaliate against what is (and has been for millenia) universally recognized as a crime has been at least part of the problems we've faced over the years.

OOPS!

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

MATTHEWS: Did you get an honest reading on the intelligence?

EDWRADS: But now we’re getting to the second part of your question.

I think we have to get to the bottom of this. I think there’s clear inconsistency between what’s been found in Iraq and what we were told.

And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn’t just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.

More Edwards,

John Edwards, meanwhile, wants to set the record straight he was not fooled by the administration into supporting the war. And, he adds, neither was any other senator.

In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in the latest issue of The New Yorker, Edwards said: "I was convinced that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons. There was some disparity in the information I had about how far along he was in that process. I didn't rely on George Bush for that. And I personally think there's some dishonesty in suggesting that members of the United States Senate relied on George Bush for that information, because I don't think it's true. It's great politics. But it's not the truth."

Good times.

And Reagan and Rummy helped Saddam with useful goodies like cluster bombs, anthrax, bubonic plague and deadly pesticides, right at the moment that Saddam was gassing Kurds."

Complete and utter lie. The United States never, ever, gave Saddam any weapons.

I do enjoy trips down memory lane

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed

---October 10, 2002

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

BDS is kinda' like shingles. It'll always be there, and will pop up continually over the years for no reason other than it's just there, and won't ever leave.

I'm disappointed that folks, even at this high level, think of impeachment as a kind of recall election or no-confidence vote. IMNSHO prior to Watergate we wouldn't have thought to try to remove a sitting POTUS except for the most serious reasons, and it is disingenuous to act shocked that a politician lied.
I was never a Clinton fan, and notwithstanding that gentlemen are supposed to lie to protect a woman's honor (that's what a member of an older generation said to me about the issue) he looked me in the eye out of the box in my livingroom and lied to me. But even with the weight of all the crap around him, some of which stuck and some of which didn't, impeachment was the wrong way to go, even if it was for "felony perjury in a sexual harassment case". I can see the argument for putting the whole case off until he is out of office.
Orderly elections are a good thing, and a good tradition. That means not only that the old regime is willing to step down gracefully, but also that the new regime is willing to wait its turn.

The Ace - Just want to point out that pointing out some democrats that also lied/mistated whether Saddam had nuclear weapons doesn't take anything away from the fact that Bush &Co. also lied about it. You can't show that what Bush did was right simply by saying someone else did it too. If its found that some Democrats also lied, then I have no problem with them being attacked &called to be impeached for it as well.

The Ace is using simple facts to dis the McGovern apologists better'n a WWF Smackdown. So let's rub some of those noses in some more uncomfortable facts.

The Ace - Just want to point out that pointing out some democrats that also lied/mistated whether Saddam had nuclear weapons doesn't take anything away from the fact that Bush &Co. also lied about it

Uh, or, you could stop your silly derangement and understand those statements were not lies. See, when the leasership of the entire political class believes something to be true, it not being true doesn't make it a "lie."

You can't show that what Bush did was right simply by saying someone else did it too

I didn't do or try to do that.
Learn to read.

If its found that some Democrats also lied

Don't you find it the least bit odd you called Bush et. al, "liars" but when statements are produced of Democrats saying the exact same things, you say "if"

Now why do you think that is?

Ace- If Bush had current intel then he knew that it was unlikely Iraq had WMDs, yet he, and the rest of the administration said Iraq did have WMDs- that's a lie. Also, I use the term if because I suspect many (but probably not all) of the democrats were uninformed regarding actual intel, and so were merely parroting the administration in order to score political points. This wouldn't amount to a lie (although I still think it's pretty reckless).

Ace, your efforts are commendable, but your objective is an impossible dream. BDS is incurable.

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

In February 1999, Allen proposed flying a U-2 mission over Afghanistan to build a baseline of intelligence outside the areas where the tribals had coverage. Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials, who "may have offered him asylum." Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "virtually impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared. Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight, but Clarke opposed even this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and "Pak[istan's] intel[ligence service] is in bed with" Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: "Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad." Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad, Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight. Allen meanwhile had found other ways of getting the information he wanted. So the U-2 flight never occurred.

rasqual: "The whole point of preemption is acting before someone is capable of acting themselves."

The whole point of what I'm saying is that Bush wasn't content to talk about the importance of "acting before someone is capable of acting themselves." He also told us the threat was imminent.

"Americans are idiots in general (survey says), but the moment we're idiots on certain topics, it's not possibly on account of our general idiocy, but can only be on account how vulnerable we are to political demagoguery."

The two explanations you mention are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary: they are complementary.

"Americans who don't know where Canada is on a map are probably not the ones listening to White House press conferences where imminence crops up?"

They may not be listening to "White House press conferences," but they're likely to be hearing Rush or Sean on the radio, or listening to a pal at work who has been hearing Rush or Sean on the radio. And Rush and Sean are often just an extension of the "White House press conferences."

crimso: "It's patently silly to argue that arming Iraq in the '80's was bad"

It's silly if you think that credibility doesn't matter. It's not good for our credibility that we helped Saddam while he was gassing people, and then years later whined about how evil he was for gassing people.

"Don't ever bring an unloaded firearm to a gunfight."

You're making the point, correctly, that Saddam was unwise to bluff, and that this was a self-destructive move on his part. Fair enough, but I don't care. It's not what's most relevant. What's most relevant (to us) is that it was equally unwise for us not to take into account the likelihood that he was doing some bluffing. This was a self-destructive move on our part.

ace: "Don't take people at their word or judge their actions, draw '(ill)logical inferences' dammit!"

Yes, when you're dealing with someone like Saddam, it is indeed foolish to "take people at their word." What's necessary is to take words and actions into account, and make assessments about the motivations behind those words and actions. It doesn't take a genius to understand the likelihood that Saddam was bluffing.

ace: "Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton"

Instead of dribbling them out piecemeal, I think you'll save everyone a lot of time if you just point to the snopes page where all that stuff is listed (I see that smokey has cited this link too). It's helpful because it includes the context, and it shows how folks like you are frequently distorting the message by excluding the context.

"Now this much is undisputed"

She wasn't making a specific factual claim regarding what he had. It was only this vague statement: "if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare." And in the next passage, she went on to say this:

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. … So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Keep trying.

"those statements were not lies"

It would be nice if you made at least a pretense of addressing what I said about "absolute certainty."

"when the leasership of the entire political class believes something to be true, it not being true doesn't make it a 'lie.' "

The essence of the lie is not that Saddam didn't have what Bush claimed Saddam had. The essence of the lie is that Bush did not have the information he pretended to have.

dave: "Donald Rumsfeld did not serve in the Reagan Administration except in advisory capacities."

Rumsfeld was Reagan's Special Envoy to the Middle East. In that capacity, Rumsfeld met with Saddam on 12/20/83. When I look at that photo, I don't see someone acting in an "advisory" capacity. I see someone serving as a presidential envoy. Rumsfeld visited Iraq several times, and had an important role in US-Iraq relations (some details here).

Please let us know the basis for your claim that the word "serve" does not apply to the work of a presidential envoy.

"For someone who claims to want to put forth nothing but the true historical record, Jukeboxgrad should be accurate himself."

For someone who claims that I'm not accurate, you should do a better job of explaining what I said that wasn't accurate.

I see that robert has already responded. Thanks, robert.

"OK, I will acknowledge that Rumsfeld met with Tariq Aziz as an unofficial Presidential envoy"

He also met with Saddam. And what is "unofficial" about being appointed Reagan's Special Envoy to the Middle East?

"do you have any evidence that he agreed on behalf of the American government to provide Hussein with weapons as Jukeboxgrad argues? Or even that President Reagan did?"

Yes, and it's already been cited (although at first I posted a bad link, which might have been a problem).

Indeed. That's why I'm hoping you'll bring some that actually matter.

Hilarious. Yes, links to claims at common dreams are now "facts that matter."

First of all, "the day I left office" is more than two years pre-invasion. Things change, as I demonstrated here.

1. You "demonstrated" nothing.

2. What changed? Oh, you can't say.
Nevermind.

She wasn't making a specific factual claim regarding what he had.

Reason 4,218 it's no longer worth responding to you.

You're simply chaging words to suit your silly agenda.

Anyway, this proves only that Rockefeller is an idiot.

No, it proves that Bush didn't lie. See, Rockefeller was on the committe before Bush was President. That same committe has oversight over the CIA. The very same committee senator Edwards said on and said "

I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn’t just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction.

Bush did not lie. Bush did not tell Senator's Edwards &Rockefeller about Saddam's WMD programs.

The essence of the lie is not that Saddam didn't have what Bush claimed Saddam had. The essence of the lie is that Bush did not have the information he pretended to have

The essence of lies here are the ones you're telling.

Finally, George "slam dunk" Tenent disagrees with you.

Dr. David Kay testimony to Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) 1/23/2004:

"Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion- although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."


Butler Commission Report (UK):

The Butler Inquiry report indicated that there was enough intelligence to make a "well-founded" judgment that Saddam Hussein was seeking, perhaps as late as 2002, to obtain uranium illegally from Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo (6.4 para. 499). In particular, referring to a 1999 visit of Iraqi officials to Niger, the report states (6.4 para. 503): "The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible."

Clinton Admin:

Now the UN believes that Saddam may have produced as much as 200 tons of VX, and this would, of course, be theoretically enough to kill every man, woman and child on the face of the earth." He then sketched an image of a massive chemical attack on an American city.

---emarks by Defense Secretary Cohen during a Defense Department Briefing, November 25, 1997

I know, I know that doesn't "count" because of Desert Fox.
Or something.

The Ace said:

This is like watching a monkey spittle all over itself.

Assuming you actually believe there's a place for that sort of remark in civil debate, whom are you trying to convince with it, and what do you expect to convince them of?

ace: "Hilarious. Yes, links to claims at common dreams are now 'facts that matter.' "

The article I cited is from WP. It's simply being hosted at CD. CD didn't write it. I'm using the CD link because the WP link doesn't work. I guess you must find all these internets sort of confusing, since it seems you weren't able to figure that out on your own.

If your claim is that you categorically mock and ignore everything written by WP, then I should probably refer you to several thousand examples of righty bloggers citing WP. But I think what you're really trying to tell us is that you're such an ignoramus that you don't undertand that what matters about an article is the original source, not the web site that happens to be hosting a copy of it at the moment.

By the way, I've also linked to the court documents that underlie some of the claims made in the article. Next up, ace will argue that the court documents should be ignored because he once heard a story about Al Franken walking down the street past the courthouse. That's about as logical as your silly remark making a fuss about where the article happens to be hosted.

"You 'demonstrated' nothing."

Actually, I've demonstrated quite a bit. What you've demonstrated is that you look like this.

"What changed? Oh, you can't say."

I didn't have to say, because Powell, Rice and Cheney said it for me: Saddam was "in a box."

"And then what?"

When you show us facts that actually support your claims, I'll thank you for helping me learn something new. So far, you haven't done so. But there's no time like the present, so maybe you'll rise to the occasion and surprise us. We'll be waiting patiently.

"You're simply chaging words to suit your silly agenda."

No. I'm simply paying attention to the words people actually said, instead of my fantasy of what they said.

"So it wasn’t just the Bush administration"

Is there an echo in here? You already cited that text. Let us know if you have something new to say.

ace: "We know that he has chemical and biological weapons."

I can't find the context for the passage you cited. Do you have a link to the entire speech? I don't pay much attention to quotes if I can't see the context.

"Proof that the US gave Iraq weapons? None."

Have you been drinking? You said those words immediately after citing proof that the US gave Iraq weapons.

jukeboxgrad, I know it sometimes feels very isolated when you're the only one posting on a thread like this. You're doing so well, there's no need for anyone else to jump in.

I didn't have to say, because Powell, Rice and Cheney said it for me: Saddam was "in a box."

Which is irrelevant as to whether or not he had WMD or Bush "lied."

Those statements are also challenged here:

POWELL: This council placed the burden on Iraq to comply and disarm and not on the inspectors to find that which Iraq has gone out of its way to conceal for so long. Inspectors are inspectors; they are not detectives.

I asked for this session today for two purposes: First, to support the core assessments made by Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei. As Dr. Blix reported to this council on January 27th, quote, ``Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it,'' unquote.

And as Dr. ElBaradei reported, Iraq's declaration of December 7, quote, ``did not provide any new information relevant to certain questions that have been outstanding since 1998.''

POWELL: My second purpose today is to provide you with additional information, to share with you what the United States knows about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as well as Iraq's involvement in terrorism, which is also the subject of Resolution 1441 and other earlier resolutions.

When you show us facts that actually support your claims, I'll thank you for helping me learn something new. So far, you haven't done so.

Did Democrats, prior to Bush being elected, say Iraq had WMD?
Yes

Did Democrats say Iraq had WMD after Bush was elected?
Yes

Does this disprove Bush "lied"?
Conclusively.

Those are facts.

I can't find the context for the passage you cited.

You mean so you can pretend the words don't mean what they say?


No. I'm simply paying attention to the words people actually said, instead of my fantasy of what they said.

You mean like:

We know that he has chemical and biological weapons

Then you go on to say:
Bush expressed "absolute certainty." With the possible exception of Rockefeller, no one else did

Rockefeller, Edwards, Kerry, Reid, Gore, Clinton (both), Daschle, and Byrd all did.

Every Single one of them.

All of them.

Now you can sit there and pretend they didn't by laughably talking about "context" but that just demonstrates that you're a moron.

Another Democrat

Gen. Wesley Clark, September 2002, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks, as would we."

"It's silly if you think that credibility doesn't matter. It's not good for our credibility that we helped Saddam while he was gassing people, and then years later whined about how evil he was for gassing people."

So do you think we were wrong for helping the USSR? Did the fact they were our ally during WWII hurt our credibility during the Cold War? I'll also note that the wording of your comment can be very esily construed as asserting the US helped Saddam gas the Kurds and the Iranians. Now before you start in on "reading comprehension," remember that Bush never said "imminent," but supposedly intended for people to think he did. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

After being hit with the indubitable fact that many, many Democrats said they believed Saddam had WMDs, jukebox has been forced into the position that these statements don't make them liars because they didn't express "absolute certainty," when one or two quotes by Bush administration spokespeople could be interpreted as stating that. This is weak. The quotes are enough to prove that there was a broad consensus that Saddam had WMDs of some type; asserting that the administration's statements were "lies" because some assertions were made that were made that were a tad bit stronger than other statements (but not really stronger what was said by other senior ranking Democrats) is really a stretch, and presupposes bad faith with no evidence.

LM:

"Assuming you [Ace] actually believe there's a place for that sort of remark in civil debate, whom are you trying to convince with it, and what do you expect to convince them of?"

That's the kind of comment that someone falls back on when they have no facts to argue. [And watch it with the 'whom.' The grammar nazis might getcha! And that's something up with which you should never put. w/apologies to WC.]

mark, thanks for your kind words.

I've been doing this for a long time, and I get quite a few expressions of support (like via email, for example). So I know there's support out there even if people aren't speaking up publicly.

ace: "Which is irrelevant as to whether or not he had WMD"

Powell, Rice and Cheney all indicated that Saddam was weak. This is relevant to the constant practice of telling us all about 1998, and pretending that nothing changed between then and the time that Powell, Rice and Cheney spoke, several years later.

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it"

Gosh, that's awfully cute. There should be a special name for this technique. Blix issued a long report, and Powell cherry-picked from it, and you, in turn, are cherry-picking from what Powell said.

The full context of Blix's statement is here. On the same day that he said what you and Powell quote, he also said this:

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt.

The point of Blix's complaint ("Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance") was to indicate that there were still certain issues, and Blix wanted to keep the heat on Saddam. But inspections were working. In the end, Saddam opened the door to inspections. They found nothing. Bush invaded anyway, and then lied about the inspections ("he wouldn't let them in"). That's a very big problem.

ace: " 'Leading efforts' is not giving."

Next up, ace will tell us about the meaning of "is."

You're trying to claim that we didn't arm Saddam. Let's review a few basic facts.

Howard Teicher was a member of Reagan's National Security Council. Teicher made the following statement in a sworn affidavit (pdf, text):

… In June, 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran. President Reagan decided that the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. …

CIA Director Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war.  …

… the United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required.

…I personally attended meetings in which CIA Director Casey or CIA Deputy Director Gates noted the need for Iraq to have certain weapons such as cluster bombs and anti-armor penetrators in order to stave off the Iranian attacks.  When I joined the NSC staff in early 1982, CIA Director Casey was adamant that cluster bombs were a perfect "force multiplier" that would allow the Iraqis to defend against the "human waves" of Iranian attackers.

… The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq.

… Under CIA DIrector Casey and Deputy Director Gates, the CIA made sure that non-U.S. manufacturers manufactured and sold to Iraq the weapons needed by Iraq. In certain instances where a key component in a weapon was not readily available, the highest levels of the United States government decided to make the component available, directly or indirectly, to Iraq.  I specifically recall that the provision of anti-armor penetrators to Iraq was a case in point.  The United States made a policy decision to supply penetrators to Iraq.

… The United States approved, assisted and encouraged Egypt's sale of weaponry, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.

… The mere request to a third party to carry out an action did not constitute a "covert action," and, accordingly, required no Presidential Finding or reporting to Congress.  The supply of Cardoen cluster bombs, which were fitted for use on Soviet, French and NATO aircraft, was a mere extension fo the United States policy of assisting Iraq through all legal means in order to avoid an Iranian victory.

… My files will contain my notes and memoranda from meetings I attended with CIA director Casey or CIA Deputy Director Gates which included discussions of Cardoen's manufacture and sale of cluster bombs to Iraq.  My NSC files will also contain cable traffic among various United States agencies, embassies and other parties relating to Cardoen and his sale of cluster bombs and other munitions to Iraq and other Middle Eastern states.

… Under CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, the CIA authorized, approved and assisted Cardoen in the manufacture and sale of cluster bombs and other munitions to Iraq.  My NSC files will contain documents that show or tend to show the CIA's authorization, approval and assistance of Cardoen's manufacture and sale of cluster bombs and other muntions to Iraq.

… My files will contain notes, memoranda and other documents that will show that the highest levels fo the United States government, including the NSC Staff and the CIA, were well aware of Cardoen's arrest in 1983 in Miami in a sting operation relating to the smuggling of night vision goggles to Cuba and Libya.  My files will also show that the highest levels of the government were aware of the arrest and conviction of two of Cardoen's employees and his company Industrias Cardoen.

… CIA Director William Casey, aware of Cardoen's arrest and the conviction of his employees and his company, intervened in order to make sure that Cardoen was able to supply cluster bombs to Iraq. Specifically, CIA Director Casey directed the Secretaries of the State and Commerce Departments that the necessary licenses required by Cardoen were not to be denied.  My files will contain notes, memoranda and other documents showing or tending to show that CIA Director William Casey's intervention was in order to maintain Cardoen's ability to supply cluster bombs and other munitions to Iraq.

OK, that's what Teicher said. Let's compare that to what ace said:

The United States never, ever, gave Saddam any weapons.

And this:

not one word demonstrates that America gave Iraq weapons

And this:

None of which supports the contention that the US gave Saddam "cluster bombs."

Gosh, tough choice. Should we believe a sworn affadavit from a member of Reagan's NSC, or should we believe a statement by some guy on a blog? I'll have to think about that one for a while. Then again, maybe you're expecting us to adopt an exceedingly Clintonesque interpretation of the word "gave."

Your selective skepticism is quite adorable. When it comes connecting Reagan with Saddam, this sort of testimony means nothing to you. But if you hear a rumor that OBL's brother-in-law's cousin's wife's hair-dresser once shared a taxi with Saddam's nephew's soccer coach's dentist, you probably treat that as conclusive evidence that Saddam and OBL are bosom buddies. Interesting how that works.

matthew: "they didn't express 'absolute certainty,' when one or two quotes by Bush administration spokespeople could be interpreted as stating that"

It's not that what Bush et al said "could be interpreted as stating that." "Absolute certainty" is the exact phrase that Cheney used. The phrase "no doubt" was also used many times.

What's your point? That it was OK for them to tell this lie because they only used those words on multiple occasions, rather than scores of occasions? One lie, of that magnitude, is one lie too many.

And it was far more than one. You have an odd concept of what "one or two" means. Count these:

intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons; Bush, 3/18/03

there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction; Cheney, 8/26/02

we know for a fact that there are weapons there; Fleischer, 1/9/03

intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised; Bush, 3/17/03

there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; Fleischer, 3/21/03

there is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction; Franks, 3/22/03

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction; Adelman, 3/23/03

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat; Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found; Fleischer, 4/10/03

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there; Powell, 5/4/03

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; Gen. Michael Hagee, 5/21/03

I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction; Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, 5/26/03

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on; Wolfowitz, 5/28/03

But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them; Buhs, 5/30/03

You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons ...They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two; Bush, 5/30/03

"The quotes are enough to prove that there was a broad consensus that Saddam had WMDs of some type"

There was no "broad concensus" with regard to the level of certainty expressed in the statements I just cited. And, most importantly, that level of certainty was profoundly at odds wih the level of certainty even within the most hawkish elements of our IC. That's the problem, in a nutshell. Bush et al pretended to have information they didn't have.

"some assertions were made that were made that were a tad bit stronger than other statements"

Saying "no doubt" over and over again is not fairly characterized as just "a tad bit stronger than other statements." If you go looking for Dems expressing this level of certainty, you're lucky if you can find one or two. And the Dems who sang this tune were just making the mistake of trusting Bush. And despite all that, most Dems in the House voted no.

"not really stronger what was said by other senior ranking Democrats"

Show me the "senior ranking Democrats" who used the phrase "no doubt" over and over again.

"presupposes bad faith with no evidence"

I am somewhat inclined to supposed "bad faith" on your part, because the "evidence" shows that you have an odd concept of "one or two," along with some other odd concepts. Like your claim that they only said things that "could be interpreted as stating that [no doubt]," when in fact they expressly said it. Over and over again. In major addresses, in front of large audiences. And their statements were spread far and wide, by the usual suspects.

smokey: "That's the kind of comment that someone falls back on when they have no facts to argue."

Then I wonder how you would classify comments like these:

I love watching you simpletons play this game.

This is like watching a monkey spittle all over itself.

Another illiterate monkey joins the fray.

that just demonstrates that you're a moron.

Ace wrote:

Another Democrat


Gen. Wesley Clark, September 2002, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks, as would we."

A full transcript of this session is available at Clark's Wikipedia page. A complete reading offers a somewhat different picture than what Ace wants to convey. The basic gist of his testimony is that time is on our side, going to war would be a mistake, there is no substantiated connection between Hussein and AQ, that the nuclear threat posed by Hussein is greatly exaggerated, that a strike against Iraq would be a diversion from the immediate threat posed by AQ. He doesn't deny that Hussein is a *potential* threat, but he is quite clear that this threat does not justify a preemptive war. To imply that Clark considered Hussein an "imminent" or "immediate" threat would be to grossly mischaracterize his testimony.

garrulous

Synonym: Garrulous, Talkative, Loquacious.

A garrulous person indulges in long, prosy talk, with frequent repetitions and lengthened details; talkative implies simply a great desire to talk; and loquacious a great flow of words at command. A child is talkative; a lively woman is loquacious; an old man in his dotage is garrulous.

Source: Websters Dictionary

(01 Mar 1998)

Anyone we know?

Jon, can we take this rather weak attack on McGovern as your brief against Bruce Fein, Tim Lynch and others who see serious impeachable offenses by Bush and Cheney?

baxter: "How is that impeachment going??"

It would be nice if we had a two-party system.

"Watching you flail about and play word games"

English translation: 'paying attention to what people have actually said, and holding them accountable for it.' If you can show that I have done something other than that, it would be helpful. But of course you won't, because making claims unsupported by facts and reason is exactly what the GOP is all about, these days.

"The charge that 'Bush lied' and manipulated intelligence has been struck down by the 9/11 commission,the 2004 intelligence report,and the Butler report."

Yet another tired old chestnut, just as divorced from reality as all the other ones. Of the reports you mentioned (and you really should also have thrown in Silberman-Robb; it's traditional to do so; how sloppy of you to deviate from the standard RNC talking point), this is how many had a mandate to investigate Bush's behavior: zero.

Here's what SSCI 2004 looked at:

the objectivity, reasonableness, independence, and accuracy of the judgments reached by the Intelligence Community

Here's what was explicitly excluded from SSCI 2004:

[looking into] whether public statements, reports, and testimony regarding Iraq by US. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information

(See pages 1 and 2.) That was supposed to happen in a so-called Phase II. But that part of Phase II never happened. What a surprise.

By the way, it's also wortth noting that SSCI 2004 was produced by a GOP-controlled committee, acting a few months before a key election.

The cynical strategy behind SSCI 2004 can be summarized as follows: 'if we look ino the CIA's prewar behavior, and find lots of problems, no one will notice that we haven't lifted a finger to look into Bush's prewar behavior.' And for some folks, that strategy works, because righty blogs are packed what probably amounts to thousands of instances of Bushists making the exact same bogus claim that you made.

Silberman-Robb also had no mandate to investigate Bush. Here's how they put it:

Finally, we emphasize two points about the scope of this Commission's charter, particularly with respect to the Iraq question. First, we were not asked to determine whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That was the mandate of the Iraq Survey Group; our mission is to investigate the reasons why the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments were so different from what the Iraq Survey Group found after the war. Second, we were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community. Accordingly, while we interviewed a host of current and former policymakers during the course of our investigation, the purpose of those interviews was to learn about how the Intelligence Community reached and communicated its judgments about Iraq's weapons programs--not to review how policymakers subsequently used that information.

Needless to say, the 9/11 commission and Butler were even further removed from any mandate to investigate "whether public statements, reports, and testimony regarding Iraq by US. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information." Or to investigate "how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community."

So your claim that any/all of these groups "struck down" the claim that Bush lied is simply, itself, a big fat lie. On the contrary. These reports are packed with proof that Bush lied. I described one example, in some detail, here. Of course, in usual wingnut style, you're not lifting a finger to address the substance of what I proved. Likewise for all your pals here. That's because you're empty-handed.

There are some other things you said that I'll deal with later. This is enough for now.

baxter, thanks for posting that nice collection of boilerplate RNC talking points (for a minute I thought I had clicked on gop.com). They are very familiar and very bogus. It's awfully handy to have them all in one place, so they can be demolished at once. Because there are so many, and because I like to be thorough, it will probably take a day or two. But I intend to address them all, time-permitting.

"our intelligence agencies(of which they are never in 100% agreement on anything"

Indeed. Which makes it more obvious that statements like "no doubt" were not supported by the underlying intelligence. Those statements did indeed amount to claiming that the IC was "in 100% agreement" on the subject matter being discussed. When Rice said the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," she was asserting that there was "100% agreement" on this point, within the IC. Trouble is, that claim was very, very far from the truth. The reality is that there was "100% agreement" among our best nuclear scientists that the tubes were for rockets. On the other hand, there was a guy named Joe. And even Joe acknowledged that rockets were a possibility. So Rice's statement wasn't even an honest portrayal of Joe's position.

"the overwhelming majority of assessments supported what the President and members of congress said about Saddam"

What Rice and Cheney said about the tubes was most definitely not a reflection of "the overwhelming majority of assessments" in the IC. Unless you claim that one guy named Joe is an "overwhelming majority." And not even then, because even Joe did not claim what Cheney and Rice claimed.

"France,Germany,and Britain's intelligence agencies"

Thanks for bringing that up. Bush loved quoting UK, provided they agreed with him. Of course there's one very famous example of that. But I bet you don't know that UK didn't go along with Rice's claim, that the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." It's in the Butler report. A part of the Butler report that never gets mentioned:

the purpose for which the tubes were sought was not established … It was clear from an early date that, on the basis of the specifications of the tubes Iraq was seeking to acquire, they would have required substantial re-engineering to make them suitable for gas centrifuge use, including reducing them in length, and machining metal off the inside and outside. This was paradoxical, since Iraq had laid down very fine tolerances for the tubes. … we have no definitive intelligence that the aluminium was destined for a nuclear programme. … There was, from the outset, an alternative explanation available for the aluminium tubes. Their potential for use as rocket motor casings was mentioned in intelligence reporting as early as summer 2001. One of the earliest intelligence reports recorded that Iraq had been seeking tubes of the same precise specification from Switzerland “probably for the Iraqi Air Force”. Other reports also suggested possible conventional military uses for the tubes. Combined with the known engineering obstacles to the use of the tubes as centrifuge rotors, this uncertainty contributed to the JIC’s unwillingness to conclude that the tubes had a definite nuclear application.

Funny how Bush never told us this. Funny how this never gets mentioned. Funny how UK was considered smart about yellowcake and dumb about tubes. It's a terrific example of how Bush cherry-picked.

"the majority of this country thought that Saddam had WMD's"

Yes, because they saw it on tee-vee. Thanks for that incisive observation.

"Saddam never fulfilled his obligations of the cease fire agreement from the first Gulf War"

Bush didn't sell the war just by claiming that "Saddam never fulfilled his obligations of the cease fire agreement from the first Gulf War." That claim alone would not have been enough to make the sale. That's why Bush had to make things up.

"was smuggling in weapons from other countries"

Bush didn't sell the war just by claiming that Saddam "was smuggling in weapons from other countries" That claim alone would not have been enough to make the sale. That's why Bush had to make things up.

"had a workable WMD program that he was going to start up when inspections were done"

Bush didn't sell the war just by claiming that Saddam "had a workable WMD program that he was going to start up when inspections were done." That claim alone would not have been enough to make the sale. That's why Bush had to make things up.

"Saddam had killed more than 600,000 thousand of his own people"

You probably don't realize we've actually found just this many bodies: about 5,000:

only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered

I'm sure Saddam killed more than that. But the issue is that what we actually found is far less than what was promised, just like WMD.

"The fact that Saddam had killed more than 600,000 thousand of his own people with rape,torture,murder,and WMD's does not seem to bother you"

The fact that Reagan and Rummy were giving Saddam lots of help at the exact moment he was doing that "does not seem to bother you."

"hold the west hostage by controlling middle east oil"

English translation: 'greatly expand production, which would drive down the price, which would be very bad for lots of Bush's close friends.' See here. Mission accomplished.

But you are correct that the war was about oil. Both Greenspan and Abizaid have admitted that.

"The fact that the Weapons inspectors … stated that the inspection process was a shame and being subverted by Saddam"

This is what Blix actually said.

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt.

We're not surprised that you're trying so hard to rewrite history, because that's exactly what Bush did. He lied and said this: "he wouldn't let them in."

"he took millions of dollars in bribes from France and Russia with Oil for food program"

I guess you must be thinking of the Oil-for-Food scandal that Bush helped facilitate:

the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them ... the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together ... The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions ... On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.

"Allowing some of the terrorist who committed the first trade center bombing(two were from Iraq),the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking,and Al-Qaeda leader Al Zarqawi safe haven in Iraq"

Can't you find any new talking points? The one's you're using are past their expiration date. Please keep up. Let's talk about Zarqawi for a second. Here's what the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee said about Zarqawi (pdf):

In 2005, the CIA assessed that prior to the war, "the regime did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates." ... [p.92]

Conclusion 5: ... Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. [p. 109]

Also, if you were terribly concerned about "Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before the war" (in a Kurdish enclave outside of Saddam's control), I wonder how you feel about Bush letting him get away (link).

By the way, Rice helps us understand that Zarqawi was in a part of Iraq that Saddam did not control. Rice said this (7/29/01): “But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country."

You're implying another standard talking point, that Iraq had been "a recruiting and training ground for terrorists" (as WSJ put it). Trouble is, even Bush himself suggested otherwise. On 3/13/02, Bush said "we haven't heard much from [bin Laden] ... I truly am not that concerned about him ... He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore." Thanks to Bush's war, now Iraq is exactly such a place (and likewise for both Pakistan and Afghanistan). So Bush's latest rationale for the war is that the war must continue in order to clean up the mess caused by the war. Nice. Mission accomplished. And it makes perfect sense that we should trust the people who made the mess in the first place to be able to do a good job of cleaning it up.

"the terrorist who committed the first trade center bombing(two were from Iraq),the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking"

You're claiming this since some bad people stepped foot in Iraq, that this is proof that Saddam was giving them "safe haven." Maybe you didn't notice that pre-9/11, the hijackers were inside the US. So this means that Bush was giving them "safe haven," right?

"two were from Iraq"

Since you think that's important, I suppose you will be very impressed by the following fact: most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

"paid suicide bomber families $25,000"

If this really concerns you, then you should pay some attention to the Saudi role in financing and encouraging terror. They've provided billions (link, link, pdf). And what they get from Dubya are hugs and kisses. Interesting how that works.

And then there's Musharraf. We've been arming and financing him while he provides OBL with a safe haven the size of New Jersey. So spare us the flaming hypocrisy embodied in a statement like this:

You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror

Yo, sport, I read a couple of your efforts, and then just had to scroll through the rest. As the great songwriter Larry Hart put it:

Johnny could only sing one note
And the note he sang was this:
Ahhhhhh!

Poor Johnny one-note
sang out with gusto
And just overloaded the place

Poor Johnny one-note
yelled willy nilly
Until he was blue in the face

For holding one note was his ace.

Couldn’t hear the brass
Couldn’t hear the drum
He was in a class
By himself, by gum!

I see that robert has already responded. Thanks, robert. ">I see that robert has already responded. Thanks, robert.

Since I'm one of those "GOP liars," my post about Rumsfeld's meeting with Saddam Hussein must be false???

Other than that, what I have I missed in the past 100 posts or so?

Jukebox,

Phase 11 never was implemented because the Democrats only
wanted to use quotes about pre-war intel that Republicans said,not what they said about Saddam.
This is what liberals do,cut and paste.You can't tell the
whole truth because it does not support your "Bush lied"crap.
But since you like to post your cut and paste liberal talking points that have still in no way showed that Bush lied or manipulated intelligence,here are some quotes for you:

"The US intelligence community overstated the threat Saddam
Hussein posed to the United States and used less-than-100
percent credible information to justify the war in Iraq,The Senate intelligence Committee found."

"Before the war, the U.S. intelligence community told the
President,as well as the Congress and the public,that Saddam
Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and if left unchecked,probably would have a nuclear weapon this decade,"Roberts said during the press conference."Well,
today we know these assessments were wrong."

well liberal,did Rockefeller and Roberts come out and say
"Bush lied us into war and we proved it."
NO they didn't did they.

They said the intelligence given to the President and Congress was wrong.

But hey jukebox,just dismiss this along with all of the other facts they have been given to you BDS sufferers over the last 3 years.

" The fact is ,the administration,at all levels and to some extent,us(Congress),used bad information to bolster it's case for war",Rockefeller said.


Damn!!,a leading Democrat,one who said Saddam was an "immediate" threat,said that they received "bad information"
from the intel community, not "Bush lied".
You better get him on the phone jukebox,he is not toting the liberal line there.

But the committee concluded that intelligence analysts
were not pressured to change or tailor their views to support arguments for the invasion of Iraq.

"I think it's important to know that the intelligence they
gave was under their judgment-the right perception,"
Sen. John Corzine,D-NJ.

Damn!! another Democrat saying the intelligence was wrong,
not that "Bush lied".
Get on the phone jukebox,your "Bush lied" is not connecting.But who should we believe,A commission put together to investigate pre-war intel that was used to go to
war,or a blogger putting together a bunch of cut and paste
quotes that his own Democratic led congress can't seem to use to impeach the war monger President Bush for lying.

"The committee found no evidence that the intelligence community's mis-characterization or mis-interpretation "was the result of politics or pressure,"Roberts said."In the end
what the President and the Congress used to send the country to war was info that was provided by the intelligence community and that information was flawed."

Outgoing CIA Director George Tenet has alway maintained that,"no one told us what to say or how to say it."

"In this case,we missed big time on 9/11 and we missed big time in Iraq and the CIA structurally,institutionally,has
to take a lot of blame for that,"former FBI special agent and Oklahoma Gov.Frank Keating.

But state Dept. spokesman Richard Boucher said"The basic case was a correct one.Iraq wanted weapons of mass destruction."

Spin it all you want jukebox,Democrats and Republicans signed off on this report that clearly states that the President and Congress received bad intel.
At no point in this report did anybody go on record showing that the President lied or manipulated pre-war
intelligence.(Outside the room to appease their useful idiots democrats made all kinds of remarks,but nothing they
could back up as usual.).

Once again liberal,if you are so right,why did your Democratic leaders who control Congress make one of their first statements to the effect: "Impeachment is off the table."
Either your liberal heroes in Congress are just as guilty as President Bush or President Bush is not guilty of all the
crimes that you and the rest of your flock profess.

If liberals were so serious about getting to the truth and
punishing those who have committed these crimes,than they should be demanding punishment for "ALL" of the people guilty of these crimes.
Just going after Bush/Cheney exposes liberals for the political hacks and hypercrites that they are.

Jukebox,

So some of the world's most lethal terrorist just happen to be in state run house's in Iraq and Saddam knows nothing about it.He also has no control over the kurdish region in the north that also happens to be where he killed tens of thousands of men,women and children(if you don't like these numbers tell it to the UN) with WMD's,and cutting off water and other supplies.
It appears Jukebox and Baghdad Bob are one and the same.

The CIA and many Democrats and Republicans saw the relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda a bit differently before the Iraq war became a political tool.

"Sir,let me just take a few minutes because you raised a number of important points.Let me put this poisons and gas
thing in some context because aren't-there are 116 people in jail in France,in Spain,in Italy,and in the Great Britian wh received training and guidance out of a network run by an individual(Zarqawi)who is sitting in Baghdad today and supported by two dozen of his associates.Now that is something for the American people to also understand. Iraq
has provided a safe haven in a permissive environment for these people to operate.And the other things that are very compelling to us are-just so I can close the loop on this issue is-we also know from very reliable information that there's been some transfers,training in chemical and biologicals from the Iraqis to Al-Qaeda.So we're already in this mix in a way that's very,very important for us to worry about how far it goes."
George Tenet speaking to Sen.Ted Kennedy

"Close Al-Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational
alliance with Iraqi officials.As of Oct.2002,Al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives,including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad."
"Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a US occupation of the city,suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months.Such cooperation could include IIS
provision of secure operating bases and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible US invasion"
Feb.21,2003 Feith memo
Now where would the president ever get the idea that Saddam
had ties to terrorist like Al-Qaeda?
Apparently the CIA and the FBI.

"He(Zarqawi) is a senior Al-Qaeda associate who has met with Bin Laden,who has received money from Al-Qaeda leadership,and on my list of top 30 individuals that are required to decapitate and denigrate this organization,Mr. Zarqawi's on that list.The fact is that he is a contract terrorist where he does things on his own-but he has an intimate relationship with him and we classify him as a senior Al-Qaeda associate well known to all of them."
George Tenet,testimony to Senate

"At the time,the intelligence community at the highest level
repeatedly assurd us that "it never gets better than this"
in terms of confidence in an intelligence conclusion regarding a hard target.There was good reason for this confidence,including multiple,reinforcing elements of information ranging form links that the organization that built the facility had BOTH WITH BIN LADEN AND WITH THE LEADERSHIP OF THE IRAQI CHEMICALS WEAPONS PROGRAM;extraordainary security when the facility was constructed;physical evidence form the site;and other information from HUMINT and technical sources.Given what we knew regarding terrorists interest in acquiring and using chemical weapons against Americans,and given the intelligence assessment provided us regarding the al-Shifa facility,I continue to believe that destroying it was the right decision."
Secretary of Defense Cohen testimony to the 9/11 commission.
I guess Bush tricked him too.

"Al-Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that Al-Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects,specifically including weapons development,Al-Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
Bill Clinton

Bush must have tricked him all the way from Texas.

"tried to reach a sort of agreement where they wouldn't work against each other-sort of the enemy of my enemy is my friend-and that there were indications that within Sudan when al-Qaeda was there,which al-Qaeda left in the summer of 96,or the spring of 96,there were efforts to work on jointly acquiring weapons"
Patrick fitzgerald testimony before the
9/11 commission(Mahmud Salim statement)

"Yeah,I would like to consult my notes just to be sure that what I have to say is stated clearly and correctly.We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq.In fact,Al-shifa officials,early in the company's history,we believe were in touch with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program."
Thomas Pickering,undersecretary of State
August 24,1998.

According to 9/11 commission co-chairman Thomas Kean,Clinton believed with "absolute certainty" that Iraq provided Al-Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction expertise
and technology in the 1990s.He believed it as President when he ordered the destruction of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan,and he believes it now.And it's not just Mr.Clinton.According to Mr.Kean,"top officials-Bill Clinton,Sandy Berger and others-told us with absolute certainty that there were chemical weapons of mass destruction at that factory and that's why we sent missiles"

jukebox,I guess Clinton lied and people died right.
Chicken hawk Clinton committed an act of war using
intelligence that stated Al-Qaeda and Iraq working
together on WMDs.
My fault,Clinton is a Democrat so this is all about
national security and protecting America.He gets a pass
from just like his illegal war in Bosnia.

"Iraq continues to be a safehaven,transit point,or operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the US,Israel,and other allies.Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism.During the last four decades,it has altered its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals.It continues to harbor and sustain a number of smaller anti-Israel terrorist groups and to actively encourage violence against Israel.Regarding the Iraq-Al-Qaeda relationship,reporting from sources of varying credibility points to a number of contacts,incidents of training,and discussions of Iraqi safehaven for Osama bin Laden and his organization dating from the early 1990's."

Senate report,2003 Iraqi support for terrorism

Still can't figure out why Bush will never be impeached
jukebox,there is plenty more evidence of Democrats and
our intelligence agencies carrying on about
Saddam/Al-Qaeda.

And all along, I thought Clinton did *NOTHING* to fight terrorism! I'm glad to have that canard laid to rest.

Grover,

Never said Clinton was right,just showing along with Ace earlier that his administration came to the same conclusions about Saddam's WMD's and ties to Al-Qaeda based on the intelligence that he received,that the Bush administration came to when they were confronted with taking action against
Saddam.Going to war with Iraq was made possible because the
President,Democrats,Republicans,and our intelligence agencies viewed Iraq as a threat that could no longer be ignored.
Bush is called a liar and war monger while Clinton is praised for his actions against the terrorist.

Simply showing the pathetic hypocrisy of liberals concerning Saddam and his terrorist regime.

I supported Clintons actions in Bosnia(was disgusted with the bogus "wag the dog" crap and did not support his impeachment),but this war was not approved by the UN.Liberals whine and cry about Bush's illegal war because it was not approved by the UN.I want to know why Clinton was called a liberator for Bosnia(did Bosnia attack the US?) but Bush is called a war criminal for Iraq.

"I want to know why Clinton was called a liberator for Bosnia(did Bosnia attack the US?) but Bush is called a war criminal for Iraq."

I might add that there might be questions of *scale* and *execution* here. And I would question Clinton's intervention in Bosnia as "illegal."

Hey Johnny - how do you know I'm talking about you?

But seriously folks -

Will someone please give me an explanation of WHY Bush would want to go to war. Keep it short please.

All the other blather on this long long thread has no meaning for me.

Donald K.
To keep it short would be to miss the point(s), giving you an opportunity to pretend there are none.
Been there, done that, don't fall for it no more.

ruchard: "To keep it short would be to miss the point"

I did keep it short, and you're still going to pretend to "miss the point." So you're being totally incoherent, as usual.

If you do have some kind of a point, maybe you can find someone help you express it in a manner that's slightly less opaque.

Baxter, I'd also take issue with your citations about AQ in Iraq. Abu Abbas was not associated with AQ, as far as I know. You seem ready to take Hussein's word that Nidal shot himself "four times in the head." Where Bagdhad's sudden credibility coms from, I don't know, but no less an authority than Jane's contends that Hussein had him murdered. As for Yasin, who sent him back to Iraq? We did. Finally, the Al Shifa link to AQ is far from a settled matter, and never has been--again, as far as I know. You might feel the proof is definitive, but I don't think it is.

But let's step back and look at the bigger picture. Was Saddam involved in the 9/11 attacks? No. As of 2001, was he so closely allied with AQ that it was worth abandoning pursuit of AQ in other sreas to seek them out in Iraq? Was Saddam poised to supply AQ with weapons and the means to continue attacking the US? You may answer yes to these things, but viewed in the larger context of the WOT, I think there's room for dispute as to what the best policy might have been.

juke.
There's a way to indicate what, exactly, you're talking about. Learn it.

But to explain myself, and my comment:
Even a list of short sentences, one for each reason Bush wanted to go into Iraq would be long. Too long for Donald, whereupon he sneers what was said before the war, "make up your mind and pick one" which was the comment before WMD were picked as the primary reason. There were so many reasons that it looked, to the snarkers, like an opportunity for obfuscation, which they took.
Then it was "only" the WMD, as far as the snarkers were concerned, after the WMD couldn't be found, which was convenient if not exactly true.
And if each point is argued, or contested, the thing gets even longer.
And Donald, under no compunction to accept actual facts, is under no compunction to argue in good faith.
Thus, his request is in extremely bad faith.
I used to fall for this, but that was decades ago.

jukeboxgrad's incisive comment to one of the more common-sense posters here: "gibberish". Very persuasive [/s]. And jbg's response to my post way upthread:

"that just demonstrates that you're a moron."

If that's how jbg argues, then of course, I suppose I should reply something like this:

When I'm reading the always venomous anti-American comments spewed by the admitted Chickenhawk jukeboxgrad and his handful of America-hating ilk, I *snicker* out loud.

Why? Because George W. Bush is President of the United States - and there is nothing that the obviously impotent jbg or any other libtard can do about it. Nothing. As for GW Bush? He's still *smirking* at folks on the losing side like jbg. Because GW Bush is our [forever unimpeached] President. And all the libs' wet dreams about impeaching him are going absolutely nowhere [unlike the formally impeached - for lying under oath - WJ Clinton].


heh

smokey: "And jbg's response to my post way upthread:
'that just demonstrates that you're a moron.' "

Is that supposed to be some kind of a joke? You seem to be claiming I wrote those words. I didn't. I quoted them.

"If that's how jbg argues, then of course, I suppose I should reply something like this"

What you're making clear is that the way smokey argues is via brazenly dishonest quoting. Then again, you might be making a mistake. Please let us know.

"As for GW Bush? He's still *smirking* at folks on the losing side like jbg"

It would be hard to find a more vivid demonstration of a core GOP attitude: being truthful or obeying the law is not what counts. All that counts is whether or not you can get away with it.