In today's Washington Post, George McGovern joins the ranks of those calling for the impeachment of President Bush.
As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I have belatedly and painfully concluded that the only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president.Setting aside the arguments for and against impeaching President Bush, McGovern is seriously misrepresenting his position on the Nixon impeachment proceedings. According to these news stories, for example, McGovern called for impeaching President Nixon in a speech in Richmond, VA in OctoberAfter the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign. I thought that my joining the impeachment effort would be seen as an expression of personal vengeance toward the president who had defeated me.
Today I have made a different choice.
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.
It is also worth noting that McGovern is not a new convert to the pro-impeachment position. In this article from last March McGovern is quoted saying that "Bush is much more impeachable than Richard Nixon was. That's been clear for some time."
If George McGovern wants to make the case for impeaching the President, so be it. But he should make his case without misrepresenting the historical record.
[NOTE: Several readers of The Corner contributed information used in this post.]
[NOTE: I've corrected the year of the McGovern speech noted above.]
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.
1. [T]he Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms..
Excuse me. When did the Administration ever state that Saddam had nuclear weapons? Not, mind you, a nuclear weapons program. But nuclear weapons?
And Cheney's mis-statement with Tim Russert doesn't count.
Repeatedly?
2. McGovern wrote that the "Bush-Cheney team" (team?) claimed that these weapons:
"...were an "imminent threat" to the United States."
When did Bush claim that the threat was "imminent"?
This is embarassing Senator. Also for the Post to publish it.
Lots of criticism - deep, substantive - can be made against this Administration.
The Senator didn't deliver any of it.
Bush specifically said the threat was NOT imminent; his point being, if you wait until the threat is imminent, it's too late.
Come on Jonathan. You can do better than this sort of slime.
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.
But this piece he wrote (or he signed off on) is just awful. I'm curious as to whether he submitted it to the Post; or whether the Post asked him for it.
In either case, someone should have said no.
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.
As the thread proves, one could argue either way what McGovern meant. Since that is the case it really isn't lying and McGovern goes on to up his attempts to create a non-partisan face. Clinton is doing much the same and it works.
McGovern said:
?
JHA
Compared to whom?
The administration also led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks -- another blatant falsehood.
I don't think it ever said anything like that.
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?
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.
Here are some relevant statements, in chronological order.
Rumsfeld, 9/19/02:
Bush, 10/7/02:
10/16/02:
1/26/03:
Perle, 2/12/03:
5/7/03:
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:
3/14/04:
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):
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.
Actually, it does count, because Cheney waited about six months before getting around to mentioning that he "did misspeak." That's a bit slow, and it tends to create the impression that he was perfectly happy to let people take his statement seriously.
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."
I don't have time to look up these stories, but they should be easy to find. The OCR used for full text searches misses a lot, but you can browse the newspapers online if a word search doesn't work.
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.
You can look it up.
If Bush wasn't President our allies wouldn't be fighting with each other.
Not that tired talking point again?!
See Virginia Postrel's "License to Grill. How the Clintons invited Ken Starr into their private lives." (Reason, April 1998).
McGovern's call is proof that age does not give everyone wisdom.
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.
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.
To me eye, the initial replies to this post questioned the factual accuracy of McGovern's piece in a number of areas. Then jukeboxgrad referred to a number of statements which resolved one area of questioning, whether Bush ever said threats from Iraq were "imminent". Bush and his adminstrators apparently said so on many separate occasions. This particular aspect of McGovern's piece appears to be factually accurate.
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)
The text of the indictment is online at http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
"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"
"The Grand Jury document, which usually does not provide a great amount
of details in advance of a prosecution, also stated that Bin Laden and
"others" tried to develop chemical weapons and attempted to obtain
nuclear weapons components in 1993."
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.
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.
A lot, including expressions of "absolute certainty." Yes, you "haven't looked into this deeply enough."
"A U.S. Federal Grand Jury in New York on Nov. 5 [1998] issued an indictment against Usama Bin Laden"
Thanks for providing this excellent chance to demonstrate how the GOP is packed with liars.
Yes, it's true that on 11/6/98, US prosecutor Fitzgerald issued an indictment that said this:
You're hoping we won't notice that Fitzgerald later withdrew that claim. The original indictment was superceded by a later indictment, the one actually used at trial (pdf), which replaced the above language with this:
The claim about an alliance with Iraq was dropped, because Fitzgerald realized it was not a solid claim. He discussed this in testimony before the 9/11 commission on 6/14/04 (transcript):
This process (where Fitz dropped the language regarding OBL and Saddam) was summarized by Pincus in WP on 6/17/04:
(Emphasis added.) In other words, Fielding did what you did: he tried to make a fuss about the sentence in the earlier indictment, which involved pretending he didn't know that this sentence was dropped from the actual trial indictment. And speaking of partisan hacks who lie shamelessly, Andrew McCarthy did the exact same maneuver, here. And NRO did the exact same maneuver, here. This is a perfect case study in how the GOP is packed with liars, from top to bottom.
By the way, the first indictment is what the 9/11 commission report (pdf) described as "the original sealed indictment" (p. 128). They described it this way to differentiate it from the later indictment (the trial indictment).
By the way, the OBL/Saddam connection was entirely disavowed by a Republican-controlled committee which said (in 2006, pdf) that "Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qa’ida."
It's interesting to watch how the allegation has steadily shrunk, over time. It's also interesting to watch how folks like you fraudulently flog something Fitz said in 1998, even though what he said was later disavowed by Fitz himself and a Republican senate.
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?
I love watching you simpletons play this game.
Did Bush ever, in any instance, say "imminent threat"?
No.
If these were "lies" how do you explain this?
You realize he sits on the SSCI, right?
By Democrats and by President Clinton.
Facts are a bitch, aren't they?
You're being quite careless, with regard to precisely what I've claimed is a lie. Please read what I wrote subsequently.
"it is not as if Bush was a fool to believe that -- everyone did, including the previous administration"
Obviously there's a need for more remedial history. 1998 is not 2002. Things changed. That’s reflected in what Powell and Rice said in 2001.
Subsequent to Operation Desert Fox, we became confident that Saddam was not much of a threat. This is what Powell said (2/24/01): “[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors” (video, text).
On 5/15/01, Powell said that Saddam had not been able to “build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction” for “the last 10 years.” Powell said we had succeeded in keeping Saddam “in a box.”
And this is what Rice said (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. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
And even Cheney said essentially the same thing, in a moment of uncharacteristic honesty: "the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point."
It’s pretty clear that Bush is in a lot of trouble when the best you can do to defend him is say what boils down to this: Clinton’s people thought Saddam was a serious threat in 1998, so it was OK for Bush to exaggerate the threat in 2002, even though his own people knew Saddam had become significantly weaker, not stronger, since 1998.
"The most logical inference was that he had something to hide."
Uh, no. The most logical inference was that he had an interest in trying to prevent internal and regional enemies from finding out how toothless he was. Duh.
And Bush didn't say his WMD knowledge was a matter of "logical inference." He said it was a matter of "absolute certainty."
"Bush … acted only after Saddam thumbed his nose at us. Bush did not lie to get us into a war; Saddam forced us into it."
Yes, he "forced us into it" by finally cooperating with inspections. And then Bush lied about this: "he wouldn't let them in." It was Bush who chased the inspectors out, not Saddam.
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.
More Edwards,
Good times.
Don't ever bring an unloaded firearm to a gunfight.
Complete and utter lie. The United States never, ever, gave Saddam any weapons.
The most logical inference you would draw from a refusal to allow weapons inspections is that there were no weapons at all? I am quite glad that our leaders are not inclined to be so reckless.
Saddam's motivation may well have been to conceal the sorry state of his military might. That doesn't mean we would have been right to infer that motive, let alone use it to guide our policy.
How is that? This seems fairly clear to me -- i.e., that the statements you quoted were, in your opinion, lies b/c they were not supported by the underlying intel:
---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
That's a real logical approach you got going there to US foreign policy. Don't take people at their word or judge their actions, draw "(ill)logical inferences" dammit!
McGovern '08 - "peace through surrender and logical inference"!!!!
He had served as SecDef from 1975 to 1977 and was Chairman of G.D. Searle from 1977 to 1985. Rumsfeld remained in private business until become SecDef again in 2001.
For someone who claims to want to put forth nothing but the true historical record, Jukeboxgrad should be accurate himself.
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.
Go back to sleep, George.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Soon thereafter, Donald Rumsfeld (who had served in various positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including as President Ford's defense secretary, and at this time headed the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle &Co.) was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting [Document 31].
Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests." Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration's "willingness to do more" regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but "made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights." He then moved on to other U.S. concerns [Document 32]. Later, Rumsfeld was assured by the U.S. interests section that Iraq's leadership had been "extremely pleased" with the visit, and that "Tariq Aziz had gone out of his way to praise Rumsfeld as a person" [Document 36 and Document 37].
Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad in late March 1984. By this time, the U.S. had publicly condemned Iraq's chemical weapons use, stating, "The United States has concluded that the available evidence substantiates Iran's charges that Iraq used chemical weapons"
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?
None of which supports the contention that the US gave Saddam "cluster bombs."
Sure, but that did not happen.
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.
Edwards &Rockefeller were on the SSCI. Hillary! claimed to be a know it all because of her husband. And her husband stated flatly that "it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
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.
That link is bad. One that works is here. Sorry about that.
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."
I love watching you simpletons play this game. No, there is no record, as far as I know, of Bush personally saying those exact words. Trouble is, he has a lot of other people speaking for him, and they indeed said either those words, or words essentially indistinguishable from those words. And he personally said very similar words. It's highly Clintonesque of you to suggest that there's a big difference between calling a threat "imminent," as compared with calling it "grave" and "urgent." Those are words used personally by Bush.
Anyway, here's an interesting example of the same game, in reverse. Did Gore ever, in any instance, say he "invented" the internet?
"Jay Rockefeller"
You get a cookie, because that quote from him ("unmistakable evidence") is the only example I've ever been able to find of anyone other than Bush et al expressing that level of certainty. Which is why the word "almost" appears in what I wrote above ("statements like this went beyond what almost anyone else had been saying").
Anyway, this proves only that Rockefeller is an idiot. There's lots of other proof, too. It would be nice if we had a two party system.
"it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
Sorry, but keep trying. First of all, "the day I left office" is more than two years pre-invasion. Things change, as I demonstrated here. And making a claim about "unaccounted for stocks" is not the same thing as asserting that we know for sure that something is there (which is what Bush did). It's simply a claim that we don't know. That's what "unaccounted for" means.
"No. I didn’t get misled. "
I don't give Edwards a pass for that. It's an idiotic statement.
"Facts are a bitch, aren't they?"
Indeed. That's why I'm hoping you'll bring some that actually matter.
"The United States never, ever, gave Saddam any weapons."
Wrong. The facts are here. Also see here and here. When you don't even lift a finger to present contrary evidence, you sound like Baghdad Bob.
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.
Nice job with the straw man. Indicate where I or anyone else has suggested that it was reasonable to believe that "there were no weapons at all."
"Saddam's motivation may well have been to conceal the sorry state of his military might. That doesn't mean we would have been right to infer that motive, let alone use it to guide our policy."
Understanding the motives of your enemy is a fundamental aspect of any strategic enterprise. If we failed to take this motive of his into account, there are only two possible explanations. We were either profoundly foolish, or we had a political interest in sweeping that motive under the rug. Choose your poison.
"This seems fairly clear to me -- i.e., that the statements you quoted were, in your opinion, lies b/c they were not supported by the underlying intel"
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough before. I apologize for saying you were careless. The mistake was mine.
The statements that were most clearly lies are the statements that expressed "absolute certainty." I quoted a bunch of other statements on the subject of "imminent threat." Yes, those statements were also lies, because they did not honestly summarize the underlying intel. But it's murkier, because a word like "imminent" is somewhat subjective. Anyway, I posted those quotes regarding "imminent threat" not so much for the purpose of showing examples of lies, but for the purpose of knocking down the false claim that Bush et al never said "imminent threat."
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:
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.
Don't you find it the least bit odd that you have presented at most one example of a Democrat "saying the exact same things?" And even that is quite a stretch, because what Bush told us was there is this:
Show us the Democrat who said that.
By the way, all the claims listed above, including all the numbers cited, came out of either Bush's mouth or Powell's mouth, or possibly both. Very detailed further analysis is here and here.
It's quite surprising that we haven't found that stuff, since Rumsfeld said he knew where it was:
Of course the lovely thing about Rumsfeld is that he later told a blatant lie and claimed he never said that.
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).
Read:
(Emphasis added.) This is referenced generally in the article I already cited.
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.
And then what? You'll say "things change"?
This is like watching a monkey spittle all over itself.
Reason 4,218 it's no longer worth responding to you.
You're simply chaging words to suit your silly agenda.
And in the next passage said this:
Referring to your non-point.
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 didn't provide "one example" there are dozens.
"
Same day,
The essence of lies here are the ones you're telling.
Finally, George "slam dunk" Tenent disagrees with you.
I distorted no context.
Example:
"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."
---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.
"None of which supports the contention that the US gave Saddam 'cluster bombs"
Silly leftist:
Proof that the US gave Iraq weapons?
None.
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?
Yes, in 1999, there was a vague report along those lines. There were all sorts of vague reports, including reports contrary to that.
In 2006, the Senate Intelligence Committee (when it was still controlled by Republicans) published their overall assessment of those various reports (pdf):
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.
Are you so dumb that you don't grasp what I said, or are you so dishonest that you are pretending not to grasp what I said?
Bush expressed "absolute certainty." With the possible exception of Rockefeller, no one else did.
Bush said Saddam had this:
We're still waiting for you to tell us about the Democrat who said that.
"The essence of lies here are the ones you're telling."
We'll be waiting patiently for you to show proof that I've told a lie. And speaking of lies, you said this: "The United States never, ever, gave Saddam any weapons." I've proven that you're wrong. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this tends to create the impression that you were lying, and not just making a mistake.
"George 'slam dunk' Tenent disagrees with you."
It would help if you were more specific. What Tenet said varied depending on which way the wind was blowing. I guess that's why Bush gave him a medal.
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.
The Butler report proves only that Bush has a friend in Blair and Blair has a friend in Butler. The "several different sources" in Butler all trace back to the forged documents. It's quite entertaining to note how the Butler report gets quoted constantly and the Silberman-Robb report is ignored. S-R said this:
In other words, according to S-R, the idea of yellowcake from Africa was "based largely" on the forged documents. And without those documents, "there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Iraq had recently sought uranium from Africa." In other words, S-R didn't take Butler very seriously, and neither should anyone else.
We had verbatim text of those documents in 2/02. The verbatim text was enough to reveal that they were forgeries. Nevertheless, we spent more than a year pretending they were genuine. This has never been properly investigated or explained.