erf

Go figure! Just when Bush appears in deep doodoo over his military record with the mainstream media, an "impending media frenzy" on Kerry's supposed sexual life is ordered. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-11-bush-guard-usat_x.htm If anyone had any doubts about what Drudge is about, this ought to help. Things are decidedly going to pot for the Bushies.

Excellent link

Hey tele_nut, Just imagine, I was falling asleep on the couch when suddenly an unresolved issue came up. How come the guys in uniform are not supposed to express any bad feelings they may have about the current venture, yet they seem to have all the leeway they need if they feel like spewing in support of it? I am genuinely interested in your response.

"Your example of the yellow cake is one that it appears to have been twisted. Keep in mind though, the Italians came to the Bushies after the US envoy arrived at his conclusions and challenged the earlier conclusions." http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_10_26.html "Let’s put another piece of the uranium forgeries puzzle down on the table. This time the issue is timing. First, we already know that in the first couple days of October 2002 Italian journalist Elisabetta Burba got a call from an Italian businessman and security consultant, a source for an earlier story, telling her that he had some documents she’d be interested in seeing. She met with the source in person on October 7th in a bar in Rome. But on seeing the documents Burba had questions from the start. The next day she brought the documents and her concerns to a meeting with her editors at Panorama. Burba then proposed a fact-finding trip to Niger to investigate the document's authenticity. But the Editor-in-Chief of Burba’s magazine insisted she take the documents to the American Embassy in Rome to have them verified. That man is Carlo Rossella, a man who is, in Sy Hersh’s words, “known for his ties to the Berlusconi government.” (Keep in mind that the magazine itself is owned by Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi and that he is a staunch supporter of President Bush’s Iraq policy.) Rossella described his suggestion thusly to the Italian daily Corriere della Sera ... When Burba showed me the documents she had received from a source of hers, she also explained to me that she had many doubts as to their authenticity. I told her to run all the checks she deemed necessary, and I also suggested the possibility of getting an evaluation directly from the United States ... I knew perfectly well that that material could prove an extraordinary scoop, and therefore I personally called the press office and informed them about what was happening. I suggested delivering them a copy of the dossier in order to have their assessment. When asked why he didn't have the documents run by private or government experts in Italy he said ... Because I believed that the only ones able to give us a correct evaluation were the Americans, who for years have been dealing with Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. My objective was exclusively that of not publishing a "poisoned chalice," rather than of informing the United States. The next day, October 9th, in a meeting arranged by Rosella, Burba handed over copies of the dossier to the American Embassy in Rome. They were then forwarded to Washington. According to several accounts, they were immediately recognized as fakes by analysts at the CIA and the State Department. But that didn't stop their life in the US national security bureaucracy. Now, those documents turn out to have been amazingly well-timed. Why? Let’s look at what else was happening while these events were unfolding in Rome. Through the first weeks of September senior members of the Bush administration began a major press offensive alleging that Saddam Hussein had a robust nuclear weapons program. This was done in close coordination with British PM Tony Blair. On September 24th Blair published his Iraq dossier which said, among other things, that “there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The British dossier was intended to convince skeptics in the UK but also to provide grist for the debate in the United States. The dossier, in fact, was the predicate for a major speech President Bush intended to give on October 7th in Cincinnati, one calling attention to the Niger uranium story. But there were problems. And they cropped up rapidly. As early as September 28th the BBC had begun investigating leaks from the British national security establishment claiming that the dossier was based on hyped intelligence. There were problems too from the IAEA. Immediately after Blair’s presentation in the House of Commons the IAEA insisted that the claims about nuclear activities were unsubstantiated and demanded whatever evidence the US or the UK might have to back them up. Nothing was forthcoming. Most important in the US, there were problems from the CIA. Behind the scenes in the US, a battle royale was shaping up over whether the president should be allowed to repeat the uranium from Africa claims in his Cincinnati speech. On October 1st, US intelligence agencies released a top-secret NIE to the White House and Congress. The NIE mentions the Niger reports as well as claims about attempts to purchase uranium in Somalia and Congo. The only doubts were raised in a footnote noting the State Department’s skepticism. But despite the NIE, the CIA clearly had grave concerns about the accuracy of the Niger story. And pretty much from the moment Blair released the dossier there was a wrestling match between the White House and the CIA over whether the president should publicly refer to the Niger uranium story in his speech. The struggle culminated in the two days (October 5th & 6th) before the president traveled to Ohio when the CIA sent two separate top-secret memos to the president’s staff insisting that the references be removed from the speech. Fearing that that hadn’t done the trick, CIA Director George Tenet personally telephoned Deputy National Security Adviser Steve Hadley insisting that the references to uranium sales based on the British dossier be removed from the speech, which they were. Now, I know there are a lot of dates and personages in the mix here and we’ll be adding some more in subsequent posts. But consider the progression of events… The US and UK start a major roll-out on the nuclear claims. But the response is generally disappointing. There’s major push-back from the IAEA and, secretly in the US, from the CIA. It was precisely at this moment (in the last days of September and the first of October) that the advocates of the Niger story were most in need of some new evidence. And it was precisely at this moment when the new evidence --- at first seemingly incontrovertible --- popped up in Rome. And the day after the reporter gets the docs the Editor-in-Chief of her magazine instructs her to take them to the American Embassy. And remember too that it wasn’t publicly known at the time that Niger was the country in question."

One of those, hey Rodchester? So, are you saying that the French foreign ministry would lie about what their intel services tell them but we would never do so? Too funny. Until you provide evidence supporting your claim that "there is nothing gray about the assessments" of intel services all over the world, it's not worth the paper ...

"FRENCH-GERMAN-RUSSIAN MEMORANDUM ON CONTINUING INSPECTIONS IN IRAQ FRANCE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS February 24, 2003 1 - Full and effective disarmament in accordance with the relevant UNSC resolutions remains the imperative objective of the international community. Our priority should be to achieve this peacefully through the inspection regime. The military option should only be a last resort. So far, the conditions for using force against Iraq are not fulfilled: - While suspicions remain, no evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field;" http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/Index_France.htm

Have you seen their assessments? How much do intel agencies feed info to one another?

Right Jim. Especially since weapons inspectors surveyed every single site pointed at by said intel prior to the war and they did not find anything. It's called faith-based intelligence. I am sure you realize the spin is not directed at those who use half of their brain. As far as they are concerned, if you actually use half your brain you are not part of their constituency so it does need to hold any water. Just read the headlines, and you'll feel a lot better.

Rodchester: You have at least indirectly answered one of my questions, you are playing stupid. I won't bother to rebutt your backpedaling and playing word games. Fortunately, anyone so enclined can backtrack, check on your assertions and context. Then they should be able to assess the semantics games and funny emoticons for what they are worth. Of course, why anyone should feel compelled to do so is not obvious, I personally would not bother. Since you have not yet answered (repeatedly) my other question, I'll assume you think it sensible to be supporting dictators/repressive regimes in some part of the world (Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Columbia, Pakistan, etc ..) and at the same time take it at face value when Bush declares that we went to Iraq to foster democracy (note that we haven't even yet discussed whether our present actions in Iraq further democracy). It is apparently okay with you to comment on the statements coming from the Bush administration about "errors committed in the past" without checking if they are consistent with the actual policies they are promoting. This sounds pretty familiar, I'll bet you call yourself middle of the road. I also suspect, you'll now claim that you never said anything that I said you said. That law education of yours, comes in handy, doesn't it?

"I am not partisan, I am objective, I am in the middle" "And intel was wrong then too" "One could say that stability is still the goal, but instead of short-term fixes (dictators) they are now looking long-term by using democracy to create stability" "to paint Bush's intentions to hopefully one day bring some form of democracy to the region as evil is, well, let's just say an interesting brush stroke" You crack me up!

Are you playing stupid? You said: "One could say that stability is still the goal, but instead of short-term fixes (dictators) they are now looking long-term by using democracy to create stability" I'll make the 'simple simon assumption' that you understand the meaning of what you wrote. Sooo, in the countries mentioned, are we promoting democracy or are we supporting dictatorships/repressive governments for the sake of our policy goals? You have now both stated that the Iraq mess is due to bad intel, and that it was wrong to think that Bush's intent was not to further democracy in Iraq. I am sure that Bush loves non-cheerleaders like you.

"And intel was wrong then too" Trying to give a pass to Bush by insinuating that bad intel was the problem .... but noooo, you are no cheerleader. War is peace

"One could say that stability is still the goal, but instead of short-term fixes (dictators) they are now looking long-term by using democracy to create stability" Like in Azerbaijan? Widespread Arrests, Torture and Beatings Follow Fraudulent Elections Human Rights Watch expressed disappointment about the often muted and contradictory messages expressed by foreign governments and election-monitoring missions in the aftermath of the presidential election. For example, the U.S. government initially congratulated Ilham Aliev on his victory, then offered a statement of concern about the abuses, and ultimately resorted to silence about the situation during U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s visit to Azerbaijan in December. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/01/23/azerba6992.htm or in Uzbekistan? http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/rights/articles/eav011403.shtml or in Afghanistan? http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/07/afghan072903.htm or is it Columbia? Colombia: Flawed Certification Squanders U.S. Leverage U.S. Aid Released Despite Evidence of Colombia’s Failure to Meet Conditions http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/01/23/colomb6990.htm or Pakistan? etc ... We said actions, not words. Are you sure you understand the difference?

"stability" is a convenient euphemism for "conform with US interest" And what makes you think it is any different now? You must surely think so since you are giving Bush the benefit of the doubt ....

You want to play squirmy with me? okay, i'll play along this once. This is what you said: "I am a student of law, National Security Policy, military history, and my favorite topic, nations. I actually hold degrees in National Security (focused in nations) and law." So what does it make you if not some kind of political scientist? You mentioned possible failure after the fact (god forbid that we may not even be trying). You don't mention failure anywhere in post #307892, which initiated this exchange (fact picked up by Mattp as well). We could also wait for 10 years of occupation and see what opportunities iraqis have to determine their own political system and economy but I'd rather give them the opportunity, yesterday, before everything is set in stone according to our agenda and their resources squandered. You mean, we started relating to Iraq a year ago or that our current actions favor democracy (freedom of the press, elections, etc ...)? Are you saying we have no history in the Middle East. I ought to suggest some different reading material for you. Sure let's wait for Bush to hand the pieces to his croonies and big business, that will be a sound basis for 'democracy'. Actually let's give Bush another four years so that we can invade Syria and whatnot. Did you formulate any other possibility than taking Bush's statement at face value? no. Did you suggest that not believing his stated intent was wrong? yes. I think, 'strictly' is pretty applicable. I am glad I can help you identify yourself as a Bush apologist. Don't mention it, you are welcome. If saying that Bush is lying about establishing democracy in Iraq is a "simple simon assumption" what does giving him the benefit of the doubt amounts to in light of his record, and our continued meddling with Middle East politics? You make me think of the "liberal media", regurgitate the party line without critical analysis and present it as 'objective'

Now, now, remember, you are supposed to be the political scientist; somehow 50+ years of meddling in the Middle East does not even enter into consideration when you assess the chance that our actions in Iraq are to further democracy. It seems to be a common trait of people who claim the mantle of objectivity to ignore history. Feel free to offer any available supporting evidence past or present that we are in Iraq to establish democracy (in our actions not words) And yes, it is very simple. Your comment to the effect that Bush's statement is to be taken strictly at face value is at best an exhibition of lack of critical thinking and at worse regurgitation of the party line (note: the result is the same). Now if you feel that I am misrepresenting what you said, you should explain how that is so. Just asserting it won't do.

Nation building could not have been the primary motive for intervention: the public as well as traditional conservatives would not have gone for it. Rattling the "unique and urgent" threat gizmo was the only way it could fly. Taking democracy to iraqis only became the priority when there were no WMD to be found and imminent danger turned out to be a lie. i.e. 'bait and switch'

"The fact that this goal has been stated, and continues to be stated, has nothing to do with whether or not I, or anyone for that matter, is a supporter of the war or of Bush. It is a fact that it is the Administration’s stated intention. Now, whether or not it succeeds or whether or not that was just a lie remains to be seen. I cannot understand how you extrapolate that this makes me a Bush cheerleader." Very simple, here: "But to paint Bush's intentions to hopefully one day bring some form of democracy to the region as evil is, well,let's just say an interesting brush stroke". You are plainly suggesting that Bush's intent are to be taken at face value and certainly not lies. Or is it that, like Peter Puget you have you own special dictionary that nobody knows you are using? "I take it this is a politically partisan discussion for you?" And what are you? a political scientist who does not do politics?

We went there for the WMD, but we could not find any! ... bait and switch ... We went there to give them democracy but "they were not ready for it" (read "they would have elected the wrong guy") What next? Note: From the get go we were told this would happen. Why did not we listen?

"But to paint Bush's intentions to hopefully one day bring some form of democracy to the region as evil is, well, let's just say an interesting brush stroke." If you don't want to pass for a Bush cheerleader, you'll have to do better than this.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse." Where is the puking graemlin when you need it most?

A little refresher about how it went down (for those among us with poor memory) and the role played by the 'liberal' media: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16922

But why leave things to hazard? When in doubt, don't you crack open the dictionary and thesaurus? Are you suggesting that Bush did not say that a threat was "about to take place", "threatening over our heads","approaching, coming, nearing, upcoming; brewing, gathering; pending; likely, possible, probable; ineluctable, inescapable, inevasible, inevitable, unavoidable, unescap-able", "in prospect, in store, in the cards, in the offing, in the wind", "menacing, overhanging, threatening", "alarming, ominous, sinister; brewing, gathering"? http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=imminent&x=16&y=17 http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=imminent&x=16&y=16 (Darn etymologists, like those bugger scientists they don't quite toe the line when you need it most, don't they?)

Please note that the following comments were made prior to troop deployment. The Iraq threat: what the Bush Administration said BY ROLAND WATSON IN WASHINGTON George Tenet, the director of the CIA, said today that Iraq posed "no imminent threat" to America in the months leading up to the US-led invasion. This is what senior members of the Bush Administration said about the threat in the build up to war. "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." – President Bush, White House Rose Garden, October 2, 2002 "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq." – President Bush, weekly radio address, November 23, 2002. "What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness." – Dick Cheney, Vice-President, national convention of Veterans of Foreign Wars in Nashville, Tennessee, August 26, 2002. "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." – Donald Rumsfeld, Defence Secretary, on Capitol Hill, September 2002. "Well, of course he is." – Dan Bartlett, White House communications director, when asked if Saddam was an imminent threat to US interests, January 26, 2003. "Absolutely." – Ari Fleischer, White House spokesman, when asked to confirm that the US had gone to war "because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?", May 7, 2003. "Another way to look at this is if Saddam Hussein holds a gun to your head even while he denies that he actually owns a gun, how safe should you feel?" – Ari Fleischer, October 9, 2002. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-990726,00.html

"Well okay, he did lie, but just this one time and now he is done with it. It's the honest truth!"