posted
On another note, why has a congressional investigation into why no WMD have been found not been launched? Surely, if Bush and Co. were not lying, the congressional investigation would say this. It would show we were not deceived, if that is the case, and Bush would not be harmed by it. But the Republicans are doing everything they can to block this inquiry. Why? Just because "two months is too soon to find any WMD?"
posted
That and Congress has better things to do with its time. Like worry about judicial nominations and such.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The Congressional Republicand aren't interested because the majority of them support the President and believe he's right.
The Congressional Democrats aren't interested because many of them openly supported the 'use of force' resolutions, especially the ones who sat on the Intelligence committees, and calling the President a liar casts serious doubts on their judgement as well.
Plus, of course, if they start throwing accusation, and really get into it, and then WMD's ARE found, pop! goes their careers. They'd be throwing the Republicans the Congress for the next decade or more.
No, their hope is to try to win despite the war, not because of it.
Their big gap is that people just don't think the Democrats are as concerned with national security as the Republicans are. After 9-11, it's going to be seen as better to err on the side of domestic security than not.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I believe the Congressional investigation already nixed by the Republicans, not for political reasons I'm sure, was about the use and or misuse of intelligence information and not about if there actually are WMDs or not.
The use of forged information in the State of the Union and the hyped up scare tatics about potential Iraqi WMDs combine well with the fact that intelligence officers are now saying information was selectivly chosen by Mr. Bush to fit his purpose.
As long as the Republicans are in control of the Congress we will not see a real investigation into the matter because that would damage the reelection chances of Mr. Bush.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Their big gap is that people just don't think the Democrats are as concerned with national security as the Republicans are. After 9-11, it's going to be seen as better to err on the side of domestic security than not.
Apparently the reality of the current administration doesn't fit your fantasy.
On Homeland Security.
quote:Last Thursday a House subcommittee met to finalize next year's homeland security appropriation. The ranking Democrat announced that he would introduce an amendment adding roughly $1 billion for areas like port security and border security that, according to just about every expert, have been severely neglected since Sept. 11. He proposed to pay for the additions by slightly scaling back tax cuts for people making more than $1 million per year.
The subcommittee's chairman promptly closed the meeting to the public, citing national security � though no classified material was under discussion. And the bill that emerged from the closed meeting did not contain the extra funding.
It was a perfect symbol of the reality of the Bush administration's "war on terror." Behind the rhetoric � and behind the veil of secrecy, invoked in the name of national security but actually used to prevent public scrutiny � lies a pattern of neglect, of refusal to take crucial actions to protect us from terrorists. Actual counterterrorism, it seems, doesn't fit the administration's agenda.
Yesterday The Washington Post printed an interview with Rand Beers, a top White House counterterrorism adviser who resigned in March. "They're making us less secure, not more secure," he said of the Bush administration. "As an insider, I saw the things that weren't being done." Among the problem areas he cited were homeland security, where he says the administration has "only a rhetorical policy"; failure to press Saudi Arabia (the home of most of the Sept. 11 terrorists) to take action; and, of course, the way we allowed Afghanistan to relapse into chaos.
Some of this pattern of neglect involves penny-pinching. Back in February, even George W. Bush in effect admitted that not enough money had been allocated to domestic security � though (to the fury of Republican legislators) he blamed Congress. Yet according to Fred Kaplan in Slate, the administration's latest budget proposal for homeland security actually contains less money than was spent last year. Meanwhile, urgent priorities remain unmet. For example, port security, identified as a top concern from the very beginning, has so far received only one-tenth as much money as the Coast Guard says is needed.
quote:Last year, Congress appropriated millions to enhance airport security, FBI counter-terrorism technology and protection of the food and water supply. But in August, President Bush froze the bulk of these funds, stressing the need for "fiscal restraint." Obviously, cutting taxes cuts revenue.
A HIRING FREEZE, TOO
The National Nuclear Security Administration, the agency that protects our nuclear stockpile and weapons laboratories, has had a shortage of security guards. Yet the agency was forced to announce a hiring freeze last November because of budget constraints.
The administration identified 123 chemical plants where a terror attack could kill thousands of people, but it accepted a weak bill that leaves responsibility for security with private industry (repeating the mistake we thought we had learned from Sept. 11) and provides little funding for enforcement.
The White House has rebuffed efforts of House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., and other congressional leaders to meet the needs of police, firefighters and other "first responders"; in the current budget cycle, the administration opposes a $5-billion grant program crafted by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and attempted to eliminate $900 million in law-enforcement grants sought by House Republicans.
PROTECT OUR PORTS
Security for our ports is an urgent priority. The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 mandates extensive improvements but provides no money to meet the need, a deliberate omission repeated in Bush's 2003 budget. The 2002 maritime act also mandates vulnerability assessments at the nation's 55 largest ports, but at the current pace, slowed by lack of funds, the assessments won't be completed until 2009.
Efforts to upgrade facilities at the Centers for Disease Control lag badly. Though he often refers to the catastrophic dangers of bioterrorism, Bush has sought no increase in funding for the CDC. His 2003 budget actually cuts overall funding for the CDC and trims more than $10 million from its crucial Center for Infectious Diseases. The funding squeeze stymied CDC plans for an urgently needed emergency-operations center. The center was finally completed last month, only because a private donor contributed $4 million for the project.
quote:Democrats said they were particularly concerned about the report released on Monday by Glenn A. Fine, the Justice Department's inspector general. The report found "significant problems" in the way the authorities arrested and treated hundreds of illegal immigrants as part of the Sept. 11 investigation. The report found that the authorities had made little effort to distinguish real terrorist suspects from those who became ensnared by chance in the investigation. Many suspects were jailed for months, often without being formally charged or given access to lawyers, and some inmates in Brooklyn were physically and verbally abused before they were cleared of any terrorist ties, the report said.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: Ms Short is claiming that the prime minister was so convinced that it was right to take action against Saddam Hussein that he was prepared to, at best, bend the truth to get his way.
And if the foreign affairs committee - once it has interviewed a host more people including foreign secretary Jack Straw twice - agrees that this was indeed the case then, make no mistake, Tony Blair will have to resign.
It is unthinkable that a prime minister could remain in office after being judged by a Commons committee to have deliberately misled the Commons and the country over war - honourably or otherwise
quote: But the evidence given by former Commons leader Robin Cook - who quit in protest at the war - was potentially just as deadly.
He also insisted that, during his time in government, it was evident Saddam Hussein did not present the sort of imminent threat claimed by President Bush and Tony Blair when urging military action against him.
quote: And in Mr Blair's defence, given that the two ministers ended their careers over this issue, there is bound to be an element of "they would say that wouldn't they" about all this.
But this was a serious and weighty examination of the facts as these two senior politicians genuinely see them.
quote: Tony Blair and his spin doctor Alastair Campbell, who are accused of being the major culprits, have refused to give evidence to the committee.
Mr Blair is instead relying on a separate, private inquiry by parliament's intelligence committee - which is appointed bay and reports directly to him.
He remains absolutely confident he will be vindicated
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
How can he be vindicated when it has been proven that Saddam (a) did NOT pose an IMMEDIATE THREAT to the U! S! A! & (b) did NOT have stockpiles of nuclear and chemical weapons ready for deployment, the pretext under which the war was launched?
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Jay, you're not hurting my case. No matter what the NYT writes (or cribs from other sources, or makes up entirely, as the case may be) I'm talking about PERCEPTION here. By the people that MATTER, the people that VOTE.
As in Security Moms. As in "I remember when the Democrats favored Unions over National Security in those same ports they claim to want to protect now, in 2002."
As the New York Times has finally pushed through my skull, what is "true" is much less important as what is "perceived to be true." Thanks, Jayson!
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Cartmaniac: How can he be vindicated when it has been proven that Saddam (a) did NOT pose an IMMEDIATE THREAT to the U! S! A! & (b) did NOT have stockpiles of nuclear and chemical weapons ready for deployment, the pretext under which the war was launched?
I don't see how either of those things has been "proven".
But that's irrelevant really. The accusation is that he misled parliament. If he had sufficient evidence that Iraq had WMDs, then he could be vindicated even if the evidence he had turns out to be false. After all, it's not his fault if he's given faulty evidence.
Not that I believe him, as I think he's a lying arrogant egomaniac, but I still don't think anything has been proven just yet.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
So instead of addressing the question, you slander the New York Times.
Good one.
What about the Miami Herald? Can't we defame them at least a little?
You may be right about perception not being reality though.
Mr. Bush and his administration have done a good job of distracting the voting public by landing on aircraft carriers, calling other people unpatriotic, and other such actions, that reality has a hard time slipping though.
Especially with the rather lackadaisical press.
America is a country that believes strongly in myth. America thrives on it. And it seems that the vast majority of people would not dare let truth get in the way of myth since it might interput their comfortable lives.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Cartmaniac: How can he be vindicated when it has been proven that Saddam (a) did NOT pose an IMMEDIATE THREAT to the U! S! A! & (b) did NOT have stockpiles of nuclear and chemical weapons ready for deployment, the pretext under which the war was launched?
I don't see how either of those things has been "proven".
You forget that we're dealing with people for whom, if the accusation is made against people with whom they disagree, it's automatically given to be the equivalent of truth.
quote: But that's irrelevant really. The accusation is that he misled parliament. If he had sufficient evidence that Iraq had WMDs, then he could be vindicated even if the evidence he had turns out to be false. After all, it's not his fault if he's given faulty evidence.
Exactly. Making the accusation moot at best, and self-defeating at worst. As I've said before, some of the people making the accusations were privy to the same information, and cast their votes in favor of actions, meaning that either they're liars, in on the "deception" and trying to make political hay now, or they're just hypocrites. Bush is not the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees only source of data. It might be a reasonable accusation, if he was, but he's not.
quote: Not that I believe him, as I think he's a lying arrogant egomaniac, but I still don't think anything has been proven just yet.
We all think that about the opposition. Some of us even sometimes think that about our own (Like, for example, Nixon. He was, if anybody was.) But only a few of us have the courage to admit it.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:After all, it's not his fault if he's given faulty evidence.
As it turns out, former intelligence officers are saying that Mr. Bush was selective in the information he chose to listen to and that he ignored evidence contrary to what his predisposition was.
The responsibility for going to war lays at his feet alone.
A president, even one appointed to the position, has no greater responsibility than the lives that he might send to die in war. Mr. Bush was unequivical in his call for war and in his reasons the United States needed to take such drastic action. He is, in the end, responsible for action taken on information given him.
For the sake of argument, let's say he was give incorrect information. Again, as chief executive of the government, it is his responsibility to see that the United States is relying on, and acting on, solid data. Yet, if the data given to Mr. Bush was incorrect, it was incorrect on a huge scale. We are afterall taking about alledged tons of WMDs, ready to be used and alledged to have been distributed to troops for them to use on invading United States troops. So far, none of it being accounted for.
None.
Such a intelligence gathering failure would be so massive as to make 9/11 pale in comparsion. And if it is so, Mr Bush should step forward and demand a full, complete, and independent investigation of the intelligence agencies and intelligence collection.
The people who died in a false war deserve no less. Need I remind you that over 3000 civilians, who knows how many Iraqi soldiers, and over 180 Americans died in this conflict. I do not know how many other allied soldiers died, but American are still dying over there in combat.
But then again, we still haven't had a full investigation into 9/11 yet, and Republicans have already nixed an investigation into the intelligence gaterhing and usage for the Iraq War.
What apprears to be the case, as with the use of forged documents in the State of the Union address, Mr. Bush didn't seem to really care about the authenticty of the information or waiting for it to be confirmed or denied. He used what he needed to to get his war.
All this is of course speculation. Neither Rob nor I is privy to the intelligence of the Mr. Bush regarding this matter. And yet, neither Rob, nor the entire United States government can answer the simple question about as to the current location of the massive amounts of WMDs alledged by Mr. Bush.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Saying the intelligence was wrong is a big, fat excuse that is used because the people who support Bush cannot think of any reason why the WMD have not been found. It appears to me that those people cannot for one minute even consider that Bush was lying. Some people, including me, have wondered at times if he actually was telling the truth, and that there are WMD in Iraq. But the people who support him never once doubt him.
If the intelligence for both the US and Britian (and Australia, I guess) was all wrong, then maybe we should reconsider all of the decisions we've made based on intelligence in all our history. Maybe Osama bin Laden DIDN'T order September 11. Or the Cole bombing. Or the embassy attacks. No. Of course he did. And our intelligence said so, and they probably did not screw up there.
The point is, ladies and gentlemen, is that our intelligence organizations DO NOT screw up on such a monumental scale. They simply do not. Some information given to the president could have been false, but not every bit. That is a fact.
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic