Bush changes strategy -- will call for independent counsel on WMD-----

Back on topic: I wonder if they will get these anonymous guys to talk on record:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,1136349,00.html
.
.
.
Senior American officials concluded at the beginning of last May that there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, The Observer has learnt.
Intelligence sources, policy makers and weapons inspectors familiar with the details of the hunt for WMD told The Observer it was widely known that Iraq had no WMD within three weeks of Baghdad falling, despite the assertions of senior Bush administration figures and the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

The new revelation came as White House sources indicated that President George Bush was considering establishing an investigation into the intelligence, despite rejecting an inquiry the previous day.

The disclosure that US military survey teams sent to visit suspected sites of WMD, and intelligence interviews with Iraqi scientists and officials, had concluded so quickly that no major weapons or facilities would be found is certain to produce serious new embarrassment on both sides of the Atlantic.

According to the time-line provided by the US sources, it would mean that Number 10 would have been aware of the US doubts that weapons would be found before the outbreak of the feud between Number 10 and Andrew Gilligan, and before the exposure of Dr David Kelly as Gilligan's source for his claims that the September dossier had been 'sexed up' to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
.
.
.

 

from the washington post:

"Congressional and CIA investigations into the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons and links to terrorism have found no evidence that CIA analysts colored their judgment because of perceived or actual political pressure from White House officials, according to intelligence officials and congressional officials from both parties.

Richard J. Kerr, a former deputy CIA director who is leading the CIA's review of its prewar Iraq assessment, said an examination of the secret analytical work done by CIA analysts showed that it remained consistent over many years.

"There was pressure and a lot of debate, and people should have a lot of debate, that's quite legitimate," Kerr said. "But the bottom line is, over a period of several years," the analysts' assessments "were very consistent. They didn't change their views.""

abd from the NYTimes:

"In Senate testimony, Mr. Kay placed the blame for overestimating Iraq's weapons capabilities squarely on the intelligence community and said he had seen no evidence that administration officials put pressure on analysts to come up with preconceived results."

 

basso:

The admin never directly linked Saddam to 9/11 either. They just talked about 9/11 every time they talked about Iraq. As a result, with no evidence whatsoever of a link and with Powell and Bush both finally having to say they had no evidence of a link, as of today (source: Newsweek poll) 48% of Americans still believe Saddam was involved in 9/11.

They cling to this idea they never used the word "imminent." What do you make of the mushroom cloud comments? What do you make of the SOTU which, though I was steadfastly opposed to the war, scared the **** out of me and made me think, what if he's right? If he is, we're in imminent danger. Of course, he wasn't right and if you believe Greg Thielmann (check his record and tell me there's even one reason not to), they knew it.

Clinging to whether or not the word imminent was used is akin to asking what the definition of "is" is.

 

Apologies if this has been posted before.

http://theonion.com/4004/top_story.html

Bush 2004 Campaign Pledges to Restore Honor and Dignity to the White House

BOSTON—Addressing guests at a $2,000-a-plate fundraiser, George W. Bush pledged Monday that, if re-elected in November, he and running mate Dick Cheney will "restore honor and dignity to the White House."

"After years of false statements and empty promises, it's time for big changes in Washington," Bush said. "We need a president who will finally stand up and fight against the lies and corruption. It's time to renew the faith the people once had in the White House. If elected, I pledge to usher in a new era of integrity inside the Oval Office."

Bush told the crowd that, if given the opportunity, he would work to reestablish the goodwill of the American people "from the very first hour of the very first day" of his second term.

"The people have spoken," Bush said. "They said they want change. They said it's time to clean up Washington. They're tired of politics as usual. They're tired of the pursuit of self-interest that has gripped Washington. They want to see an end to partisan bickering and closed-door decision-making. If I'm elected, I'll make sure that the American people can once again place their trust in the White House."

Bush said the soaring national debt and the lengthy war in Iraq have shaken Americans' faith in the highest levels of government.

"A credibility gap has opened between the Oval Office and America," Bush said. "The public hears talk, but they don't see any result. But if you choose me as your next president, the promises I make in my inaugural address will actually mean something. The president of this country will be held accountable for his promises, starting Jan. 20 of next year."

Bush said that, if chosen to be the next president, he would "set the nation on a course to a new, different, and brighter future."

"One thing is clear—it's time for a fresh beginning," Bush said. "Choose the ticket that leads to freedom, peace, and security. Choose Bush and Cheney."

Cheney spoke Monday at an event in Atlanta, addressing a crowd of 2,500 supporters from the tobacco and soft-drink industries.

"After these past three years, we need to rebuild a government based on old-fashioned American values: duty, dignity, and responsibility," said Cheney, who has served as a Wyoming congressman and U.S. vice-president. "George Bush is a man of these values, and he's ready to begin to put them to work in Washington."

Cheney continued: "George W. Bush will lead this great nation by building coalitions, not burning bridges; by serving the people, not special interests; by looking to the future, while borrowing from the great lessons of the past."
Cheney said he and Bush will return "time-honored American values" to the White House.

"In years past, American citizens looked to the president as a paragon of decency, a beacon in the storm," Cheney said. "When did America lose her way?"

In an interview published in Tuesday's Washington Post, Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign manager Ken Mehlman summarized the new platform.

"Bush-Cheney 2004 is a campaign built on straight talk," Mehlman said. "It's time for a president who can be a role model for Americans. Bush is the man for the job. He'll finally restore integrity to the highest office in the land. Won't you give him a chance?"

 

Actually, they did -- even after Bush fessed up and said they had no evidence of it well after "Mission Accomplished" day.

Dicky Cheney went on Meet the Press on 9-14, shortly thereafter, and knowingly made the following statement, which is an outright lie:

 

Your rhetoric is reaching epic preportions. I can cut & paste better than that crapola. And to think that you told me to quit wasting server space like you were the authority on server space.

http://theonion.com/#Scene_1

The Onion® is not intended for readers under 18 years of age.

Surely you don't endorse a publication that spews such garbage about the military do you Batman?

http://theonion.com/4004/history.html

Speak the truth...

 

"In Senate testimony, Mr. Kay placed the blame for overestimating Iraq's weapons capabilities squarely on the intelligence community and said he had seen no evidence that administration officials put pressure on analysts to come up with preconceived results."

Nukulur.

 

Thanks....this bbs needed that extra dose of sanctimonious behavior, we're only operating at 7,000 percent of the legal limit.

 

It all reverts back to Bill Shakespeare.

Definition: [adj] excessively or hypocritically pious; "a sickening sanctimonious smile"

Synonyms: holier-than-thou, pharisaic, pharisaical, pietistic, pietistical, pious, self-righteous

Webster's 1913 Dictionary

Definition: \Sanc`ti*mo"ni*ous\, a. [See {Sanctimony}.]
1. Possessing sanctimony; holy; sacred; saintly. --Shak.

2. Making a show of sanctity; affecting saintliness;
hypocritically devout or pious. ``Like the sanctimonious
pirate.'' --Shak. -- {Sanc`ti*mo"ni*ous*ly}, adv. --
{Sanc`ti*mo"ni*ous*ness}, n.

 

What I want to know is when the Polls showed Bush beating Dean in California all the left-leaning members of this board discounted it as meaningless or un-scientific. But when a poll comes out saying that Bush loses to Kerry all of a sudden it's got merit. And vice versa! The polls that show Bush ahead "work" for some people while the same people ignore polls that show Bush losing. What's funny is that we'll all agree that polls don't really show you anything!

The reason I bring this up is because I'm kind of worried over the extreme partisanship that is being showed by people on this board (left and right alike). Once upon a time in America the Democrats didn't hate the Republicans and vice versa. Both understood that each side wanted what's best for the nation, however, each side had different ways of going about it. Clearly each side thought the other was "wrong" but certainly not "evil".

However, politics today has really gotten polarized. Many conservatives not only thought Clinton was going about things the wrong way but that he was EVIL. Right now the same thing is happening with George Bush. You guys on the left are not simply saying (with the exeption maybe of Green Vegan) that Bush is wrong; you guys are just positive he's EVIL. That he's behind a conspiracy to destroy the planet. And what's worse it that there are plenty of people fueling the fire! From right-wing talkshow hosts to left-wing entertainment figures, people are actively trying to portray the other side as the devil.

Well, guess what? The concervaties were wrong about Clinton (yes, even Hilary) and the liberals are wrong about Bush. Neither is "evil"and neither is behind some secret conspiracy. Both are running the country the way the feel is best based on their world views.

When Republicans favor business, they aren't doing it to screw workers, they are doing it because they believe that for there to be jobs business has to thrive.

When Democrats want to increase the minimum wage they aren't doing it because they want to screw business, they do it because they feel they are trying to improve life for working people.

I know that some of you liberal types are going to point out numerous examples that "prove" that Bush is only out for his "rich" friends but you can invent any conspiracy you want and find "facts" to support it. Remember, there are people who have plenty of believable facts that we really didn't go to the Moon or the Hilary participated in Insider Trading, etc...

So, did Bush lie about WMDs? I don't believe he did. Lying implies he KNEW ahead of time they didn't exist but said it anyways to get what he wanted. Remember, if Bush lied about WMDs that means that Clinton did as well along with numerous other credible people. Everyone thought they were there. As a matter of fact, I would bet that if we went back a year and a half and took a poll on this board "How many of you believe that Saddam has givin up his WMD program?" EVERYONE here would agree that he hadn't. As a matter of fact, no one here (hopefully) would argue that Saddam was a good guy, just misunderstood.

The arguement is "Did we have enough justification to go to war?" Guess what? That aguement will never be "won" because what works for you may not work for someone else. For example, I'm not okay with being lied to about WMDs (if infact we were) but I'm okay with taking out Saddam for the numerous other reasons that, I bet, we could all agree on (he was a tyrant, he was bad for his people, he was dangerous to the region, etc..). You might not feel it was worth going to war over but we can probably agree that he was bad.

Did Bush f*ck up big time with regard to how he interpreted info? You bet and we really need to get to the bottom of this. Should Bush be impeached or resign? If it comes out as fact that he knew WMDs didn't exist then, yes, he should be impeached. If he just screwed up and made a mistake then the nation will get a chance to fire him this November.

Is Bush evil? Absolutly not. Not anymore evil than Clinton or Daschle or Kennedy or whoever.

PS. If anyone even tries to argue that the Republicans started this whole "the other side is evil" arguement I don't want to hear it. I'm only old enough to remember Reagan's presidency as a politically concious person but I remember liberals bashing him and calling him evil. Did conservatives say that about Carter? I don't know - I wasn't old enough to really pay attention but does it really matter?

Blind partisanship is going to destroy this country way before Bush or Clinton or Kerry or whoever ever will.

 

Your first link still doesn't work after edit. I thought the second was dark humor about actual abuses of the military in Vietnam. Heck, Colin Powell *brags* about it in his autobiography. He's the guy who was in charge of the *first* My Lai investigation. He imitiated the South Park cop on that one, "nothing to see here, move along".

 

There's already been a thread where the thielman stuff was extensively discussed. he was the boss of a good friend of mine and i'm quite familiar with his views. they are, however, his views, and as my friend says, he makes tom harkin look conservative. moreover, his views were directly contradicted by powell. for the record, i'm not the one who keeps bringing this up- i merely thought that coming from a particularly liberal publication, and in light of the continued insistence of many on this board that he used this language, the retraction by the SF Chronicle out to put this issue to bed, once and for all.

 

btw, Bill Clinton recently told the Portuguese Prime Minister that "he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

 

We had this argument in another thread, *and* you created a separate thread to repeat this.
Clinton looked at this evidence and picked *Al Qaeda* as enemy number one. Go back to your original thread and rehash all the arguments, there is evidence that states this and you don't bother to repeat this...

 

basso: I don't recall ever saying that Bush specifically used the word imminent. The spirit of the imminent concept was all over the place though, which is what my last post was about. The SF Chronicle admitting that Bush never used that word means less than nothing to me.

Clinton's take on Iraq means less than nothing to me, too. I never supported him and I never supported his position on Iraq, so this hardly changes my opinion. Many conservatives opposed the rush to war, including Scowcroft and Eagelburger. Did that give you pause? It didn't give the White House any.

As for Thielman, I'm no expert on his record but I'm guessing your friend is considerably to the right of Harkin and also probably of DeLay if he compares an intelligence expert who's served with distinction under four or five consecutive presidents as an extreme liberal. And if Powell meaningfully refuted Thielman's comments, please direct me to the thread where that was posted. I missed it. I posted (maybe even started the thread) about his 60 Minutes appearance and at that time Powell had issued only a perfunctory "it's not true" statement. He hadn't addressed the actual issues raised. If I missed a clarification on that, I'd be interested in reading it.

 

Thanks for the vote of confidence buddy.

I did not think I would win you over since you started the thread with your biased rhetoric in the title of all places. Carry on buddy, don't mind this knuckledhead interrupting your brilliant thread.

 

My apologies.

 

Except that the latter was irrefutably stated (and caught on video tape) while the other was not stated so evidently. In fact, in the SOTU, the president said we are not going to wait around to find out (if the threat is imminent) because then it will be too late.