4 Apr

Dems DEMAND Another Report Despite Ignoring All Earlier Ones

                                       

Not everyone is a political junkie, and even few political junkies even like reading the government reports on this or that.  However, when it comes to war, shouldn’t we all have some sort of documented list of reasons for war as well as periodic updates?  I don’t just mean members of Congress (the body that declares and authorizes war) or the President (the man who gets several detailed, classified updates throughout every day).  I mean every American.   I’d like to see us all get copies of it in the mail with the checks the Democrats’ Congress is sending us for economic stimulus.

Almost half a year before the invasion of Iraq, on Oct 2, 2002 a classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was presented to Congress per the “demands” of Congressional Democrats.  The Washington Post reported at the time that only about a dozen senators and a handful of representatives signed in for access to read the classified list of reasons to authorize force against Iraq.  Two days later, a vastly smaller version was declassified and more members of Congress read this one.  They griped that the “caveats” about the certainty regarding various concerns were not included, but what they didn’t tell their constituents was that those concerns were in the classified version that they were too busy/lazy to sign in and read.

Years later, another NIE was”demanded” by Congressional Democrats so that they could gauge the progress or lack of in Iraq.  Again, a classified version was presented to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and a declassified version released, but few signed in to read the classified version, most ignored the declassified version, and only those parts that could be twisted to support their individual political agendas were released to the press.

Years later-again, another NIE was “demanded by Congressional Democrats to identify threats to the nation and gauge progress in Iraq.  As before, it was largely ignored after being demanded, and what wasn’t ignored was distorted, half-quoted, misquoted, and misrepresented to fit political agendas-by Democrats and Republicans.

The last time an NIE was presented to Congress, the Director of National Intelligence and representatives from the 16 intelligence agencies that put together these reports all made themselves available for a full day of briefings to Congress.  No one showed up except a few Republicans and fewer Democrats.  Speaker Pelosi and others were in Syria meeting with one of the state sponsors of the Iraqi insurgency instead.

This week Democratic members of Congress “demanded” (again) that the most recent NIE be declassified and presented to the public.

As if anyone cared to read the first one and see the reasons for the war in Iraq, or the subsequent ones that explained the dangers of withdrawal as well as the other regional threats.

Why “demand”?  Why even bother?  I mean, I LOVE reading these independent, bi-partisan reports, but it doesn’t change policy, policy-makers’ positions, or political activists rantings.  So why bother?  Oh yeah…it’s an election year, and politicians need to play politics with America’s intelligence reporting by exaggerating and dismissing the threats around the world lest they fail to misled constituents and fail to be re-elected.

This entry was posted in Afghanistan, American Intelligence, Fanatical Islam, Iran, Iraq/Al-Qaeda Connection, Liberal Idiots, Middle East, Military, Pakistan, Politics, Saudi Arabia, The Iraqi War, The Shadow Party, War On Terror, WMD. Bookmark the permalink. Friday, April 4th, 2008 at 10:23 am
| 58 views

93 Responses to Dems DEMAND Another Report Despite Ignoring All Earlier Ones

  1. ChrisG says: 51

    Steve,

    I assert that your delusions are NOT REALITY and many have been repeatedly refuted here.

    AQ WAS IN IRAQ under Saddam. FACT Both from the intelligence reports after the invasion, talks I had with Iraqis myself, and pre-war intelligence.

    AQ and the Taliban are still on the run in Afghanistan and do not “control vast areas of Afghanistan”. FACT

    Pakistan may fall, but only if it appeases the Taliban it spawned years ago and a leftist US administration abandons them (or bombs them as one candidate stated). However, Pakistan is, for the first time in its history, fighting the mountain tribes where AQ is hiding and taking on the Madrasses which spwned them. FACT

    The terrorsts take their talking points and gain motivation from the lies and idiocy of the left. Lies you repeat like a parrot. FACT

    Iraq dares to go to its neighbors and conduct diplomacy to make them stop not-so-covert military action within Iraq. FACT

    Somehow this upsets you. Would you rather have Iraq invade Iran? Do you think Iran just suddenly became a growing regional power? Is your historical memory so short and biased?

    Unlike Bosnia, where the occupying governments nullified elections, the US has allowed Iraq to form a constitutional government reflective of its culture. As such, it will have an Islamic element. Multiple elections have been held and more are on the way. Iraq is feeling its way through being liberated and given the chance for freedom for the first time ever. FACT

    I, and many other US Service Members, support our efforts which you lie and project your insane hate and bile upon WITH OUR LIVES. How is that for “personal responsiblity”? You sit back, spread your spoon-fed lies and brainwashed leftist hate and risk nothing. The mythical “Bush Police State” not only has done nothing to you, but allows you and your ilk to protest and even attack Military Recruiting stations with little to no reprocussions. If I so much as snear at you or some other leftist moron protesting me while in uniform, I will be punished. Most likely I would be punished out of uniform also. The “peace” protestors would be hailed as heros by the media and the left for taking on an unarmed Soldier. You ignore what muliple MILBLOGs, writers, and Service Members say in support of our efforts to defend your sorry ass while stabbing us in the back due to your insane hyper-partisan hatred. FACT!

    I asert that these are reality, Steve. Apparently you, like the well quoted phrase from a Bush White House aide, “Make your own reality”.

    You, Steve, “Make your own reality” and project it all upon “conservatives”. FACT

    Now go back and watch some more “24” or “X-Files” so you can come up with further insanity to project upon us.

    ReplyReply
  2. Scott Malensek says: 52

    Yep. Sorry Steve, but Chris is 100% correct. Work remains to be done in Iraq, but so far it is a historic success with no equal or greater comparison to a counter-insurgency war.

    Ultimately, it seems that there are many Americans-perhaps Steve-who claim to want success in Iraq, but do advocate actions and toss out rhetoric that is completely contrary to accomplishing success. Why? Because of political partisanship.

    ReplyReply
  3. Philadelphia Steve says: 53

    Re: “AQ WAS IN IRAQ under Saddam. FACT”
    With virtually no support from the government. However that has nothing to do with theincompetent occupation AFTER the invasion, about which Conservatives insist that the Bush Administratin receive a FREE PASS.

    .

    AQ and the Taliban are still on the run in Afghanistan and do not “control vast areas of Afghanistan”. FACT

    Not based on this, among many otehr, reports
    http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm847.cfm

    The Taliban has made a limited but violent resurgence in eastern Afghanistan and recently launched a series of attacks to disrupt the elections. More than 1,200 Afghans, including roughly 600 insurgents, have been killed this year, making it the worst year of violence since the Taliban was overthrown in 2001. Operating from bases in the Pushtun tribal belt in neighboring Pakistan, the Taliban has deployed small groups of insurgents across the border to attack government forces, assassinate local officials, and intimidate voters. At least four election workers and six candidates running for election have been killed. On September 13, insurgents murdered seven Afghans merely because they carried voter registration cards.

    .

    Pakistan may fall, but only if it appeases the Taliban it spawned years ago. However, Pakistan is, for the first time in its history, fighting the mountain tribes where AQ is hiding. FACT

    Didn’t the Pakistani government sign a peace accord with AQand Taliban warlords in some of theirprovinces aseveral months ago?

    .

    The terrorsts take their talking points and gain motivation from the lies and idiocy of the left. FACT

    That is an opinion, not a fact. There is a difference, although Conservatives insist on blurring the terms in order to five a patena of legitimacy to their assertsion. Usually they do it by appending words in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, as though that means one is supposed to accept the declaratio, without questionss.

    .

    Iraq dares to go to its neighbors and conduct diplomacy to make them stop not-so-covert military action within Iraq. FACT

    The iraqi government is just now launching an investigation to determine if such interference is even happening, if I recall the news items from the past few weeks. In any event, how is that progressing, if you declare that it is happening?

    .

    Unlike Bosnia, where the occupying forces nullified elections, the US has allowed Iraq to form a constitutional government reflective of its culture. As such, it will have an Islamic element. Multiple elections have been held and more are on the way. FACT

    The Iraqi Constitution does not have “Islamic” elements. It recognizes the Quoran as their supreme governing document, complete with stonings and now honor killings.

    .

    I support our efforts which you lie and project your insane hate and bile upon WITH MY LIFE. FACT!

    Can you document one single post I have ever made, here or anywhere else, where I have said, or even implied hatred of anyone (other than Chris Matthews, the missognist commentator of “Hardball”, of course)? I have declared that Conservatives insist upon treatig the blatant bungling of hte Iraqi Occupation as though it were a few mnor mistakes, with no real consequences and certainly nothing for which any member of the Bush Administration shold be held accountable. and I still stand by that declaration. It does not mean I hate anyone, and it certaily does not qualify as “bile”, especially when compared to the personal invective I see here daily from Conservatives.

    Thank your for your service to our country, though.

    ,

    How is that for “personal responsiblity” you pathetic, brainwashed projectionist?
    “I asert that these are reality. Apparently you, like the well quoted phrase from a Bush White House aide, “Make your own reality”.”
    You, Steve, “Make your own reality” and project it all upon “conservatives”. FACT
    Now go back and watch some more “24″ or “X-Files” so you can come up with further insanity to project upon us.

    Does anyone else here detect even the slightest amount of “hate” or “bile” in the above comments? Of course, since Chris is a Conservative, the standards that are applied to me will never be asked of him, or any other Conservative, ever. Standards of conduct, personal responsiblity and accountablility are, in my OPINION, something that Conservatives apply to others, but rarely, if ever, to themselves.

    ReplyReply
  4. Philadelphia Steve says: 54

    Re: “timately, it seems that there are many Americans-perhaps Steve-who claim to want success in Iraq,”
    I thought we had that when President Bush gave his “Missin Accomplished” speech (although I do freely admit that htewhite Hose has redefined what that meant, multiple times since then, along with the true origin of the banner on the Abraham Lincoln.

    Can you define for me, exactly, what “suffess” will look like in Iraq. And, exactly how much you are willing to spend of America’s treasure to get it?

    My prediction is that you answer to my first question will be pure sarcasm and the answer to the second will be the standard “whatever it takes”, to which I will reply, are you willing to sacrifice $200 billin a year, and that many lives for 100 years? If not, then you are less than “whatever it takes”, and not willing to set a limit.

    ReplyReply
  5. ChrisG says: 55

    Steve,

    Just to let you know, the spam guard caught you post as it has many others but I de-spammed it. As I said to others, the spam guard is letting some creative spam through, but blocking posts.

    Remember that when you whine that you are persecuted again.

    And remember, you are not forced to come here and can go to Kos or DU.

    We have documented your hate and bile and have thrown your own words back at you time and time again.

    “Standards of conduct, personal responsiblity and accountablility are, in my OPINION, something that Conservatives apply to others, but rarely, if ever, to themselves.”

    Then leave. You attacked me and others here repeatedly. You crossed a line above that you will never cross back for me. I will continue to throw your projectionist insanity back at you ten fold.

    Give up the tired old “conservative this/that” garbage Steve. You are so blinded by your own issues that you fail to assess yourself.

    Yes I am angry and yes you and your ilk disgust me.

    ReplyReply
  6. Aye Chihuahua says: 56

    ‘Scuse me for asking Stevie, but which of your assertions, accusations, arguments, generalizations, and projections have been “proven” beyond a “reasonable doubt”?

    Kindly cite the court cases and the court districts in which the cases were decided.

    Outside of that, you’re just gassing off again.

    By the way, I can cite a court case which links Iraq to 9/11 so your assertion of “almost nothing” doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

    Of course, you are accustomed to that by now.

    ReplyReply
  7. Scott Malensek says: 57

    President Bush said the mission in Iraq was accomplished? Please show me the quote. I know there was the time he gave a speech saying-incorrectly and lacking a proper assessment of the enemy’s vote-that major combat operations had ended, and I know the ship had a big banner on it saying that it’s [USS Lincoln's] mission [longest carrier deployment in world history] was accomplished, but he actually said that? I don’t think so. I think that’s another leftist spin/lie/propaganda aimed at degrading support for success in the war in Iraq.

    Whether it’s President Bush, Sen McCain, Sen Obama, or Sen Clinton, or even Sen Kerry in 2004…all of them basically define success in Iraq as having that place secure and stable enough to where it doesn’t need US combat support, doesn’t need US financial support (any more than any other nation I assume), can fight Al Queda, and doesn’t create a regional war. Me, I think success looks like an Iraq that’s stable enough to where the US doesn’t have to invade a 3rd time.

    What’s it worth? Perhaps the greatest question you’ve ever dared to ask, Steve. Simply put, success in Iraq is worth in blood and treasure any amount that is less than the likely prospects of an Iraq that is collapsed, is a terrorist haven akin to Lebannon in the 80’s, Afghanistan or the Balkans in the 90’s, and as lawless as Pakistan’s non-governed tribal areas. $200bn a year? Well, opponents of the war have ranted off estimates ranging to $2trillion, but the DNC’s attack ad on Sen McCain points out that it’s been about $500bn in 5yrs. $100bn a year is about 1/12th the US GDP. Billions of bucks are a lotta money, and while some might argue that such money should be better spent on US bridges, healthcare, social security, or an economic stimulus check to say….ME, I submit that $100bn isn’t a lotta money by percentage, and is affordable by comparison. I think the US could afford $2 trillion a year, but that’d be too much. A regional war (the consequence of premature evacuation) would easily cost 10x as much as current operations, so someplace between the $100-1000bn a year is affordable imo. Lives? Well, me, I think all men are created equal and that an Iraqi’s life is as valuable as an American one. Opponents of the war seem to think differently. They complain about 4000 Americans killed by terrorists in Iraq, and complain that (again, body count numbers range in propagada exaggeration up to 3million) the Iraqis killed are America’s fault. They’re not. Most were killed by suicide bombers, and most suicide bombers were Al Queda. Thus, they were killed by Al Queda, and Al Queda is responsible.

    How long? 100yrs? I don’t think anyone’s said it’d be a good idea to have people dying and killing in Iraq for 100yrs. That sounds like yet another anti-war exaggeration/propaganda/spin aimed at undermining the war and causing defeat rather than an effort towards success.

    Exaggerated body counts
    Exaggerated financial costs
    Exaggerated timelines
    Exaggerated quotes (Mission Accomplished, We should fight in Iraq for 100yrs, etc)
    Incessant reporting of US atrocities while complete media blackout on AQ atrocities
    Denying/dismissing the effect and presence of AQ in Iraq
    Denying/dismissing the WMD threat despite the ISG findings and a dozen bi-partisan independent investigations

    ..all of these and more combine to support the enemy’s objective (forcing the US to leave so they can turn Iraq into chaos (as described earlier). This-BTW-is exactly why Sen Obama and Sen Clinton and Sen McCain see American troops in Iraq until 2013. All three have used that specific date now.

    ReplyReply
  8. yonason says: 58

    EVERYTHING THEY KNOW IS WRONG

    Al Qaeda did not exist to any significant degree in Iraq prior to Bush’s invasion.
    (YES, THEY HAD TRAINING CAMPS THERE AND CONNECTIONS)
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3033&R=C56218AEE

    Iran was restrained by a regional rival (Iraq) on its border prior to Bush’s invasion.
    (WHICH IS WHY IRAN WAS CAUSING SO MUCH TROUBLE SINCE THE 80’S?)
    http://www.jewishtoronto.net/page.html?ArticleID=134689

    The Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan (their home base), were on the run.
    (STILL ARE!)
    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/01/taliban_resurgence_sign_of_des.html

    almost nothing to do with the September 11 attacks.
    (“ALMOST” NOTHING ISN’T “NOTHING”)
    http://patdollard.com/2008/03/1999-abc-news-video-shows-bin-ladens-connections-to-saddam-hussein/
    http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/clintlion.htm
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq-0u9Cbkds

    Now al Qaeda and the Taliban control vast areas of Afghanistan,
    (RAIDING INTO IS NOT OCCUPYING & PROGRESS IS BEING MADE)
    http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/1361872/in_afghanistan_marines_begin_assault_on_taliban/

    supply the world with more than half its heroin
    (WITH OR WITHOUT THEM, THAT’S WHAT AFGHANIS GROW)
    http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/05/14/delivering_the_fatal_blow_to_afghan_opium/7986/
    (AND WITHOUT THEM, THEY USED TO GROW MORE)
    http://opioids.com/afghanistan/index.html

    and are close to toppling the government of American ally Pakistan.
    (THANKS TO DEMOCRAT INTRFERENCE!)
    http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/in-pakistan-kerry-biden-hagel-hang-with.html

    ReplyReply
  9. Philadelphia Steve says: 59

    Re: “(WHICH IS WHY IRAN WAS CAUSING SO MUCH TROUBLE SINCE THE 80′S?)”

    Now this brings up an intresting question. If Conservatives knew that Iran was our enemy in the 1980’s, why did president Ronald Reagan authorize the sale of US weapons to that very same regime.

    Conservative heros, such as Ann Coulter, are so quick to toss the “Treason” charge around against Liberals such as myself, merely for saying we believe that George W. Bush is an incompetent president.

    What then must Conservatives think of hte president who actually authorized the sale of weapons to these very same enemies?

    ReplyReply
  10. Scott Malensek says: 60

    Steve, I think Ronald Reagan was wrong to sell weapons to the Iranians as part of the secret talks the US had with them. It wasn’t treason since those weapons weren’t used against us though.

    ReplyReply
  11. yonason says: 61

    P.S. – As I said in a different thread, honest conservatives sometimes make mistakes, but unlike them the Lefties almost ALWAYS do!

    ReplyReply
  12. ChrisG says: 62

    Actually Steve, in the end, it may have been a good move. Shocking as that may seem. But then, not as shocking as your continued “conservative this/that” idiocy and continued religious like hatred of and projection onto “Conservatives” and our not-so conservative President. I do not agree with the carrot-stick approach, but maybe someone in DC realized that Iraq needed to not win its war and become a regional superpower.

    Iran wasted money keeping up outdated US systems (F-14As, HAWK SAMS, and other high maintenance systems) all of which were cut off from spare parts soon after. Notice that these systems were not used against the US. Only Iran’s Russian supplied systems and Austrian 50 CAL rifles are. The latter becoming an embarrisment for Austria. Iran is now starving its people in a quest to buy everything Russia and China will sell it.

    But that does not seem to bother you.

    No US parts and Iran’s expensive air force is now outmoded junk. Even if they could operate, Iran would face the dilema any nation would when using high end US weapons against us. Even IF we allow them to work (computers can be easily programmed with kill codes), we know the jamming/destruct codes of the SAMs and the performance aspects of the planes. Iran realized this also and moved to buy former Soviet systems…. Only to find out our warplanes and tanks can easily destroy them.

    The failure of Iraq’s high end SAM radar nets to computer interdiction in 1991 probably made Iran realize using US weapons was a bad idea.

    As for the “treason” BS, even congress, after multiple hearings, does not agree with you. That said, congress should have investigated some of its members who went to Central American dictatorships and made all sorts of deals.

    BTW, I do not even read Coulter’s collumns. But reality and your views are universes apart and I know nothing I say will change them. I just have to make sure that those who believe such as you never have to pay for their stupidity.

    ReplyReply
  13. Philadelphia Steve says: 63

    Re: “Steve, I think Ronald Reagan was wrong to sell weapons to the Iranians as part of the secret talks the US had with them. It wasn’t treason since those weapons weren’t used against us though.”

    How do you know that those weapons, or their components are not being used in the IED’s that are killing Americans now? If a Democratic President had made those sales, ther is not a Conservative in America who would be splitting hairs about it the way you are right now.

    ReplyReply
  14. ChrisG says: 64

    Steve,

    Thanks for proving that you know nothing about these systems from the 1880s (using 1960s and 70s tech).

    These are not IEDs, but manufactured EFPs. They use a Russian explosives and modern fuses. No HAWK or F-5, or F-14 electronics could be used in these. They are new manufacture and copper cones are not found in these systems. Cell phones were also not used in these systems. The US does not make RPGs or other components of these systems. Russia and China, however, do.

    And again, you are wrong about conservatives, but no surprises there. If a Democrat made these sales, we would still have issues, but would also be rational enough to know the difference between aircraft systems and modern EFP designs. It is not like Regan let Loral give Iran guidance computers for ICBMs or anything.

    Why Russian agencies are assisting Islamic terrorists who want to (and have) kill(ed) Russians is something you will have to ask on Pravda.

    ReplyReply
  15. Aye Chihuahua says: 65

    “That said, congress should have investigated some of its members who went to Central American dictatorships and made all sorts of deals.”

    This morning I saw an article about Congressman James McGovern and his activities related to Colombia and FARC.

    It will be interesting to see how far this one goes.

    ReplyReply
  16. Philadelphia Steve says: 66

    Re: ““That said, congress should have investigated some of its members who went to Central American dictatorships and made all sorts of deals.”

    Congressional representatives cannot “make deals” with foreign governments. Anyone who publicly makes a claim that they can is lying.

    .

    Re: “These are not IEDs, but manufactured EFPs. They use a Russian explosives and modern fuses. No HAWK or F-5, or F-14 electronics could be used in these. They are new manufacture and copper cones are not found in these systems. Cell phones were also not used in these systems. The US does not make RPGs or other components of these systems. Russia and China, however, do.”

    Thank you for the clarification. Then I take it you find only a tiny problem with President Reagan selling weapons, of any kind, to a coutnry that you maintain was an enemy of the Untied States? Or does he receive the usual, ultra-mild criticism that is the extent to which Conservatives are permitted to criticize Republicans? You have, I believe, confirmed my assertion that Conservatives will always restain their criticism when a Republican is involved: Whether it is the bungled occupation of Iraq (which even Saint John McCain says was badly managed), costing thousands of lives unnecessarilly, or selling weapons to a country you maintain is at war with the United States (“as long as they were not used against the US”, is apparently enought of an alibi for you).

    Again, had a Democratic President presided over either of the above, neither you, not any Conservative, anywhere in the US would be so mild in your comments. You would be screaming for their heads. Instead, since we are talking about Saints Reagan and Bush, you will make excuses and minimizae the damage from their actions to the bitter end. Because that is what Conservatives are required to do: Serve the Republican party, no matter what.

    .
    As an observation, in order to protect George W. Bush, this is what Conservatives are required to declare a “success”:

    Al Qaeda did not exist to any significant degree in Iraq prior to Bush’s invasion. Now they are there and training recruits for worldwide war. Success!
    Iran was restrained by a regional rival (Iraq) on its border prior to Bush’s invasion. Now Iran is the strongest power in the Middle East. Success!
    The Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan (their home base), were on the run. However Bush diverted American assets to Iraq to invade a country that had almost nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. Now al Qaeda and the Taliban control vast areas of Afghanistan, supply the world with more than half its heroin and are close to toppling the government of American ally Pakistan. Success!
    The previously Sunni government of Iraq, while brutal, was not an ally of Shia Iran or fundamentalist Sunni Islam. Now Iraq has an Islamic constitution and the central government meets regularly to coordinate and confer with the government of Iran. Success!

    And there is not one single Conservative, here or anywhere else, who is permitted to acknowledge the degree to which George W. Bush’s cabinet (whether you choose to blame Donald Rumsfeld or use Colin Powell as your excuse) botched an occupation that Donald Rumsfeld himself spoke of as lasting only about six months (remember? Or are you not allowed to remember that one?

    .

    And, by the way, I am still waiting to learn what Aye Chihuahua was trying to say when he used the appelation “O’PinkPanties” as part of his string of personal insults. There are multiple different groups of American society to which he could have been referring, but I am still curious as to which one of those groups he considered so inferior that he wanted to tie me into them:
    Women?
    Homosexuals?
    Cross Dressers?
    (I personally do not consider any of them inferior. However that will nto stop at least one of the Conservatives here from declaring that I do).

    From my observation here, Conservatives have a great deal of difficulty in agruing a point without injecting personal invective and hate (which probably explains why all Conservatives adore Ann Coulter). but I still wonder which of those groups, or another, is the one to which Aye desires to assign me.

    ReplyReply
  17. Aye Chihuahua says: 67

    Stevie O’PinkPanties,

    Which one the assertions, accusations, presumptions, generalizations, projections, allegations, and outright lies that you posted above has been “proven” beyond a “reasonable doubt” in a court of law?

    That is the standard that you chose to set here and you will be held to it.

    Cite the case and court jurisdiction.

    ReplyReply
  18. Scott Malensek says: 68

    Steve, your cut/paste cries of defeat in Iraq have been posted by you repeatedly, and debunked repeatedly with facts.

    “This is what Conservatives call a “success’:
    Al Qaeda did not exist to any significant degree in Iraq prior to Bush’s invasion. Now they are there and training recruits for worldwide war. Success!

    -Your information is flawed, the lastest findings show that Al Queda groups including Al Queda leadership were in Iraq before the war, and operating on Saddam’s behalf en masse

    Iran was restrained by a regional rival (Iraq) on its border prior to Bush’s invasion. Now Iran is the strongest power in the Middle East. Success!

    Iran is hardly the strongest power in the Mideast w 5 US carrier battlgroups in the area dozens of US squadrons, and hundreds of thousands of US forces surrounding Iran. No, they are not the most powerful force in the regionl. They are, however, the most influential with people who can’t open their partisan eyes.

    “The Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan (their home base), were on the run. However Bush diverted American assets to Iraq to invade a country that had almost nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. ”

    Check a calender. US invaded Afghanistan in Oct 01, UBL escaped Nov/Dec 01, and US buildup for Iraq started in September 02. The only unit diverted in that time was the 5th SOG.

    “Now al Qaeda and the Taliban control vast areas of Afghanistan, supply the world with more than half its heroin and are close to toppling the government of American ally Pakistan. Success!”
    debunked earlier w mutliple links and ignored by someone who cares to rant rather than read.

    “The previously Sunni government of Iraq, while brutal, was not an ally of Shia Iran or fundamentalist Sunni Islam. Now Iraq has an Islamic constitution and the central government meets regularly to coordinate and confer with the government of Iran. Success!”
    -I submit that the current govt gets more support in blood and treasure from the US, and that’s why the surge has worked both militarily and politically.

    Yawn, another cut/paste rant from Steve.

    ReplyReply
  19. ChrisG says: 69

    Steve,

    As usual you do not get it nor even wish to. You live in your fantasy “24/X-Files” world where “evil conservatives” are out to get you. Everything you cited above in your copy/paste “success” and “conservative this/that” rant was refuted time and again (even in this thread). You are a preprogrammed robot and you spout what your “thought leaders’ desire you to as you copy-paste away.

    I have less problems with Reagan’s sale of arms/parts to Iran with proceeds funding anti-communist forces than I do with Clinton’s authorizations of advanced technology sales to China in return for campaign contributions. The sale of outmoded arms which we knew how to defeat and were never used against us is FAR less dangerous than China moving from no space launches to having ICBMs and anti-sat weapons along with a very prodigious cyber-warfare capability. However, neither President’s actions were an act of treason, sedition, or a violation of federal code (foreign relations act) as both were the Executive at the time.

    Congressmen DID go to these communist governments and DID make personal deals (not national treaties as you seem to mis-state) to work against the foreign policy of the United States.

    Again you call me a liar and again I shove your arrogant stupidity back at you. Again you piss me off with your moronic antics yet will get all whiny and cry persecution when called out.

    ReplyReply
  20. Philadelphia Steve says: 70

    Re: “-Your information is flawed, the lastest findings show that Al Queda groups including Al Queda leadership were in Iraq before the war, and operating on Saddam’s behalf en masse”

    I realize that Conservatives are required to treat any pronouncement from Fred Barnes as the Word of God. But your “supporting”posts were from the Weekly Standard, a blatantly political magazine that has been trying to forment wars for more than a decade and is onw trying to repeat president Bush’s “successes” in Iran.

    The fact is, based on any non-neoConservative evidence that the occupation of Iraq has been botched. And you know it. Were it not for your Conservative vow of loyalty to the Republican party, you would be screaming this as well.

    And Saddam Hussein and bn laden were enemies, bin Laden having issued a fatwah against Saddam and, even as Bush’s invasion was imminent, only issuing “support” for the Iraqi people, not Saddam. Trying to connect Saddam and the September 11, 2001 attacks has been a Bush Administration ploy ever since that day, and Conservatives, out of total loyalty to George W. Bush, are required to beleive it, unconditinally.

    .

    Re: “-I submit that the current govt gets more support in blood and treasure from the US, and that’s why the surge has worked both militarily and politically.”

    You can “submit” whatever you want. But Conservatives do not truth make, even for those who “Create their own reality”.

    And your answer skirts the truth that the Iraqi constitution now declares Koranic law as supreme in iraq, and the Iraqi government, particularly in the Shia areas, is closely allied with Iran’s government.

    .

    And, the fact is that Osama bin Laden, the perpetrator of the September 11 attacks is still free, more than six years after the attack. And not one single Conservative is permitted to say that Bush has failed to capture him because of total loyaltoy to “The Decider”.

    .

    re: “As usual you do not get it nor even wish to. You live in your fantasy “24/X-Files” world where “evil conservatives” are out to get you.”

    Can you document ever one time where I said that anyone was out to “get” me?

    .

    Re: “However, neither President’s actions were an act of treason, sedition, or a violation of federal code (foreign relations act) as both were the Executive at the time.”

    This is very interesting. Are you saying that you believe that the President of hte US (any president) is incapable of breaking a federal law by nature of being the Chief Executive?

    .

    Re: “Congressmen DID go to these communist governments and DID make personal deals (not national treaties as you seem to mis-state) to work against the foreign policy of the United States. ”

    Can you provide copies of these “agreements”?

    ReplyReply
  21. Scott Malensek says: 71

    Steve, I didn’t know Fred Barnes said anything about AQ/Iraq. Please link. In the meantime, I refer to the captured documents and the last Iraqi Perspectives Project review of those docs etc. They show that Saddam’s regime was closely tied to many Al Queda groups including EIJ which made up 2/3 of AQ leadership. The docs also show very clearly that Saddam’s IIS (with or without his knowledge) worked closely with many AQ groups inside Iraq that later became described by the msm as Al Queda in Iraq. Following that msm stereotyping, they formed a coalition called Al Queda in the land of the two rivers as well as other coalitions. However, it remains that AQ was in Iraq en masse before the war, and was working with Saddam’s regime. you can rant and whine all you want about dated, misinterpreted and half quoted half truths from the past, but that’s the findings of the latest investigation.

    Btw, Saddam and UBL didn’t have to be lovers to be allies. The French and US aren’t lovers, but are allies. The US and USSR were certainly not lovers, but were allies in WWII. Racist Hitler was certainly no lover of the Asian Japanese, and he often mocked Mussolini as well as demonstrated contempt for the man. Allies don’t have to be lovers-just have to share the same enemy, and the 911 Commission says that was the case w Saddam’s regime and AQ

    ReplyReply
  22. Aye Chihuahua says: 72

    Stevie,

    The Saddam/Iraq link to Al Qaeda/9-11 has been proven in court.

    Which of your generalizations, accusations, projections, false statements, and wild folly have been proven in a court of law?

    Cite the cases and jurisdictions please.

    ReplyReply
  23. Philadelphia Steve says: 73

    Re: “The Saddam/Iraq link to Al Qaeda/9-11 has been proven in court.”

    Can you provide the link to the courd records that Saddam was responsible for the September 11 2001 attacks?

    .

    I’m still waiting to find out what sort of personal insult you were implying from “O’PinkPanties”. Of course I could be mistaken and you were trying to compliment me, in which case I assume my response should be, “thank you”.

    .
    Steve, I didn’t know Fred Barnes said anything about AQ/Iraq. Please link.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378

    ReplyReply
  24. Scott Malensek says: 74

    Steve, thanks for the link. Sadly, it’s FIVE years old. The Iraqi Perspectives Project investigation is a few months old, and it’s based on captured documents that have been authenticated as well as other post-war intel. Opponents of the war don’t like to see this, so your favorite sites most likely ignore this truth since it doesn’t support their agenda/your agenda

    ReplyReply
  25. Aye Chihuahua says: 75

    “Can you provide the link to the courd records that Saddam was responsible for the September 11 2001 attacks?”

    Absolutely.

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/pdf/iraqop.pdf

    ***

    Here, in part, is what Judge Baer had to say about the Iraq-9/11 connection:

    “The opinion testimony of the plaintiffs’ experts is sufficient to meet plaintiffs’ burden that Iraq collaborated in or supported bin Laden/al Qaeda’s terrorist acts of September 11. . .

    “Their opinions, coupled with their qualifications as experts on this issue, provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences which could lead to the conclusion that Iraq provided material support to al Qaeda and that it did so with knowledge and intent to further al Qaeda’s criminal acts.”

    Judge Baer continued:

    “[Former CIA] Director [James] Woolsey reviewed several facts that tended in his view to show Iraq’s involvement in acts of terrorism against the United States in general and likely in the events of September 11 specifically.

    “First, Director Woolsey described the existence of a highly secure military facility in Iraq where non-Iraqi fundamentalists [e.g., Egyptians and Saudis] are trained in airplane hijacking and other forms of terrorism. Through satellite imagery and the testimony of three Iraqi defectors, [he] demonstrated the existence of this facility, called Salman Pak, which has an airplane but no runway.

    “The defectors also stated that these fundamentalists were taught methods of hijacking using utensils or short knives. Plaintiffs contend it is farfetched to believe that Iraqi agents trained fundamentalists in a top-secret facility for any purpose other than to promote terrorism.

    “Second, Director Woolsey mentioned a meeting that allegedly occurred in Prague in April 2001 between Mohammad Atta, the apparent leader of the hijackings, and a high-level Iraqi intelligence agent. According to James Woolsey, the evidence indicates that this was an ‘operational meeting’ because Atta flew to the Czech Republic and then returned to the United States shortly afterwards. The Minister of Interior of the Czech Republic, Stanislav Gross, stated on October 26, 2001:

    “‘In this moment we can confirm, that during the next stay of Muhammad Atta in the Czech republic there was the contact with the official of the Iraqi Intelligence, Mr. Al Ani, Ahmed Khalin Ibrahim Samir, who was on 22nd April 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on the basis of activities which were not compatible with the diplomatic status . . . ‘

    “Third, Director Woolsey noted that his conclusion was also based on ‘contacts,’ which refer to interactions between Hussein/Iraq and bin Laden/al Qaeda that are described in a letter from George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, to Senator Bob Graham on October 7, 2002. Director Tenet’s carefully worded letter included in substance the same allegations, but with less detail, that Secretary of State Colin Powell made before the U.N. Security Counsel on Feb. 5, 2003, in his remarks about ‘the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network. . . .’

    “Both Director Tenet and Secretary Powell mentioned ‘senior level contacts’ between Iraq and al Qaeda going back to the early 1990s [although both acknowledged that part of the interactions in the early to mid-1990s pertained to achieving a mutual non-aggression understanding]; both mentioned that al Qaeda sought to acquire poison gas and training in its use from Iraq; both mentioned that al Qaeda members have been in Iraq, including Baghdad, after September 2001. . . .

    “Finally, plaintiffs also place considerable weight on an article that appeared in a regional Iraqi newspaper in July 2001, two months before the disaster of September 11. This article, a paean to bin Laden, mentions that bin Laden 1] ‘will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House,’ 2] ‘is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,’ and 3] ‘will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs.’ See Exs. 16-18, Naeem Abd Muhalhal, America, An Obsession Called Osama Bin Ladin, Al-Nasiriya, July 21, 2001 [original, translation, and certificate of accuracy of translation].

    “Because, according to Director Woolsey, ‘all publications in Iraq really appear at the sufferance of and with a full vetting by the Iraqi regime,’ see Tr. 158, and because of the coincidences and the fact that ‘[t]here is a certain propensity, I think, on bin Laden’s part and on Saddam’s part … to try to communicate in somewhat vague terms,’ Director Woolsey concluded that there is a probability of a vague foreknowledge of what was contemplated. See Tr. 159.” [End of Excerpt]

    Judge Baer also found the testimony of terrorism expert Dr. Laurie Mylroie persuasive, writing:

    “Dr. Mylroie described Iraq’s covert involvement in acts of terrorism against the United States in the past, including the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Dr. Mylroie testified to at least four events that served as the basis for her conclusion that Iraq played a role in the September 11 tragedy:

    “First, she claimed that Iraq provided and continues to provide support to two of the main perpetrators of the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Specifically, Abdul Rahman Yasin returned to Baghdad after the bombing and Iraq has provided him safe haven ever since. See Tr. 175-76. Also, Ramsey Yusef arrived in the United States on an Iraqi passport in his own name but left on false documentation – a passport of a Pakistani who was living in Kuwait and whom the Kuwaiti government kept a file on at the time that Iraq invaded Kuwait. See Tr. 174.

    “Second, she noted bin Laden’s fatwah against the United States, which was motivated by the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia to fight the Gulf War against Iraq. See Tr. 177.

    “Third, she noted that threats by bin Laden in late 1997 and early 1998 which led up to the bombing of the U.S. embassies [on August 7, 1998] were ‘in lockstep’ with Hussein’s threats about ousting the U.N. weapons inspectors, which he eventually did on August 5, 1998. See Tr. 178-79.

    “Dr. Mylroie concluded that ‘Iraq, I believe, did provide support and resources for the September 11 attacks. I agree with [Iraqi defector] Captain [Sabah] Khodada when he said that … it took a state like Iraq to carry out an attack as really sophisticated, massive and deadly as what happened on September 11.’ See Tr. 182.” [End of Excerpt]

    To be sure, Judge Baer also noted that the case for Iraq’s involvement in 9/11 is far from a slam dunk, concluding, “Plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, ‘by evidence satisfactory to the court’ that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda.”

    ***

    Steve, I didn’t know Fred Barnes said anything about AQ/Iraq. Please link.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378

    That article was written by Stephen Hayes. How do you connect it to something Fred Barnes supposedly said?

    By the way, Hayes’ book “The Connection” will clear up a lot of things for you if you haven’t read it.

    ReplyReply
  26. Aye Chihuahua says: 76

    Dang it.

    My response will be forthcoming as soon as it is released from the clutches of the evil SPAM filter.

    ReplyReply
  27. Philadelphia Steve says: 77

    Re: “Steve, thanks for the link. Sadly, it’s FIVE years old. The Iraqi Perspectives Project investigation is a few months old, and it’s based on captured documents that have been authenticated as well as other post-war intel. Opponents of the war don’t like to see this, so your favorite sites most likely ignore this truth since it doesn’t support their agenda/your agenda”

    Of course.

    I’m sure all your favorite sources, The Weekly Standard, NewsMax, The Washington Times, Matt Drudge, are all over it.

    Since the documents are so compelling, why doesn’t President Bush just go on Prime Time TV, as the president and declare, “we have the proof”? He and his staff certainly spent enough time trying to link, at least indirectly,Saddam and the attacks. Now that the “proof” is so conclusive, why not just show the world his vindication? Why leave it to just the Conservative media to promote this idea, only to the Party Faithful?

    .

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/pdf/iraqop.pdf

    The “meeting” in the Chech Republic has been debunked for years. Citing Matt Drudge is about as reliable as citing Rush Limbaugh.

    .

    Re: “That article was written by Stephen Hayes. How do you connect it to something Fred Barnes supposedly said?”

    As executinve Editor, Mr. Barnes takes credit for his publication.

    .

    Still waiting from Aye on exactly how he was intending to insult me with “O’PinkPanties”.

    ReplyReply
  28. Aye Chihuahua says: 78

    Who exactly cited Matt Drudge?

    Show me.

    You asked me for the court documents.

    That’s what I gave you.

    ReplyReply
  29. Why is it that whenever I see a comment from Philly Steve, this image comes to mind:

    And of course the answer is:

    Get this widget | Track details | eSnips Social DNA
    ReplyReply
  30. Scott Malensek says: 80

    Steve,
    I don’t cite those sources. ["I’m sure all your favorite sources, The Weekly Standard, NewsMax, The Washington Times, Matt Drudge, are all over it."]. I cite the reports themselves.

    If you have an example of me citing Matt Drudge, I’ll eat my hat.

    http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html

    This report specifically lists numerous examples of Saddam’s regime working with Egyptian Islamic Jihad (a link that was also reported by the FBI during the Clinton and Bush Admins). This is significant because the leaders of EIJ were also 2/3 of the leadership of AQ (Zawahiri for example, but he’s only 1 of hundreds). The report also documents dozens of examples of Saddam’s regime working with radical Islamics like Al Queda, and much more.

    Your information is hugely dated, based on very little very old intel, and you’re afraid to open your mind (remember, liberal means “open-minded”) to the possiblity that you’re wrong.

    Why doesn’t Bush go on TV? Getting the truth out there is the greatest shortcoming and example of ineptitude of his administration, but it doesn’t help that media outlets (like NBC this week) prefer to make up their own truth and misrepresent what he actually says. That’s why so many arguments against the Iraq War are paper tigers.

    5 million killed-reality is about 100,000 in 5yrs (a slower rate than the Kosovo war)
    3 trillion in costs-reality (even DNC admits this now) is under $500bn over 5yrs-less than the cost of containment was in the Clinton years)
    no wmd-reality in the 1000+pg of the ISG report is that there was a WMD threat just not in the form of stockpiles
    inspections woulda worked-reality, even Blix, Ritter, and others acknowledge that they couldn’t work without Iraq’s help, and we know Iraq couldn’t/didn’t want to help because it would remove their deterrent against others
    no ties to AQ-reality from captured docs and hundreds of regime leaders caught working with AQ is that yeah, Saddam was a huge state sponsor of terror, far worse than was previously known, and that the war in Iraq is part of war on terror
    AQ is only small part of insurgency-reality, small in numbers, but most of the killing come not from the large numbers of part time insurgents but from AQ suicide bombers; ie AQ does most of the work in the insurgency

    I could go on and on, but in the end…the real distortion of intel, facts, etc isn’t some BUSHLIED bit, but rather Demslied and MSM hyped (gosh, American media would never do such a thing, right).

    ReplyReply
  31. Buzz says: 81

    “Here, in part, is what Judge Baer had to say about the Iraq-9/11 connection:”

    That would be Bill Clinton appointed Judge Baer, no?

    ReplyReply
  32. Aye Chihuahua says: 82

    As executinve Editor, Mr. Barnes takes credit for his publication

    Now that’s some funky odd-ball freakish logic right there.

    Surely you jest.

    Again, I’ll ask you, what did Mr. Barnes himself say?

    You claimed that he said something, now what was it?

    What were his words?

    That would be Bill Clinton appointed Judge Baer, no?

    Yes, that’s him.

    ReplyReply
  33. Philadelphia Steve says: 83

    Re: “Who exactly cited Matt Drudge?”
    I mis-attributed TheSmokingGun to the Drudgereport. TSG is another generally right-wing site, but it was my mistake to mix the two up. sorry about that.
    Has the court case stood up on appeal?

    Re: “Why is it that whenever I see a comment from Philly Steve, this image comes to mind”

    I always preferred Margaret Hamilton to Billie Burke myself.

    ReplyReply
  34. Aye Chihuahua says: 84

    Yes, the court case has withstood appeal.

    Second District if my memory serves me.

    I’m at work at the moment so limited time for posting, research, and linking now.

    ReplyReply
  35. ” always preferred Margaret Hamilton to Billie Burke myself.”

    Why am I not surprised?

    ReplyReply
  36. Philadelphia Steve says: 86

    Re: “Why am I not surprised?”

    She was such a wonder shade of green.

    Besides, why should we be so deadly serious or visciously attacking each other all the time. A litle self-depricating humor can lighten up any discussion.

    ReplyReply
  37. Scott Malensek says: 87

    Philly Steve has a sense of humor?

    Must be high

    Let’s test it. I heard this great joke this morning. Hillary and Obama run for President…

    ReplyReply
  38. Buzz says: 88

    Besides, why should we be so deadly serious or visciously attacking each other all the time. A litle self-depricating humor can lighten up any discussion.

    Who’s the little troll wannabe with the brush stroke a mile wide that always want to paint conservatives as the evil people who are always licking at the boots of Bush no matter what? Oh yeah, that’s you steve. Although you should be good at jokes, your entire existence here is one big one.

    ReplyReply
  39. yonason says: 89

    “I always preferred Margaret Hamilton to Billie Burke myself.” — Philly Steve

    O.k., but you CAN have both, you know…

    IGGEDY BIGGADY ZAGADY ZOOOOP!

    It’s yours!

    ooops! Now where did THAT come from?! Guess I don’t know my own strength.

    ReplyReply
  40. yonason says: 90

    Maybe I should have had the SPELL check installed on my wand, after all!
    ____________________________________________________________________

    (don’t click on that first sentence in my post #89, it was just supposed to be italicized. I inadvertently used the “a” instead of the “em” tag, and all it will do is bring you to the top of the page.)

    ReplyReply
  41. ChrisG says: 91

    Sorry Yonason, the spam blocker grabbed your first post.

    It says the more we tell it that someone is not spam, the more it “learns”. I have yet to see it…..

    ReplyReply
  42. Philadelphia Steve says: 92

    Re: “Let’s test it. I heard this great joke this morning. Hillary and Obama run for President…”

    I tune those jokes out, just as I do the “Bush is an idiot” jokes. In each case the only reason to laugh would be shared hatred with the teller. And none of the premises for those joke threads are true. They only raise the hate levels and inject bitterness into disagreements that, while they may never be removed, can at least be calmly acknowledge while preserving the humanity of ones opponent.

    .

    Re: “Who’s the little troll wannabe with the brush stroke a mile wide that always want to paint conservatives as the evil people who are always licking at the boots of Bush no matter what?”

    I never mentioned “boots”.

    .

    Re: “O.k., but you CAN have both, you know…”

    Interesting point…. Actually that was partly the concept behind the Broadway play “Wicked”, which has received great reviews.

    ReplyReply
  43. Pingback: grand mondial casino bonus code

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>