I don’t usually quote an entire article, but this one is just too rich.

IN THE EVENT you haven’t noticed it’s a presidential election year. You can tell by the ever growing flurry of conspiracy theories—not just delicious new ones like Barack Obama’s being some kind of Manchurian Candidate for Jihad, Inc., but ones that, even if they’ve grown old and wormy by now, can be pulled off the shelf and re-issued as a brand-new congressional report. Like the 170-page piece of work just out of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The precarious burden of this report is that the evil crew in the White House systematically exaggerated the threat that Saddam Hussein’s regime posed by tilting the intelligence available at the time and overlooking views that didn’t fit in with its lust for war.

But this report doesn’t even tell the half of it, for the sinister neocon cabal behind the invasion of Iraq was even wider than the Democratic majority of this Senate committee lets on. Here are just some of the dire warnings over the years about those elusive weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was supposed to be preparing. Innocent Reader might be surprised at their source “We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” —President Bill Clinton, February 17, 1998.

“[Saddam Hussein ] has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” — Madeleine Albright, secretary of state in the Clinton administration, November 10, 1999.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” —Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, September 19, 2002. (Senator Levin may now be demanding that President Bush set a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, but he can’t fool us. He was clearly part of this pro-war plot. )

“We know that [Saddam Hussein ] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country…. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” —Al Gore, a former vice president of the United States who back then could sound remarkably like the current one, on September 23, 2002. Clearly both veeps were in this together.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” —Senator Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002. Yes, the same Ted Kennedy—may he soon be restored to full health—who would later claim that President Bush and his cronies cooked up the war in Iraq war on his ranch in Texas. But that accusation was probably just to distract us from the senator’s own part in stoking fears of a Saddam Hussein armed with WMD.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons….” —Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who would later become one of the more voluble opponents of the war, on October 3, 2002.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members…. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” —Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, now of New York, on October 10, 2002. Goodness. So many conspirators. That ranch house outside Crawford, Tex., where Ted Kennedy told us the war was hatched, must have been awfully crowded.

THERE ARE those who portray all these conspirators as just innocent victims of intelligence reports manipulated by the Bush administration and carefully fed to innocents like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and so many other Washington figures known for their simple naivete. Unfortunately for that theory, one bipartisan investigation after another into the collection and interpretation of pre-war intelligence has found no evidence of such manipulation.

To quote the Senate Intelligence Committee’s unanimous report back in 2004, “The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, manipulate, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities.” The independent Robb-Silberman Committee reached similar conclusions. All these people must have been in on the conspiracy, too. Jay Rockefeller, then the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, signed on to the committee’s 2004 report but, almost as soon as it was out, began charging that the Bush administration had coerced, influenced or pressured analysts to reach the conclusions it had wanted. This is the same Jay Rockefeller who, on October 10, 2002, had declared: “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years….” Naturally the majority report out last week, just in time for the presidential campaign, felt no need to quote Senator Rockefeller’s earlier warning about the growing danger of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. The gigantic cover-up continues.

WHAT WE have here is a familiar historical pattern: If a war ends in victory, all the politicians favored it. But if difficulties are encountered, it turns out that many of these same politicians were never for the war in the first place. Or were fooled into supporting it. And what’s more, the war was the result of a deep, dark conspiracy: Franklin D. Roosevelt somehow maneuvered the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor; Lyndon Johnson conspired to expand the war in Vietnam; and naturally George W. Bush and his many co-conspirators manipulated the intelligence to get us into this war in Iraq. This presidential campaign is still young, and the conspiracy theories have only begun to flow. To quote that great political philosopher, Bette Davis, “Fasten your seat belts. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.” Having read the same pre-war intelligence reports as the administration, many of these leading Democrats reached the same conclusion as the administration—at the time. Now they tell us the administration was misleading the American people, conveniently overlooking their own, remarkably similar statements back then.

Surely these members of the loyal opposition were acting in good faith when they warned of the growing danger from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The question is whether they are acting in good faith now. And without good faith in debating the course of American policy in perilous times, divided we fall.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Steve,

As usual, you prove my point in comment #2 and are so deluded that you miss it totally.

There was no “personal abuse” though as I stated before, you deserve nothing BUT that for your attacks against me. I stated facts and you responded as your pattern suggested you would. You really need emotional help, the ability to not parrot your thought masters talking points, and something besides “all conservatives” crap you spew.

Since you had nothing of substance which has been refuted time and again, all there is to repond to is your psychosis and continued method of “telling a lie till it becomes truth”.

BTW, this conservative may not vote McCain. Many may not. Your thought masters will not allow you to accept that. But with the idiocy of Obama and the policies he is proposing, we may not have much choice. But if Obama is elected. I guarantee he will be treated better by conservatives than the left has treated President Bush.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Great quote Mike, just added it to the post right after Gore’s quote. I always find it hilarious that these yahoo’s tell us Bush is sooooo ignorant, but then accuse him of the greatest conspiracy ever.

Do they even know how nuts they sound?

Mata, great comment….doubt it will do much good with Stevo, but it will sure will enlighten those not so steeped in their leftist hate.

This part especially rang true:

There are mistakes and losses in every war, as I said before. But I am “orders-of-magnitude angrier” with a leader who wastes, and degrades those precious lives by running with tail tucked (Somalia), than I am with a leader who stays focused on a justified end goal (Iraq).

Clinton running from Somalia just proved to the world that after Vietnam we just didn’t have the fortitude for a tough fight. We were a bunch of soft liberals who just wanted to “make peace man.”

Thankfully, as Reagan saved us from the horrible Carter years, we had Bush to save us from the horrible Clinton years and we brought back the real American spirit. When times are tough we just get tougher.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Philly Steve still says Iraq is in a “Civil War?” On the basis of what would he make such an absurd claim?

I realize he and his fellow defeatists would have had the U.S. quit Iraq and then point to the mess and blame someone else but he just can’t be permitted to continue redefining reality to suit himself in such a blatant fashion without being called on it.

P.S. One Jay Rockefeller quote was missing from this post: “I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat.” Spoken on the Senate Floor Oct. 10, 2002. No doubt with the intelligence information provided to him by the Clinton Administration fresh in his mind.

Pretty neat trick for Bush, who was then Governor of Texas, to fix all the intelligence on Iraq and WMD before he even decided to run for President. He must be pretty smart to have pulled that off.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

To respond, Phillie Steve:

And if we wind up with another client state of Iran, which is what we have in Iraq now? What then? Was it still worth it?

It is up to Iraq to decide their Arab form of democracy. No Arab nation will resemble the US, nor should it. But if they continue to nurture allies such as Sheik Ahmad, your bet your ass it’s worth it. No Muslim country will ever be as staunch an ally as Britain and Australia because of our inherent cultural differences. However if Iraq, like Pakistan and SA, are workable as allies for most of the time, it is far superior to Saddam’s Iraq.

It is ONLY as bad as it was in 2005. And Conservatives are high-fiving themselves at how great they’ve made things.

You’re being dramatic, and disingenuous, Steve. In 2005, Iraq didn’t even have a permanent govt in place. AQ and jihad were still revered by a high percentile of Muslims. The Iraq army and police are no where what they are today. Nor was the Iraq Assembly. However we’re not high-fiving ourselves. We are saluting the Iraqis for making progress. We can, however, high five ourselves for not caving in to polls and a defeatist Congress – instead staying focused on the best outcome for both Iraq and the US.

I will repeat. Conservatives, without a single exception, are orders-of-magnitude angrier at Bill Clinton for the losses in “Black Hawk Down” in Somalia that they ever will be for the many times greater losses in Iraq.

We are always angry and bereaved for losses of life. However the main difference is that in Somalia, Clinton bolted, and led the US out in humiliation and defeat. AQ 1, US 0. OBL got lots of mileage off of that event. The US was pegged as the paper tiger it’s been for decades. Clinton proved that to be true beyond all doubt. The loss of those warriors’ lives was then topped with loss of respect and fear for the US and our military. Nice going, Bubba.

Regardig Bosnia. Did that campaign cost as much as Iraq?

Bosnia was not the next stop on the AQ nest express. Different war, different circumstances, different debate. I brought it up as an example of failures that got a free pass. However you bring it up as a matter of money and # of casualties, as if that makes the failure more palatable. You feel that if the loss of life and financial drain aren’t as high as Iraq, that a free pass is somehow more acceptable? Odd concept.

There are mistakes and losses in every war, as I said before. But I am “orders-of-magnitude angrier” with a leader who wastes, and degrades those precious lives by running with tail tucked (Somalia), than I am with a leader who stays focused on a justified end goal (Iraq). Great phrasing, BTW… “orders of magnitude angrier”…

BTW, I’ll start calling it a civil war when the Iraqis do. Not before. You, the media, and the US Congress consider yourselves the gods of definitions because it suits your political agenda and media propaganda campaign. I choose to listen to Maliki’s assessment. IMHO, he has more authority and inside knowledge than you, the western media, or a DNC desperate to control all branches of power.

Civil war has been averted in Iraq and Iranian intervention there has “ceased to exist,” Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said yesterday.

“I can’t say there is a picture of roses and flowers in Iraq,” Maliki told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. “However, I can say that the greatest victory, of which I am proud . . . is stopping the explosion of a sectarian war.” That possibility, he said, “is now far away.

This was September of last year. And conditions today are even more favorable, with many more steps forward under their belt..

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Unfortunately, the White House has done a poor job in repelling these malicious, obviously false claims.

I don’t blame the WH for this. In every speech Bush or Cheney or for that matter any WH staffer has given the media has turned it around and reported the opposite of what was said. I know who is responsible for the discord that is going on in this country. It is the media with their lies and false reporting. Divide and conquer is the left’s maxim and they are doing an excellent job of it. So excellent they have divided their own party in bitter opposition while the GOP loos on in amazement. I have sometimes wondered if this is the left’s method of weeding out malcontents who don’t adhere to the policies of the left. They are probably that stupid. Every issue that the dems bring up has an inate flaw in the final results. They do not look at the big picture and don’t wonder if they do X what will happen to Y and if they fix Y what will happen to Z. It is easy to see this by looking at all their iniatives. There is a flaw in every one of them.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

As I predicted, ChrisG and Aye Chihuahua responded with no informaiton and personal abuse.

To Matahara, “No”, I still did not approve of allowing bin Laden to get away in order to invade Iraq. I just noted that, had President Bush been even mildly competent in the occupation, following Colin Powell’s advice, Americans would have forgiven him for the invasion. Instead he botched the occupation (or sat back and allowd his appointees to botch it), and gave us the civil war occupation we see right now. For which Conservatives will present mild criticism, but nothing more serious than at “too bad”.

Also re: “. But I personally think if we end up with another tenative Arab ally, it is worth every penny. ”
And if we wind up with another client state of Iran, which is what we have in Iraq now? What then? Was it still worth it?

Regardig Bosnia. Did that campaign cost as much as Iraq?

” Look how much progress has been made just in the last year.”
Yeah. It is ONLY as bad as it was in 2005. And Conservatives are high-fiving themselves at how great they’ve made things. How about how bad they made things when President Bush was defending Secretary Rumsfeld?

Re: “You can be outraged at mistakes.”
I will repeat. Conservatives, without a single exception, are orders-of-magnitude angrier at Bill Clinton for the losses in “Black Hawk Down” in Somalia that they ever will be for the many times greater losses in Iraq. But for Conservatives, they are all “mistakes”, to be held against Democrats and alibi’ed away for Republicans.

Go ahead and prove me wrong. Can you type the words, “Donald Rumsfeld’s arrogant incompetence has cost the lives of thousands of Americans in the chaos that ensued the defeat of the Iraqi Army. And President Bush is ultimately accountable for the disasters that occuerd in Iraq under his command, including the civil war (that Conservatives are not permiited by The Party to call a civil war, even though that is exactly what it looks like).

Were a Conservative even permitted to type those words, he/she would be immediately required to list at least twice as many blunders by Democrats, in order to keep their Republican Prty loyalty intact.

Scott: “…if he’s so lockstep inline w our President, then why doesn’t he have the support of the Republican Party base?”
John McCain does have it. 100% of the Republican Party base will turn out in November and vote for John McCain. There will be absolutely no exceptions, anywhere in the Untied States. Some of the Hillary Clinton Supporters will vote for John McCain. However not one single supporter of Mike Huckabee, Rudy Guiliani, Fred Thompson, et. al will vote for Barak Obama. Not one single one. Guaranteed. That is the hold The Party has on its loyalists. now and forever, no matter who is nominated for President, of either party.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

One thing I don’t understand about the people who claim Sen McCain is a Bushie or some sort of GWBv2.0…

The only people who claim that are brainless dolts and they’re working furiously to create another meme which will carry them through to November.

Why was it weak? Why was it limited?

That couldn’t possibly have anything to do with cuts to the CIA’s HUMINT could it?

Surely not.

More importantly, who claimed that Bush Lied

Probably the same people who created the “civil war” “quagmire” fallacies.

Could it be that politicians made it up as a means of decreasing President Bush’s post911 popularity and increasing their own political support?

Yes, absolutely.

Remember the “Rockefeller Memo”?

***

Unfortunately, the White House has done a poor job in repelling these malicious, obviously false claims.

The Leftists have effectively capitalized on this weakness.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

One thing I don’t understand about the people who claim Sen McCain is a Bushie or some sort of GWBv2.0…

…if he’s so lockstep inline w our President, then why doesn’t he have the support of the Republican Party base?

Sorry, OT.

Look, fact of the matter is that the intel on Iraq was weak, and in some cases wrong (which is why they’re called ‘intelligence agencies’ not ‘evidence agencies’). Why was it weak? Why was it limited? Why did the preponderance of information point to Saddam being a threat (specifically a “Nexus of Evil” threat where unaccounted for Iraqi WMD would be given to AQ for a covert attack on their mutual enemy: the United States)?

More importantly, who claimed that Bush Lied, and why’d they claim it if (as the report shows) most of the pre-war claims were “supported by the intelligence”? Could it be that politicians made it up as a means of decreasing President Bush’s post911 popularity and increasing their own political support?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Is it a full moon out????

Like or Dislike: 0  0