Democrats Losing Race For Funds Under Dean

[kapkomet]

Why, then, were the quotes coming from the Congress the same before 2001 as they were after? The data seen was from a DEMOCRATIC White House.

 

Something tells me that the intelligence gathered 1-2 years later wasn't that much different then what they had already seen from 1990-2001.

[kapkomet]

And yes, it SHOULD have been different, but it wasn't. The point remains that I think they all knew a lot more then they are CURRENTLY leading us to believe.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Yeah, I was paraphrasing from Fred Kaplan's article and didn't put it as eloquently as he did.

[kapkomet]

Dammit, what are the Democrats going to do to get more money and win the election? Wasn't that the point of this thread?

[Balta1701]

Why, then, were the quotes coming from the Congress the same before 2001 as they were after?  The data seen was from a DEMOCRATIC White House. 

 

Something tells me that the intelligence gathered 1-2 years later wasn't that much different then what they had already seen from 1990-2001.

There are 3 major points.

 

1. The 1998 bombing campaign was key to wiping out the remnants of any WMD program Saddam still had after the Gulf war. However, this could not be verified until we got an actual program of inspectors back in.

2. George W. Bush, through some brilliant sabre-rattling, forced Saddam to let inspectors back in. These inspectors were well on their way to proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam was disarmed. Then Bush chose to stop them and invade anyway.

3. Virtually all of the intelligence that was coming to us from 98-02 was coming from defectors. We had no boots on the ground, we only had what the defectors were telling us. Now, defectors can be useful in intelligence operations as a guide, but what I was saying before the war, and what the CIA has known for decades, is that defectors alone cannot be considered a firm, confident source. They have far too much incentive to invent stories, exactly as happened here. You simply cannot base an invasion on the stories of defectors.

 

The stories of the defectors should have been motivation for exactly 1 action; getting the inspectors back into that country to see if the stories being told were true. However, we launched an invasion based on those stories. That is hugely different from anything Clinton did, said, or considered.

[Balta1701]

And yes, it SHOULD have been different, but it wasn't.  The point remains that I think they all knew a lot more then they are CURRENTLY leading us to believe.

This can be partially proven incorrect by what we already have learned...we can't prove the rest until the Republicans allow the senate to complete Phase 2 of that investigation, but here's a prime example.

 

A Bush administration official told senators last year that "Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities," Florida Today reports.

 

According to Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), "about 75 senators got that news during a classified briefing before last October's congressional vote authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power....

 

"Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons, notably anthrax, and it could deliver them to cities along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones."

 

That echoes public statements from the President, who said at the time, "We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."

 

But this tale of drone attack was beyond unlikely last year - and looks even more absurd now.

 

According to every public report about Iraq's "unmanned air force," Saddam's UAV fleet consisted of, at best, a couple of ancient Czech training drones. These planes have a maximum range of 800 miles or so -- not nearly enough to reach anywhere close to American shores. In fact, only the world's most-advanced UAVs, like the American Global Hawk, could make such a trip.

The details of the UAV's were fully known at the time. In fact, after Bush made one of those claims, the Iraqis even allowed some reporters to see where they were housed, and the bloody things were held together by duct tape. But that is not what Congress was hearing...Congress was hearing that those things could be used to launch an attack on the U.S. mainland.

[kapkomet]

This can be partially proven incorrect by what we already have learned...we can't prove the rest until the Republicans allow the senate to complete Phase 2 of that investigation, but here's a prime example.

 

The details of the UAV's were fully known at the time.  In fact, after Bush made one of those claims, the Iraqis even allowed some reporters to see where they were housed, and the bloody things were held together by duct tape.  But that is not what Congress was hearing...Congress was hearing that those things could be used to launch an attack on the U.S. mainland.

Ok, that may be true, but if they had the weapons, you're saying that they couldn't have repaired them to a usable state? That's one of the things that I don't or haven't understood. We did find things - but they were in "dis-repair"... so these people were just stupid and couldn't put things back together and use them however they saw fit?

 

There have been mulitple people that have said the programs existed, they were told to lay low until they were called upon to "restart" the programs. OF COURSE they weren't going to be doing this stuff with the possibility of inspections happening. But there's nothing to say that this stuff could not have been used again at some point.

[Balta1701]

Ok, that may be true, but if they had the weapons, you're saying that they couldn't have repaired them to a usable state?  That's one of the things that I don't or haven't understood.  We did find things - but they were in "dis-repair"... so these people were just stupid and couldn't put things back together and use them however they saw fit?

 

There have been mulitple people that have said the programs existed, they were told to lay low until they were called upon to "restart" the programs.  OF COURSE they weren't going to be doing this stuff with the possibility of inspections happening.  But there's nothing to say that this stuff could not have been used again at some point.

That is exactly why we needed to get the inspectors back in and let them do their job.

 

Let's put it this way...between the end of 1998 and 2002, Saddam had roughly 3-4 years where he was genuinely unmonitored and uninspected. That would have been plenty of time to start to rebuild the foundations of those programs. Saddam did not do so.

 

In 2002, we got inspectors back in and they were well on their way to confirming this fact when Bush invaded.

 

There is no reason why we could not have maintained a program of inspections and monitoring in order to keep Saddam from reactivating things. We had one running in Iraq throughout most of the decade of the 90's. We had one running in North Korea until we allowed the Koreans to remove all of the monitoring equipment while we were preparing to invade Iraq. There is currently one operating in Iran, although it may be facing serious obstruction - stronger than what Iraq put up in the 90's.

 

Compared with the $300billion or so that this war has cost, maintaining inspections in that country would have been chump change.

[FlaSoxxJim]

But the Irawi UAVs with the capability to deliver a weapon to our shores DID NOT EXIST despite teh fact that 3/4 of US Semators were told otherwise JUST BEFORE they authorized the use of force.

[Balta1701]

NYT Today (behind their Timesselect wall)

 

Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials

 

Yesterday in Alaska, Mr. Bush trotted out the same tedious deflection on Iraq that he usually attempts when his back is against the wall: he claims that questioning his actions three years ago is a betrayal of the troops in battle today.

 

It all amounts to one energetic effort at avoidance. But like the W.M.D. reports that started the whole thing, the only problem is that none of it has been true.

 

Mr. Bush says everyone had the same intelligence he had--Mr. Clinton and his advisers, foreign governments, and members of Congress--and that all of them reached the same conclusions. The only part that is true is that Mr. Bush was working off the same intelligence Mr. Clinton had. But that is scary, not reassuring. The reports about Saddam Hussein's weapons were old, some more than 10 years old. Nothing was fresher than about five years, except reports that later proved to be fanciful.

 

Congress had nothing close to the president's access to intelligence. The National Intelligence Estimate presented to Congress a few days before the vote on war was sanitized to remove dissent and make conjecture seem like fact.

 

It's hard to imagine what Mr. Bush means when he says everyone reached the same conclusion. There was indeed a widespread belief that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. But Mr. Clinton looked at the data and concluded that inspections and pressure were working--a view we now know was accurate. . . .

 

The administration had little company in saying that Iraq was actively trying to build a nuclear weapon. . . .

 

The Bush administration was also alone in making the absurd claim that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda and somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. . . . 

 

Mr. Bush has said in recent days that the first phase of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation on Iraq found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence. . . . Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of central intelligence, said in 2003 that there was "significant pressure on the intelligence community to find evidence that supported a connection" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The C.I.A. ombudsman told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the administration's "hammering" on Iraq intelligence was harder than he had seen in his 32 years at the agency. . . .

 

The administration has still not acknowledged that tales of Iraq coaching Al Qaeda on chemical warfare were considered false, even at the time they were circulated. . . .

 

Remember Condoleezza Rice's infamous "mushroom cloud" comment? And Secretary of State Colin Powell in January 2003, when the rich and powerful met in Davos, Switzerland, and he said, "Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons?" Mr. Powell ought to have known the report on "special equipment"' - the aluminum tubes - was false. And the uranium story was four years old. . . .

 

The president and his top advisers may very well have sincerely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But they did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections. We need to know how that happened and why.

 

Mr. Bush said last Friday that he welcomed debate, even in a time of war, but that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." We agree, but it is Mr. Bush and his team who are rewriting history.

Edited November 15, 2005 by Balta1701

[Heads22]

So much for the Dem only thoughts.....

[FlaSoxxJim]

So much for the Dem only thoughts.....

Dems da breaks I guess.

[kapkomet]

Ahh, so the NY Slimes is brought in to support the thinking here. Thanks, I'll pass.

 

Again, as I've said so many times before, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

 

I am also in the camp that there's reasons way beyond what any of us REALLY know as to why we are where we are. We sit here and throw dung around as if we really know what we're talking about, and I don't think any of us do. We counter and counter point using whatever biased report supports our belief. At the end of the day, I don't think ANY of us know the real reason(s).

[Rex Kickass]

Ahh, so the NY Slimes is brought in to support the thinking here.  Thanks, I'll pass.

 

Again, as I've said so many times before, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

 

I am also in the camp that there's reasons way beyond what any of us REALLY know as to why we are where we are.  We sit here and throw dung around as if we really know what we're talking about, and I don't think any of us do.  We counter and counter point using whatever biased report supports our belief.  At the end of the day, I don't think ANY of us know the real reason(s).

 

That was a column. Not an actual piece of news.

[Balta1701]

Ahh, so the NY Slimes is brought in to support the thinking here.  Thanks, I'll pass.

 

Again, as I've said so many times before, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

 

I am also in the camp that there's reasons way beyond what any of us REALLY know as to why we are where we are.  We sit here and throw dung around as if we really know what we're talking about, and I don't think any of us do.  We counter and counter point using whatever biased report supports our belief.  At the end of the day, I don't think ANY of us know the real reason(s).

So just because it's from the NY Times...you absolutely refuse to even bother intellectually engaging the points made by the piece. That says something important.

[kapkomet]

So just because it's from the NY Times...you absolutely refuse to even bother intellectually engaging the points made by the piece.  That says something important.

Oh, I skimmed it. I can talk to the points, but I have more then enough history of the "columns" of the NY Slimes to know that they have an agenda to make sure that the talking points are 100% against any agenda that the Republican party or "conservatives" may have.

 

I am very biased against the NY Slimes. I admit it. It would be just as healthy if they admitted their bias against the current administration as much as I just did their "news"paper, or should I say, toilet paper. At least then the playing field would be level.

 

I see what you're saying about the talking points, however, I have a hard time with those talking points considering the source.

 

Tell me they were from something else, and I'd probably be able to take off the NY Slimes blinders.

 

It's almost if I took something from the Limbaugh letter (which, NO, I don't get it... LOL - Rush is a windbag too) and posted it on here, you all would pretty much disagree with that puppy too.

[Balta1701]

It's almost if I took something from the Limbaugh letter (which, NO, I don't get it... LOL - Rush is a windbag too) and posted it on here, you all would pretty much disagree with that puppy too.

Yes, I would probably disagree with it, but I'd also make it a point to challenge whatever points/lies Rush was peddling in that piece.

 

I understand if you see an actual report from the NYT and clam up because you feel that the NYT's reporting is suspect (hell, I'd do the same thing if I saw something printed by Judy Miller, or something in the NYT on Iran's weapons programs, etc.). I do the same thing with Drudge and the Washington Times. But that doesn't mean that their op-ed pieces can't be used when people consider them to be well written and containing good points.

[kapkomet]

Yes, I would probably disagree with it, but I'd also make it a point to challenge whatever points/lies Rush was peddling in that piece.

 

I understand if you see an actual report from the NYT and clam up because you feel that the NYT's reporting is suspect (hell, I'd do the same thing if I saw something printed by Judy Miller, or something in the NYT on Iran's weapons programs, etc.).  I do the same thing with Drudge and the Washington Times.  But that doesn't mean that their op-ed pieces can't be used when people consider them to be well written and containing good points.

Yea, I can respect what you're saying there.

[Balta1701]

I somewhat agree.

 

Where I disagree is, you hear EVERY SINGLE DAY about a soldier who died on ABCNews.  But do you ever hear about schools being rebuilt?  Infastructure that is being rebuilt? 

 

We're constantly being reminded about deaths, and the insurgent's activity.  But we're not hearing a lot about the other stuff.

 

Granted, hearing a soldier's death should give us all pause, but I bet it doesn't for most, sadly.  It's only on the news because it's "bad" news, and I know you differ with me on this point, but it's more true then not.  It's a reminder to the Democrats looking for blood in the water that we shouldn't be there at all.

By the way, I meant to respond to this one earlier too...

 

Yeah, you're constantly hearing about the 3-4 soldiers killed per day in Iraq, but at the same time, there's an enormous amount of bad news you're also not hearing about. For example, there are something like 60+ attacks per day on U.S. troops. In general, you only hear about the ones that kill an American. What about the other 50-60?

 

Furthermore, there is an enormous amount of turmoil amongst the civilian population we don't hear about. For example, did you know that right now, according to

Al-Sharq al-Awsat (reputable), did you know that right now there is a wave of assassinations taking place against physicians in Baghdad? In the past few days, 5 of the most prominent doctors in that city have been killed. Since the war began, 150 physicians have been killed in and around Baghdad, and over 3000 have fled that country.

 

And on top of that, there's always the question of what sort of job has been done on reconstructing those schools. There have been more than a few reports coming out of Iraq which said that basically in those multi-million dollar school reconstructions, all that really happened was the walls were painted over and a few new items were brought in - no real reconstruction was done, and after the paint began to chip, the school was back in the same condition it was in before the war. 1 example. There are also still over 80% of the schools in Iraq which have not received any "Reconstruction" at all since the invasion, according to ABC News last May (in a story exactly like the ones you're requesting, by the way).

 

My point is this...yes, there is some progress being made in some areas of Iraq, and there is some progress you don't hear about. But at the same time, there is an enormous amount of harm taking place that you don't hear about either. The news has chosen to focus on the U.S. casualties, and I think that's the only sensible path to take. You can run some stories on the other items as example pieces, but you simply cannot run a story every time a school is rebuilt and call it another triumph, just as you can't really cover every single wave of murders of prominent Iraqi civilians, mainly because it just happens so often.

[Texsox]

From my buddy John, he's staying in touch. He's a decorated, Vietnam War Vet and a really involved community activist and leader.

 

Dear Jim,

 

You can feel the ice breaking. For far too long, Republican leaders have refused to challenge the aimless Bush "stay as long as it takes" approach to Iraq. But now, their unwillingness to act has started to crumble.

 

Today in the Senate, facing a Democratic resolution on Iraq, the Republicans offered their own call for President Bush to come up with a plan. They didn't go nearly far enough, but clearly our call for a concrete plan is gaining momentum.

 

It's time for the next step. Help our "20,000 troops home over the holidays" campaign place billboards in the home districts of Republican leaders.

 

Help place billboards in Republican leaders' home districts

 

To date, over a quarter of a million people have signed our call to withdraw 20,000 troops from Iraq over the holidays. That withdrawal should be linked to the completion of December elections in Iraq - and it should be the first step in the concrete plan for Iraq that President George W. Bush owes the American people.

 

We shouldn't let America's brave men and women go another day without having such a plan in place. That's why we're turning up the heat with our Billboards and House Signs campaign over the next month.

 

Will you add your voice and your financial support to this effort right now?

 

Help place billboards in Republican leaders' home districts

 

This is the next key step in a grassroots organizing and mobilizing campaign that won't end until we've forced the Bush administration to act. The best way to do that is to turn up the heat on Republican leaders in Congress.

 

It's important to get our "20,000 troops home over the holidays" message out everywhere. With your help, we'll run these billboards where they can be seen by key Republican leaders of Congress.

 

And, to extend this phase of our "20,000 troops home over the holidays" effort to your own hometown, here's what we've done. We've created a downloadable version of the billboard that you can print and post in your own home.

 

Download and display a house sign

 

We can feel the momentum building every day behind our call for a concrete plan for Iraq. And our Billboards and House Signs initiative can keep moving things forward. Let's make it happen.

 

Sincerely,

 

John Kerry

 

P.S. We've got to act fast to place and produce these billboards. In addition to donating, I hope you'll pass news of this exciting initiative on to your friends and colleagues by forwarding this message now.

[kapkomet]

By the way, I meant to respond to this one earlier too...

 

Yeah, you're constantly hearing about the 3-4 soldiers killed per day in Iraq, but at the same time, there's an enormous amount of bad news you're also not hearing about.  For example, there are something like 60+ attacks per day on U.S. troops.  In general, you only hear about the ones that kill an American.  What about the other 50-60?

 

Furthermore, there is an enormous amount of turmoil amongst the civilian population we don't hear about.  For example, did you know that right now, according to

Al-Sharq al-Awsat (reputable), did you know that right now there is a wave of assassinations taking place against physicians in Baghdad?  In the past few days, 5 of the most prominent doctors in that city have been killed.  Since the war began, 150 physicians have been killed in and around Baghdad, and over 3000 have fled that country.

 

And on top of that, there's always the question of what sort of job has been done on reconstructing those schools.  There have been more than a few reports coming out of Iraq which said that basically in those multi-million dollar school reconstructions, all that really happened was the walls were painted over and a few new items were brought in - no real reconstruction was done, and after the paint began to chip, the school was back in the same condition it was in before the war.  1 example.  There are also still over 80% of the schools in Iraq which have not received any "Reconstruction" at all since the invasion, according to ABC News last May (in a story exactly like the ones you're requesting, by the way).

 

My point is this...yes, there is some progress being made in some areas of Iraq, and there is some progress you don't hear about.  But at the same time, there is an enormous amount of harm taking place that you don't hear about either.  The news has chosen to focus on the U.S. casualties, and I think that's the only sensible path to take.  You can run some stories on the other items as example pieces, but you simply cannot run a story every time a school is rebuilt and call it another triumph, just as you can't really cover every single wave of murders of prominent Iraqi civilians, mainly because it just happens so often.

So you're telling me that people I know that have come back from there are lying? Let me guess. They're lying to cover George Bush's ass.

 

 

There's two guys from my church who have been over there, another friend of mine as a civillian contractor, and my cousin was over there for 6 months. And they all tell me what amount of work is being done over there, and how many Iraqis are GLAD we are there.

 

So why is it that I come here, and read the papers, that a lot of people, such as yourself in these posts, wants to pile on the hate and the s*** heap about being over there? Don't take that wrong, again, you're reading what you believe to be true to your belief system and damn near everything you post is through that prism and point of view. I disagree with a lot of it, but I do respect it.

 

But, help me out here. For every "positive" story, there seems to be about 10 negative ones. People like yourself find s*** all over the internet such as the post above - to make a point that we're not doing jack s*** over there, and "anti-war", and IT'S A f***ING LIE, etc. The people who are over there and come back home are amazed, and I know this FIRST HAND. Why is that? I seriously want to understand.

[FlaSoxxJim]

In an effort to avoid the NYT and all the Right sees as wrong with it, I'll add some material from the much more wingnut-friendly Washington Times. As contributer Hunter from the Dailykos says, "The Washington Times would generally rather print their papers on the desiccated skins of puppies than say something bad about a Republican, but they'll print a scoop when they see one."

 

Relayed from AmeriBlog, it sounds like the President is starting to fray at the ends:

 

The Washington Times' Insight says Bush "feels betrayed by several of his most senior aides and advisors and has severely restricted access to the Oval Office", according to their sources within the administration.

 

The sources said Mr. Bush maintains daily contact with only four people: first lady Laura Bush, his mother, Barbara Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes. The sources also say that Mr. Bush has stopped talking with his father, except on family occasions.

 

This is a president who even in the best of times is insular, out of touch, and completely unwilling to have alternative points of view brought to him. Now, according to administration sources he's kicked out everyone else in his Oval Treehouse except for his mom, and three people who remind him of his mom? Shudder.

 

For the president, what triggered the break with his father was the interview given to the New Yorker magazine in October by Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security advisor in the first Bush presidency. In the interview, Mr. Scowcroft criticized the administration's handling of Iraq. The sources said the president is convinced that Mr. Scowcroft consulted with Mr. Bush's father prior to delivering the devastating critique of the president's Iraq policy. [...]

 

Relations between Mr. Bush and his chief political adviser, Karl Rove, had also become tense in the build-up to the indictment of Mr. Libby. This is due to the fact the president believed his chief aide when Mr. Rove said that he had nothing to do with the leak of Mrs. Plame's identity. The prospect that Mr. Libby will turn state evidence in the Plame case is even more alarming for the White House.

[southsider2k5]

In an effort to avoid the NYT and all the Right sees as wrong with it, I'll add some material from the much more wingnut-friendly Washington Times.  As contributer Hunter from the Dailykos says, "The Washington Times would generally rather print their papers on the desiccated skins of puppies than say something bad about a Republican, but they'll print a scoop when they see one."

 

Relayed from AmeriBlog, it sounds like the President is starting to fray at the ends:

 

So basically when we all joked about Cheney and company running the White House at the beginning, it was true?

[FlaSoxxJim]

So basically when we all joked about Cheney and company running the White House at the beginning, it was true?

 

Sounds like it. And I didn't tink we were joking.

[KipWellsFan]

So you're telling me that people I know that have come back from there are lying?  Let me guess.  They're lying to cover George Bush's ass. 

There's two guys from my church who have been over there, another friend of mine as a civillian contractor, and my cousin was over there for 6 months.  And they all tell me what amount of work is being done over there, and how many Iraqis are GLAD we are there. 

 

So why is it that I come here, and read the papers, that a lot of people, such as yourself in these posts, wants to pile on the hate and the s*** heap about being over there?  Don't take that wrong, again, you're reading what you believe to be true to your belief system and damn near everything you post is through that prism and point of view.  I disagree with a lot of it, but I do respect it. 

 

But, help me out here.  For every "positive" story, there seems to be about 10 negative ones.  People like yourself find s*** all over the internet such as the post above - to make a point that we're not doing jack s*** over there, and "anti-war", and IT'S A f***ING LIE, etc.  The people who are over there and come back home are amazed, and I know this FIRST HAND.  Why is that?  I seriously want to understand.

 

 

Come on, we all know where soldier's loyalties tend to lie, and just like a liberal newspaper has a bias, so do soldiers. I remember a documentary where each soldier they interviewed in Iraq said they were there was because Saddam struck them, and it was the right fight, so forgive me for being cynical.