Okay, let's "man up" then. ALL of the Republicans voted for the fucking
war. "Some" of the Democrats did. Some voted against it, and some,
though not members of Congress at the time took a very public stand
against the tide of popular opinion at the time and came out against
it.
If he or she has an "R" after their name, they were for it. Not so
much if it was a "D." Your gal Hillary and boy McSame were on the wrong
side of that issue, as were my guys Kerry and Edwards.
Obama, not so much, along with Dodd, Durbin, Byrd and Kennedy and
some more we could look up. You don't have to look up any GOPers. They
were ALL for it.
Sadly, there is a lazy segment of the public, ever content with the relativistic sop that "they all do it. They'll equalize the bad acts of the criminals they've supported as no worse than the other side's leaders. Since some Democrats voted for the war, the whole party owns the war just as much as the GOP, and voting to give Bush the power to wage war is equivalent to Bush knowingly deceiving them into a bad decision under duress. They discount the coercive spin and some outright lies by the Administration to get that result.
It's "okay" that Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff built and institutionalized a vote buying consortium that made a sham of the democratic process because some Louisiana Democrat amateurishly got caught with bribe money in his freezer.
It's "okay" that Bush ignored the law and is tapping the phones of everybody, because you won't get into trouble if you did nothing wrong, you damn dirty hippy. It's "okay" that he has locked people up for years without even being charged; tortured, rendered to other countries that treat them even worse or thrown into secret prisons, effectively "dissappeared" because the Democrat FDR rounded up Japanese-Americans 70 yerars ago.
The latest is that it's "okay" the President and his henchmen never told us all they knew about the threat from Iraq. They overinflated the evidence for war, proudly used scare tactics and ignored or minimized considerable evidence that pointed away from the war they schemed to invent from the day they took office. And in many cases, they just flat out lied about the need to go to war.
In the most serious decision a nation can make, committing the lives and fortunes of two nations on a path of destruction whose cost can only be guessed, the Administration withheld the facts needed for us to make an informed decision. That was the conclusion of Rockefeller Commission report known as Phase Two on the misuse of intelligence in the lead-up to the war.
But folks like Fox Noise's
Fred Hiatt, and the
dead-enders who would rather grasp at straws Fred provides that basically amounts to the excuse that since Bush/Cheney et al. didn't lie about everything before (and after) the invasion, the lies they did tell are "okay."
Much like the administration whose boots Fred licks, he leaves out important caveats, the "BUT" in the report's conclusions. It's truly
deja vu all over again. Once again we get everything that supports the criminals at the White House, and nothing about what indicts them. Maybe Republicans have a reading/comprehension disorder and everything should be rephrase so the bad news is put first since they can't understand subordinate clauses.
Hopefully this will help. Instead of saying, "The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates," which is where Hiatt stops reading, leaving out, "
BUT did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community. Rockefeller should have written that Bush didn't tell us about the substantial disagreements the intel community had about this "slam dunk" of theirs even though his statements were generally substantiated. He should have written that that Dick Cheney sometimes just made shit up, even though a lot of what he said had the ring of truthiness. maybe then someone like Fred would get it. But I doubt it.
Now, as for that Bush cheerleading embarrassment Hiatt and those clinging to any light at the end of the tunnel that indicates Bush and everyone who supports him don't deserve to go straight to fucking Hell, or jail, or worse,
READ THE FUCKING REPORT FOR YOURSELF. (pdf,
Part 2b here.)
Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more
than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for
food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein
has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass
destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a --
nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one
Bush at UN, 9/12/2002
The Iraqi regime has violated all of those
obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.
It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to
terrorism, and practices terror against its own people.
Bush in Cincinatti, 10/7/02
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting
its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings
with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear
mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal
that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its
nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase
high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas
centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
Bush in Cincinatti, 10/7/02
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the
threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot
wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the
form of a mushroom cloud.
Bush in Cincinatti, 10/7/02
The report is methodical, breaking down five speeches important speeches from the Administration (Cheney in Tennessee, Bush at the UN, in Cincinatti, and the SOTUA, and Powell at the UN) as representative of how they sold the war and applies each speech to the separate questions of what they told us about Iraq and: *nuclear weapons, *biological weapons, * chemical weapons, *WMD's in general, *ties to terrorists, and *the possible consequences. Then on each question, they provide additional statements from the administration, including mendacious sales pitches from Condi Rice and Don Rumsfeld.
On page 12 of the 178 page Phase 2(a) report, just on this issue of what Bush said about nukes, they concluded:
The majority view of the NIE assessed that Iraq would be able to produce a nuclear weapon in five to seven years, and posited a "much less likely
scenario" in which production time could be shortened to three to five
years. The majority view also assessed that if Iraq acquired fissile
material from an outside source that production time could be "within
several months to a year", but noted that Iraq did not appear to have a
"systematic effort to acquire foreign fissile materials from Russia
[or] other sources." State/INR said that it could not predict when Iraq
might acquire a nuclear weapon, since it lacked persuasive evidence of
a reconstituted nuclear program.
It came down to the tubes. State and the Energy Department said the tubes were "poorly suited" to use in enriching uranium. Since they didn't believe there was even an attempt at an ongoing nuke program, they declined to hazard a guess which century Iraq might get the bomb.
CIA and Doug Feith were Jonesing for war though, and so were Bush/Cheney. NSA went along for the ride and made the "iffy" a majority opinion -- whose conclusions were released to Congress, while the minority at State and Energy who said there was no fucking way the
evidence supports Bush's claims were buried.
That's why it was so important to put yellowcake in Saddam's hands which brought down the timetable from seven years to seven months, and why they went after Wilson/Plame with such a heavy hand.
And then there's Condi.
We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know that there have been shipments going into Iran, for instance -- into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to -- high-quality aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.
That was a fucking lie, and she knew better. That was
Rice on CNN September 8, 2002. The same day Powell was on Fox, Cheney was on Meet The Press, both trying to sell the idea that Saddam was going full bore on a nuke program, but neither of them would go as far as Condi. Then again, she was THE National Security Adviser and was a more credible source and
had more access to the intel than a mere VP or Sec.State.
But Cheney doesn't play second fiddle to anyone and
two weeks later said, "
We now have irrefutable evidence that he has once again set up and reconstituted his program to take
uranium, to enrich it to sufficiently high grade, so that it will function as the base material as a nuclear weapon."
That was a fucking lie, and he knew better.
Here's the deal with Fucknut Fred. He leaves out the important part of the sentences in the conclusions that begin with the word, "But."
The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
BUT did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community.
On Chem and bio agents, the Intel folks who relied on Chalbi's pal Curveball really dropped the ball. The guy just made things up and the warnings that his crap was crap never made it up the chain of command. Tenant thought he had good stuff there on the mobile labs and
stockpiles. So Bush wins one here. But anthrax and mustard gas don't form mushroom clouds.
Score: Bush is a liar - 1 / Bush is a dope - 2.
Postwar assessments showed that although he could have reconstituted his bio or chemical weapons programs, Saddam did not possess any such weapons and was not trying to make them.
Fred did forget another "BUT" when it came to chemical weapons productions, where the report nails both Bush and Cheney for lying again.
Conclusion 4: Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
The intelligence community assessed that Saddam Hussein wanted to have chemical weapons production capability and that Iraq was seeking to hide such capability in its dual use chemical industry. Intelligence assessments, especially prior to the October 2002 NIE, clearly stated that analysis could not confirm that production was ongoing.
I'm calling this a push since Rumsfeld was the one who talked out his ass the most on this item. That is unless the word Cheney used, "amassing" WMD's is the same as making them, putting them into production, that kind of thing. Cuz if it is, then when Dick said there was "no doubt" Saddam was "amassing" WMD's to use against us and our friends, he lied -- cuz there was considerable doubt that he had made anything new -- just left-over stuff from the Iran/Iraq war. (He didn't have any, but the intel folks said he did.)
Unless you count the finding the AUMF legally required Bush to make before the invasion, that
"The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."Bush and Fred wouldn't call that a lie, just one of them there "eggs-agger-A-tions." Me, I call it a lie, under oath, on a material issue of fact Bush affirmed to Congress. A bit worse than lying about blow jobs, no?
They really nail Rummy for just making shit up about underground WMD facilities. That was pure fantasy. I don't know if it has any bearing on the decision to go to war, just that it was part of the argument that we couldn't just do this from the air and had to send in the Army and Marines. This was utter bullshit.
Oh, Fred was right, Iraq had scud missiles. (No duh!) But he again doesn't finish the conclusions which where that since Iraq had acquired some mapping software, they were going to target the US with model airplanes. Does not pass the smell test but the administration didn't let anyone get a whiff of the dissenting views -- again.
Like the nuke stuff, it was pure deception to say "this is what they're doing" instead of the more realistic, "maybe -- when pig fly." Come on. they bought maps. Puh-leeze.
The report also concludes that the intel did NOT support the, "
Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida has a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training."
They also were called out for deliberately leaving the impression that contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida were much, much more than they actually were.
And Cheney just flat out lied about Muhammad Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague.
Cheney and Bush, according to the Report, also flat out lied about Saddam being prepared to give WMD's to terrorists, mainly since he didn't have any. They also lied about the war's probably aftermath, about which the intel folks accurately warned them about -- yet they lied and did nothing about it anyway. Greeted as liberators, cost below $100 million, done in six weeks, paid for itself with Iraqi oil.
Exposing the lack of compassion by conservatives and
debunking right wing hypocrisy at every opportunity.
Subscribe via Email
