Phuoc Long Redux

[flintlock]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

I agree with Woodsman. Lots of similarities with Vietnam. Nation building. Army building. Attempting to force Western notions on a people incapable of embracing them. Throwing money at complex problems. High civilian collateral damage yet expecting to win hearts and minds. I expect the photographers are already lining up to catch the last Helicopter leaving the roof of the billion dollar embassy.

As others have said, the factions mostly fall along religious lines and the failure of the US leaders to realize this meant it was doomed from the start. Historically speaking nations have always used war to sort out their borders and settle disputes. This process has been bypassed by outside meddling and the result is what we see today. A hodgepodge of phony countries with massive religious divisions that seem to be incompatible. Not unlike what democrats vs republicans are becoming.

[don]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

this should help . . .

[lektrode]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

this one is PURRRRFECT, mr don:

this should help . . .

but woody - as someone once somewhat infamously said: "there are known knowns and known unknowns..."
so even tho we knew these knowns:

Raz, you're being most uncharitable here. There was one neocon who called it on the nose.

snip the vid...

In 1994 he accurately predicted the chaos he would help create nine years later.

how come/why dont you want to ack THESE knowns ?

this one in particular (12/98)

but also these little tidbits: ????

Posted on 01/04/2004 ....
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"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, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"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..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"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 ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 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 Qaeda 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." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

never mind this one...

nears i can tell, near everything that geedubya&co got stuck with, THEY 'INHERITED' - to use the term thats been so 'in vogue' lately (since 2008-09, in particular) - but kinda funny tho, isnt it?

and NOT that i'm attempting to defend any of em, but...

i dont recall ever hearing any of the prev occupants claiming that excuse...

do you?

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

Here's what I can say about history: It is the inscrutable language used by the dead to speak to the deaf.

"W" wasn't the buffoon the US media made him out to be. He was worse.

Surrounding himself with NeoCon nitwits who bolstered his swaggering Texas ego, he was not only going to get the man "who tried to kill my dad", but he would 'transform the Middle East'. I doubt he even knew who T. E. Lawrence was and didn't know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia.

These NeoCon fools didn't listen to the Saudis (who almost begged them NOT to invade Iraq) nor did they understand that the Iranians (Persians) had been trying to control the entire Middle East since the time of Xerxes. We are paying for their ignorance and arrogance.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

---RAZ

Raz, that was very well stated, and I whole heartedly agree. One difference: "national leaders do not learn from history". Nations do sometimes. Bush had to engage in massive mendacity to get congress and the people to go along with the war plans. Congress never actually voted to declare war, and the supreme court should have declared the war powers resolution unconstitutional.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

This morning I woke to the fall of Mosul and I retire to the fall of Tikrit. What do the iTulip Field Marshals think about the rhyme of history with Phuoc Long and the start of the 75 spring offensive?

Is this the beginning of the end in Iraq? Are Frequent Wind style helicopters evacuations from the green zone in the near term future? Do we see a Linebacker II style response? Or is my geezer perspective so hopelessly out of date as to be irrelevant?
----------------------------------------------------------------

Islamist Insurgents Advance Toward Baghdad
Islamist Militants Overrun Tikrit, Birthplace of Former Dictator Saddam Hussein
Updated June 11, 2014 7:59 p.m. ET

Islamist militants overran the Iraqi city of Tikrit, just one day after fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, took control of Mosul. ISIS's grip is expanding in the region. Via The Foreign Bureau, WSJ's global news update.

Islamist militants swept out of northern Iraq Wednesday to seize their second city in two days, threatening Baghdad and pushing the country's besieged government to signal it would allow U.S. airstrikes to beat back the advance.
An alarmed Iraqi government also asked the U.S. to accelerate delivery of pledged military support, particularly Apache helicopters, F-16 fighters and surveillance equipment, to help push back fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, an al Qaeda offshoot known as ISIS. The U.S. said it has been expediting shipments of military hardware to the Iraqis all year.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/iraqi...507905194.html

WM,

I'd say the parallels with Vietnam are OVERWHELMING.

Differences:
Iraq is mostly desert, Vietnam mostly a rain forest.
Iraq is internally fragmented, Vietnam was partially united behind an charismatic, anti-colonial, despot.

[Raz]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

---RAZ

Bush had to engage in massive mendacity to get congress and the people to go along with the war plans. Congress never actually voted to declare war, and the supreme court should have declared the war powers resolution unconstitutional.

I believe "W" is a walking, talking dumb-ass. And I have little doubt that he would bend the truth to near breaking if necessary. It would help me believe he outright lied if someone would show me clear evidence of it.
It's hard for me to swallow that only Bush knew the intelligence reports on Saddam's Iraq were fabricated - there were too many participants. And what about the likes of Kerry and Clinton who all went along with the 2003 invasion?

Now it's EASY for me to see why Bush didn't want a Declaration of War - that would place limits upon what he could then do, not to mention the much harder evidence that would have to be presented in order to obtain such a vote.

I don't trust ANY of these lowlifes - certainly not the Organizer-in-Chief who currently holds the office.
But I would like to read at least a couple of articles showing that Bush knew what he wouldn't release to the Congress.

[don]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

"W" wasn't the buffoon the US media made him out to be. He was worse.

Surrounding himself with NeoCon nitwits who bolstered his swaggering Texas ego, he was not only going to get the man "who tried to kill my dad", but he would 'transform the Middle East'. I doubt he even knew who T. E. Lawrence was and didn't know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia.

These NeoCon fools didn't listen to the Saudis (who almost begged them NOT to invade Iraq) nor did they understand that the Iranians (Persians) had been trying to control the entire Middle East since the time of Xerxes. We are paying for their ignorance and arrogance.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

University of Illinois Law School Professor Francis A. Boyle, an internationally famous representative of human rights, with J.D. and Ph.D. degrees from Harvard University, is a man revered in many countries of the world, although not in Washington:

“On Tuesday 11 March 2003, with the Bush Jr. administration’s war of aggression against Iraq staring the American People, Congress and Republic in their face, Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee (which has jurisdiction over Bills of Impeachment), convened an emergency meeting of forty or more of his top advisors, most of whom were lawyers. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and debate immediately putting into the U.S. House of Representatives Bills of Impeachment against President Bush Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and then Attorney General John Ashcroft in order to head off the impending war. Congressman Conyers kindly requested that Ramsey Clark and I come to the meeting in order to argue the case for impeachment.

“This impeachment debate lasted for two hours. It was presided over by Congressman Conyers, who quite correctly did not tip his hand one way or the other on the merits of impeachment. He simply moderated the debate between Clark and I, on the one side, favoring immediately filing Bills of Impeachment against Bush Jr. et al. to stop the threatened war, and almost everyone else there who were against impeachment for partisan political reasons. Obviously no point would be served here by attempting to digest a two-hour-long vigorous debate among a group of well-trained lawyers on such a controversial matter at this critical moment in American history. But at the time I was struck by the fact that this momentous debate was conducted at a private office right down the street from the White House on the eve of war.

“Suffice it to say that most of the ‘experts’ there opposed impeachment not on the basis of enforcing the Constitution and the Rule of Law, whether international or domestic, but on the political grounds that it might hurt the Democratic Party’s effort to get their presidential candidate elected in the year 2004. As a political independent, I did not argue that point. Rather, I argued the merits of impeaching Bush Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft under the United States Constitution, U.S. federal laws, U.S. treaties and other international agreements to which the United States is a party, etc. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that treaties ‘shall be the supreme Law of the Land.’ This so-called Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution also applies to international executive agreements concluded under the auspices of the U.S. President such as the 1945 Nuremberg Charter.

“Congressman Conyers was so kind as to allow me the closing argument in the debate. Briefly put, the concluding point I chose to make was historical: The Athenians lost their democracy. The Romans lost their Republic. And if we Americans did not act now we could lose our Republic! The United States of America is not immune to the laws of history!

“After two hours of most vigorous debate among those in attendance, the meeting adjourned with second revised draft Bills of Impeachment sitting on the table.”

Professor Boyle said to former Attorney General Ramsey Clark on the way out of the building after the two hour debate:

“Ramsey, I don’t understand it. Why didn’t those people take me up on my offer to stick around, polish up my draft bills of impeachment, and put them in there right away in order to head off this war?

“And Ramsey replied: ‘I think most of the people there want a war.’”

And, Indeed, they did. John Podesta representing the Democratic National Committed told Conyers that the Democratic Party did not want Conyers to pursue the impeachment effort. Instead, the Democratic Party wanted to give Republicans Bush and Cheney their war on Iraq so that the Democrats would fare better in the national elections in 2004. Think about that, not just the stupidity of the Democratic Party–whenever has a party at war been in danger of electoral defeat? Look and see! Here is the spokesman for the Democratic Party telling Conyers: “Don’t prevent a war, because we will benefit politically from it. Let the Iraqi people die. Let our soldiers die. We Democrats will benefit from it.”

You can listen to Professor Boyle tell the story here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfvMlyCnjDs from the 7 minute marker to the 9:35 marker.

[Raz]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

...John Podesta representing the Democratic National Committee told Conyers that the Democratic Party did not want Conyers to pursue the impeachment effort. Instead, the Democratic Party wanted to give Republicans Bush and Cheney their war on Iraq so that the Democrats would fare better in the national elections in 2004. Think about that, not just the stupidity of the Democratic Party–whenever has a party at war been in danger of electoral defeat? Look and see! Here is the spokesman for the Democratic Party telling Conyers: “Don’t prevent a war, because we will benefit politically from it. Let the Iraqi people die. Let our soldiers die. We Democrats will benefit from it.”

RepubliCrats: Self-serving, pathological liars masquerading as statesmen who are ALL in fact nothing less than political whores.
Not more than one out of twenty are willing to risk electoral defeat in order to promote the common interest of the nation.

VT and Woodsman are both correct: (1) it's useless to think the Republicrats are going to lead us out of this mess, and (2) sad to say, but the rot is so deep that we're almost certainly not going to vote our way out of this either - no Third Party without changing the political money game.

[lektrode]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

...John Podesta representing the Democratic National Committee told Conyers that the Democratic Party did not want Conyers to pursue the impeachment effort. Instead, the Democratic Party wanted to give Republicans Bush and Cheney their war on Iraq so that the Democrats would fare better in the national elections in 2004. Think about that, not just the stupidity of the Democratic Party–whenever has a party at war been in danger of electoral defeat? Look and see! Here is the spokesman for the Democratic Party telling Conyers: “Don’t prevent a war, because we will benefit politically from it. Let the Iraqi people die. Let our soldiers die. We Democrats will benefit from it.”

RepubliCrats: Self-serving, pathological liars masquerading as statesmen who are ALL in fact nothing less than political whores.

Not more than one out of twenty are willing to risk electoral defeat in order to promote the common interest of the nation.

VT and Woodsman are both correct: (1) it's useless to think the Republicrats are going to lead us out of this mess, and (2) sad to say, but the rot is so deep that we're almost certainly not going to vote our way out of this either - no Third Party without changing the political money game.

+1 on all of this
or forcing by petition and constitutional convention the enacting of TERM LIMITS, thus removing any incentive they have to act in the now typical - as evidenced by pretty much anything/everything thats happened since 1999 (and never mind since 2007-09) - to sell 'their' offices to the highest bidder!

its this 'end justifies the means, at ANY COST' - for them to BUY THE VOTES of just another sliver of % of the electorate that is THE PROBLEM - and to hell with serving the best interests of 'the majority' - as a whole new and now HUGE activist minority-vote industrial complex has been created - mostly since the '60's - thats beginning to overtake even the power of the .mil industrial complex stranglehold (and we wont even get into axis of evil tween the beltway and lwr manhattan, but they on the same team as the former, so its all part of the same disease...)

[shiny!]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

...John Podesta representing the Democratic National Committee told Conyers that the Democratic Party did not want Conyers to pursue the impeachment effort. Instead, the Democratic Party wanted to give Republicans Bush and Cheney their war on Iraq so that the Democrats would fare better in the national elections in 2004. Think about that, not just the stupidity of the Democratic Party–whenever has a party at war been in danger of electoral defeat? Look and see! Here is the spokesman for the Democratic Party telling Conyers: “Don’t prevent a war, because we will benefit politically from it. Let the Iraqi people die. Let our soldiers die. We Democrats will benefit from it.”

RepubliCrats: Self-serving, pathological liars masquerading as statesmen who are ALL in fact nothing less than political whores.
Not more than one out of twenty are willing to risk electoral defeat in order to promote the common interest of the nation.

VT and Woodsman are both correct: (1) it's useless to think the Republicrats are going to lead us out of this mess, and (2) sad to say, but the rot is so deep that we're almost certainly not going to vote our way out of this either - no Third Party without changing the political money game.

Be careful, Raz. Calling those swine "political whores" is an insult to honest, hardworking whores.

Oops, I just did a disservice to intelligent, sensitive swine everywhere.

Shutting up now.

[Polish_Silver]

Truth about Bush

I believe "W" is a walking, talking dumb-ass. And I have little doubt that he would bend the truth to near breaking if necessary. It would help me believe he outright lied if someone would show me clear evidence of it.
It's hard for me to swallow that only Bush knew the intelligence reports on Saddam's Iraq were fabricated - there were too many participants. And what about the likes of Kerry and Clinton who all went along with the 2003 invasion?

Now it's EASY for me to see why Bush didn't want a Declaration of War - that would place limits upon what he could then do, not to mention the much harder evidence that would have to be presented in order to obtain such a vote.

I don't trust ANY of these lowlifes - certainly not the Organizer-in-Chief who currently holds the office.
But I would like to read at least a couple of articles showing that Bush knew what he wouldn't release to the Congress.

I spoke to someone who had been in a face to face meeting with Bush, and he said Bush seemed quite intelligent, quite different from how he appears in the media. There's a difference between raw cognition and good decision making. Still, it makes you wonder if all the blunders can be put down to incompetence. Cheney has never been accused of stupidity, and he was a big backer of the Iraq war. I also spoke with someone who had an uncle in the CIA, and he told me the pre-war CIA consensus was "no WMD in Iraq". Bush (or his administration) put together a small clique of intelligence people who backed the position that Iraq had WMD. Cheney spread the "yellow cake" story even after the government had publicly debunked it. Like jugglers, they had so many stories in the air that the citizens could scarcely tell when one had been taken down. FrontLine had a documentary about how wide spread the deception was, including Frontline itself.

You never know for sure if someone is lying, because you cannot read their mind. There is also lying to yourself--convincing yourself the world is how you want it to be.

Congress voted overhwelmingly for the war.

[lektrode]

Re: Truth about Bush

I spoke to someone who had been in a face to face meeting with Bush, and he said Bush seemed quite intelligent, quite different from how he appears in the media.

this was/has always been one of my biggest pet peeves about how the lamestream media chooses/likes to 'frame' their coverage, along with their targets - and i use the term in both of its meanings - and again - NOT that i'm attempting to defend geedubya, but the lamestream media has dumped a lot of blame on him - for things that developed (and couldve been stopped) during wild bill's 'magnificent' run inside the beltway - and how little we've heard lately (like since '09 and particularly since '12) about "the worst prez ever" - and we wont even get into the current occupant's lack of any real experience - of even ever holding a REAL job - vs geedubya's background - who at the very least was a popular 2 term governor ie: the CEO of one the largest state economies in The US (vs a not-even-one-term senate backbencher like the community-organizer-in-chief)

one of the earlier op/ed commentaries eye remember about him was along the lines of 'his resenting his eastern establishment/yale background etc' and not wanting to 'playball' the way his father had (or words to that effect, or at least my recollection of it) and why he ended up in TX (and kinda sorta same reason yers truly is no longer in new england)

There's a difference between raw cognition and good decision making. Still, it makes you wonder if all the blunders can be put down to incompetence. Cheney has never been accused of stupidity, and he was a big backer of the Iraq war. I also spoke with someone who had an uncle in the CIA, and he told me the pre-war CIA consensus was "no WMD in Iraq". Bush (or his administration) put together a small clique of intelligence people who backed the position that Iraq had WMD. Cheney spread the "yellow cake" story even after the government had publicly debunked it. Like jugglers, they had so many stories in the air that the citizens could scarcely tell when one had been taken down. FrontLine had a documentary about how wide spread the deception was, including Frontline itself.

You never know for sure if someone is lying, because you cannot read their mind. There is also lying to yourself--convincing yourself the world is how you want it to be.

Congress voted overhwelmingly for the war.

exactly - with some of his most outspoken political rivals having been RIGHT THERE WITH HIM and voting FOR IT (at least until they flipflopped after the fact and voted against it, like john F(raud) kerry so famously did) - see my earlier post for some of the more... uhhh.... memorable comments/rhetoric on this

and even more HILARIOUS is how the same lamestream media likes to ignore how geedubya's predecessor's appointed types screwups are haunting us even TODAY

and like i asked woody the other day (on this same thread, above) - we keep hearing about what the current occupant's 'inherited' - but i dont recall ever hearing any of that from geedubya&co - do you?

they also dont seem at all interested in CONNECTING *ANY* OF THE MANY DOTS that suggest theres a veritable ICEBERGS worth of questions that they continue to ignore

again - its also why:

[shiny!]

Re: Truth about Bush

I spoke to someone who had been in a face to face meeting with Bush, and he said Bush seemed quite intelligent, quite different from how he appears in the media. There's a difference between raw cognition and good decision making. Still, it makes you wonder if all the blunders can be put down to incompetence. Cheney has never been accused of stupidity, and he was a big backer of the Iraq war. I also spoke with someone who had an uncle in the CIA, and he told me the pre-war CIA consensus was "no WMD in Iraq". Bush (or his administration) put together a small clique of intelligence people who backed the position that Iraq had WMD. Cheney spread the "yellow cake" story even after the government had publicly debunked it. Like jugglers, they had so many stories in the air that the citizens could scarcely tell when one had been taken down. FrontLine had a documentary about how wide spread the deception was, including Frontline itself.

You never know for sure if someone is lying, because you cannot read their mind. There is also lying to yourself--convincing yourself the world is how you want it to be.

Congress voted overhwelmingly for the war.

I don't know if it's true or not, but around the time the 2003 invasion of Iraq started I read that Iraq did have WMDs which were transported into Syria and hidden, so I wasn't surprised when none were found in Iraq.

A little searching turns up lots of pro and con articles about this theory, among them these:

WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the Invasion of Iraq (wikipedia)

Syrian chemical weapons may shed light on Saddam's missing WMDs

Did Syria Receive Its Chemical Weapons from Saddam?

[lektrode]

Re: Truth about Bush

I don't know if it's true or not, but around the time the 2003 invasion of Iraq started I read that Iraq did have WMDs which were transported into Syria and hidden, so I wasn't surprised when none were found in Iraq.

A little searching turns up lots of pro and con articles about this theory, among them these:

WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the Invasion of Iraq (wikipedia)

Syrian chemical weapons may shed light on Saddam's missing WMDs

Did Syria Receive Its Chemical Weapons from Saddam?

+1
exactly.
why i say geedubya got 'framed' by not only his political rivals, but their enablers in the LAMESTREAM MEDIA
who are ALL on the same team and all - with the exception of a very few, like matt taibbi, at al -
are 'working on' *THE* CoverUp of ALL COVERUPS of all time

[Raz]

Re: Truth about Bush

I spoke to someone who had been in a face to face meeting with Bush, and he said Bush seemed quite intelligent, quite different from how he appears in the media. There's a difference between raw cognition and good decision making. Still, it makes you wonder if all the blunders can be put down to incompetence. Cheney has never been accused of stupidity, and he was a big backer of the Iraq war. I also spoke with someone who had an uncle in the CIA, and he told me the pre-war CIA consensus was "no WMD in Iraq". Bush (or his administration) put together a small clique of intelligence people who backed the position that Iraq had WMD. Cheney spread the "yellow cake" story even after the government had publicly debunked it. Like jugglers, they had so many stories in the air that the citizens could scarcely tell when one had been taken down. FrontLine had a documentary about how wide spread the deception was, including Frontline itself.

You never know for sure if someone is lying, because you cannot read their mind. There is also lying to yourself--convincing yourself the world is how you want it to be.

Congress voted overhwelmingly for the war.

Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying

July 26, 2004


(Updated: August 23, 2004)


Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.



Summary



The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.

Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

• A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
• A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
• Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
• Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.


But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.




Analysis



The "16 words" in Bush's State of the Union Address on Jan. 28, 2003 have been offered as evidence that the President led the US into war using false information intentionally. The new reports show Bush accurately stated what British intelligence was saying, and that CIA analysts believed the same thing.

The "16 Words" During the State the Union Address on January 28, 2003, President Bush said: Bush: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

The Butler Report

After nearly a six-month investigation, a special panel reported to the British Parliament July 14 that British intelligence had indeed concluded back in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium. The review panel was headed by Lord Butler of Brockwell, who had been a cabinet secretary under five different Prime Ministers and who is currently master of University College, Oxford.



The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:

Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well.


Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded.

The Senate Intelligence Committee Report

The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported July 7, 2004 that the CIA had received reports from a foreign government (not named, but probably Britain) that Iraq had actually concluded a deal with Niger to supply 500 tons a year of partially processed uranium ore, or "yellowcake." That is potentially enough to produce 50 nuclear warheads.

Wilson: Bush's Words "The Lie" (From a web chat sponsored by Kerry for President Oct. 29, 2003) *** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:24:53 AM) I would remind you that had Mr. Cheney taken into consideration my report as well as 2 others submitted on this subject, rather than the forgeries *** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:25:06 AM) the lie would never have been in President Bush's State of the Union address *** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:25:14 AM) so when they ask, "Who betrayed the President?" *** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:25:30 AM) They need to point the finger at the person who inserted the 16 words, not at the person who found the truth of the matter.

The Senate report said the CIA then asked a "former ambassador" to go to Niger and report. That is a reference to Joseph Wilson -- who later became a vocal critic of the President's 16 words. The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn't likely to happen. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well -- evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium.

Wilson reported that he had met with Niger's former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries.
Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellow cake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."


The subject of uranium sales never actually came up in the meeting, according to what Wilson later told the Senate Intelligence Committee staff. He quoted Mayaki as saying that when he met with the Iraqis he was wary of discussing any trade issues at all because Iraq remained under United Nations sanctions. According to Wilson, Mayaki steered the conversation away from any discussion of trade.
For that reason, Wilson himself has publicly dismissed the significance of the 1999 meeting. He said on NBC’s Meet the Press May 2, 2004:

Wilson: …At that meeting, uranium was not discussed. It would be a tragedy to think that we went to war over a conversation in which uranium was not discussed because the Niger official was sufficiently sophisticated to think that perhaps he might have wanted to discuss uranium at some later date.

But that's not the way the CIA saw it at the time. In the CIA's view, Wilson's report bolstered suspicions that Iraq was indeed seeking uranium in Africa.The Senate report cited an intelligence officer who reviewed Wilson’s report upon his return from Niger:

Committee Report: He (the intelligence officer) said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

"Reasonable to Assess"

At this point the CIA also had received "several intelligence reports" alleging that Iraq wanted to buy uranium from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and from Somalia, as well as from Niger. The Intelligence Committee concluded that "it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency reporting and other available intelligence."
Reasonable, that is, until documents from an Italian magazine journalist showed up that seemed to prove an Iraq-Niger deal had actually been signed. The Intelligence Committee said the CIA should have been quicker to investigate the authenticity of those documents, which had "obvious problems" and were soon exposed as fakes by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"We No Longer Believe"

Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush's 16 words weren't based on the fake documents. The British didn't even see them until after issuing the reports -- based on other sources -- that Bush quoted in his 16 words. But discovery of the Italian fraud did trigger a belated reassessment of the Iraq/Niger story by the CIA.



Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." But that wasn't until June 17, 2003 -- nearly five months after Bush's 16 words.


Soon after, onJuly 6, 2003, former ambassador Wilson went public in a New York Times opinion piece with his rebuttal of Bush's 16 words, saying that if the President was referring to Niger "his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them," and that "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." Wilson has since used much stronger language, calling Bush's 16 words a "lie" in an Internet chat sponsored by the Kerry campaign.
On July 7, the day after Wilson's original Times article, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer took back the 16 words, calling them "incorrect:"

Fleischer: Now, we've long acknowledged -- and this is old news, we've said this repeatedly -- that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect.

And soon after, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice acknowledged that the 16 words were, in retrospect, a mistake. She said during a July 11, 2003 White House press briefing:

Rice: What we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put this in the President's speech -- but that's knowing what we know now.

That same day, CIA Director George Tenet took personal responsibility for the appearance of the 16 words in Bush's speech:

Tenet: These 16 words should never have been included in the text written
for the President.

Tenet said the CIA had viewed the original British intelligence reports as "inconclusive," and had "expressed reservations" to the British.
The Senate report doesn't make clear why discovery of the forged documents changed the CIA's thinking. Logically, that discovery should have made little difference since the documents weren't the basis for the CIA's original belief that Saddam was seeking uranium. However, the Senate report did note that even within the CIA the comments and assessments were "inconsistent and at times contradictory" on the Niger story.



Even after Tenet tried to take the blame, Bush's critics persisted in saying he lied with his 16 words -- for example, in an opinion column July 16, 2003 by Michael Kinsley in the Washington Post:

Kinsley: Who was the arch-fiend who told a lie in President Bush's State of the Union speech? . . .Linguists note that the question "Who lied in George Bush's State of the Union speech" bears a certain resemblance to the famous conundrum "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?"

However, the Senate report confirmed that the CIA had reviewed Bush's State of the Union address, and -- whatever doubts it may have harbored -- cleared it for him.

Senate Report: When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting.

The final word on the 16 words may have to await history's judgment. The Butler report's conclusion that British intelligence was "credible" clearly doesn't square with what US intelligence now believes.But these new reports show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said, even if British intelligence is eventually shown to be mistaken.

Sources

http://web.archive.org/web/201003050...q_uranium.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck.org