November 17th, 2006

That was a mighty short honeymoon: Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi may have gotten the kid-gloves treatment from the media during the election, but now the gloves are off. Her championing of Murtha for Majority leader (and her simultaneous abandonment of her former deputy, Hoyer) seems to have struck a nerve.

We expected her stand to offend Republicans; that’s not news. But it offended Democrats as well, not to mention Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, previously labeled “…probably the most anti-Bush reporter currently assigned to the White House by a major news organization” by John J. Miller of National Review.

Milbank doesn’t sound all that fond of Pelosi’s track record so far, either; he seems to think this Speaker might do well to do less Speaking and just STFU.

And it’s hard to blame him, or those Democrats who are angry that Pelosi’s misguided boosting of Murtha put a damper on their victory party as well as their party unity. And then there are statements by Pelosi such as the following, made after Murtha’s defeat; it’s almost beyond parody:

Let there be peace on Earth, and let it begin with us. Let the healing begin.”

It’s a noble sentiment, but better suited to the pulpit than the Speaker’s podium. Perhaps she was speaking ironically? At any rate, it appears that nobody’s listening:

For Pelosi, who led Democrats back to a majority in the House after 12 years, yesterday should have been a coronation for the first woman to be speaker. Instead, her party had plunged into fratricide, and cable news was running nonstop clips of Murtha talking with FBI agents posing as sheiks in the Abscam sting.

Was this a great moment for Democrats, or “total crap”? “The latter,” Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider had to admit as she surveyed the melee outside the caucus room.

Personally, I don’t really care if the Democrats unite or not–what I care about is what they accomplish, or fail to accomplish. If they somehow, despite Murtha et al, refuse to cut and run in Iraq, and manage to force the administration into formulating a better plan for dealing with the situation in Iraq here-and-now–that would be a consummation devoutly to be wished. I’m interested in results, not who gets us there.

[NOTE: Why did Pelosi abandon Hoyer, despite his great popularity among fellow Democrats? Perhaps it's because he's too much of a centrist? And see this--those Blue Dog Democrats seem to be up for another Pelosi challenge. I wish them well; Hastings is a lousy choice, but Pelosi appears determined to strong-arm her candidates into place over the objections of many, rather than having learned the lesson of the Murtha defeat. "Peace on earth" indeed.]

[ADDENDUM: I mentioned the Pelosi-bashing in the Post; Tigerhawk notices something similar at the Times.]

[ADDENDUM II: It occurs to me that this honeymoon was so short and unsweet that some Democrats might prefer an annulment.]

87 Responses to “That was a mighty short honeymoon: Pelosi”

  1. Ymarsakar Says:

    I recommend this for reading, Neo, because it fills in the gaps as I see it.

    Link

    The Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.” – Speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, 11/07/2006

    The Democrats, trust in them, and you shall find the daggers sticking in your back.

  2. grackle Says:

    The Pelosi Cut And Runners may not be as numerous as previously thought. There may still be a backbone inside the Democrat body manifesting itself first by Murtha’s defeat in the caucus.

    Hillary Clinton may have a perfect opportunity now to use Pelosi as a contrasting foil, Pelosi the determined defeatist – as opposed to Sen. Clinton the centrist with a less hasty Iraq agenda. Remember that H. Clinton has not recanted her earlier pro-war stand as have other leading Democrats. Speaking as one who is liberal on most domestic issues, who has been reluctantly voting Republican since 9/11, it would gladden my days if someone would lead the Democratic Party back to its soul.
     

  3. expat Says:

    I read somewhere that a few months ago Hoyer took the position that dems needed to take a more realistic approach to terrorism and Iraq. In light of the previous power contests between the two, Pelosi would have considered this the last straw.

  4. bugs Says:

    I also fail to see in what sense Pelosi “led” the Democrats to victory in both houses. Mostly what she did was bad-mouth Bush and whine about Iraq. Shouldn’t the real credit go to Emanuel and Schumer?

  5. graceandwisdom Says:

    It’s not that bad, really. There has been much grumbling about Pelosi among Democrats, and not everyone was quiet about it even deep from the wilderness (I’m looking at you, Joe Biden). I was elated when Hoyer won, and by such a large margin, for two reasons. First, it showed Speaker Pelosi that she is not Delay, she will not automatically get her way, she does have to listen to her caucus, and I’m hoping she got the message that if she does not listen, she will be thanked kindly for the victory and shown the door. Second, it showed the country that the Dems will not be painted with the Pelosi-Murtha brush. We are not all cut and run, and there are many among us who know that we must take security and terrorism seriously, that this is where we have f*cked up in the past, and if we are truly disgusted with they way Bush and the GOP have handled this, we have a responsibility to do something other than sweep the problem under the rug.

    Nancy ain’t The Hammer, thank God. Maybe now we can have some discipline over solutions rather than ideology.

  6. Isaiah Hunahun Says:

    O M G

    A Poster Child for our Resident Trolls!

    ARCTICLE HERE

  7. Trimegistus Says:

    Pelosi must have misspoken in her “peace on earth” speech. I’m sure she meant to say “peace in our time.”

    Always stick with your source material.

  8. justaguy Says:

    The numbers clearly show that Howard Dean’s strategy and the netroots were responsible for the victory.

    Emanuel and Schumer’s candidates peformed poorly and Hoyer represents everything the netroots don’t want. i.e. another Israeli mouthpiece.

    The people want republican blood on the floor and they want impeachment and (more than anything) they want the troops home.

    Spin it all you want, but the numbers don’t lie. Antiwar candidates won biggest.

  9. Richard Aubrey Says:

    The Congressional Black Caucus is officially, and on record, 100% behind Hastings for intel.

    So’s Pelosi. How is she going to finesse this one?

  10. Anonymous Says:

    It’s a sham, frankly.

    The Murtha controversey is not news apparently – and more than a little ambigous anyway.

    So now Democratic voters can see clearly that the Dem’s have stabbed them in the back by appointing a pro war representative – which was always on the cards and pathetic.

    So at least neoconservatives can be pleased that the occupation of the Iraq can continue.

    What they don’t realize is that it is only prolonging the brutality and weakening U.S credibility in the world even further.

    There will be cutting and running. It can be done now or later.

    And later it will be much, much worse than it is now – mark my words..

  11. Anonymous Says:

    I’d have to add that this nonsense about ‘jihadis’ being ‘jubilent’ ignores completely the fact that the majority of Iraqis want the U.S to leave.

    Now.

    So perhaps Neo, you’d do well to consider the will of the Iraqi nation along with your concern for saving American ‘face’….

  12. Robert Schwartz Says:

    First rate leaders appoint first rate people as their subordinates, Second rate leaders, fearing that their subordinates will show them up, appoint third rate subordinates and produce disasters.

  13. Ymarsakar Says:

    Don’t you just love it when the Democrats whine after winning and whine after losing? No change, it seems.

  14. Ymarsakar Says:

    Oh wait, maybe I should say the Left, instead of the Democrat party, because it looks like the Dems are moving right and the Left are moving left.

  15. jpe Says:

    Honestly, you’re showing how retarded yo are if you think Murtha is the more left candidate.

  16. Isaiah Hunahun Says:

    So at least neoconservatives can be pleased that the occupation of the Iraq can continue.

    Thank you Gods of ancient age — may the job be done by right after all! :)

  17. graceandwisdom Says:

    Another great thing about Hoyer-the well known mutual antagonism between him and Nancy. This means that it won’t always, or even ever, be about Nancy getting what Nancy wants. Steny’s not her b*tch, they are united only on core Democratic principles.

    And maybe, just maybe, the Dems will get smart and get a new Speaker.

    Oh, jeez, and the delusional comment about the netroots making this victory possible-ask Sen. Lamont about that. Oh, sorry, wrong reality. Um, and if Netroots-endosed candidates had run in MT and VA, Conrad Burns and Felix Macacawicz would still have their seats, AND their majority.

  18. Floridasuzie Says:

    “Don’t you just love it when the Democrats whine after winning and whine after losing? No change, it seems.” -
    Ymarsakar
    ROFL, very well put, Ymarsakar!

  19. Alan Furman Says:

    So long as America’s children hold the Speaker’s gavel, Congress is guaranteed to follow the path of virtue.

  20. armchair pessimist Says:

    Enough. It really doesn’t matter what the Iraqi people want, what the American people want doesn’t matter either.

    Like it not, as long as we need somebody else’s oil and gas, the troops won’t be home for long. And please don’t jump on me for being one of the No Blood for Oil! idiots. I wish lions didn’t have to eat, mosquitos drink, and Americans hog, but that’s the way it is.

    The republicans were too holy to speak of these uncouth matters. I doubt Nancy & co will either.

  21. Ymarsakar Says:

    The Republicans spoke about ANWR, people were too busy complaining about republicans to do anything about it.

  22. Sally Says:

    And please don’t jump on me for being one of the No Blood for Oil! idiots.

    Armchair must be one of that rare species, the Blood for Oil! idiots. At least he’s not worried about couth.

  23. grackle Says:

    I’d have to add that this nonsense about ‘jihadis’ being ‘jubilant’ ignores completely the fact that the majority of Iraqis want the U.S to leave.

    I don’t believe the majority of Iraqis “want the U.S to leave” just yet. Certainly the Iraqi government, democratically elected by the Iraqis, wants the US to stay for now.

    But the above statement also contains the unstated assumption that the US should base foreign policy on what the “majority of Iraqis” want the US to do. It’s this concern that folks ‘like’ the US, that the US must NEVER do anything that someone, somewhere wouldn’t approve of, that troubles me. It’s a recurring assumption in much anti-war rhetoric and as foreign policy doctrine during the Carter and Clinton years it led directly to 9/11.

    It’s when the enemy is unhappy about the US that we know the US is on the right track. They are only happy when the US has suffered a setback and always glum when the US shows some backbone. They believe the Democrat victory means the US will cut and run. I hope for all our sakes they are mistaken.
     

  24. armchair pessimist Says:

    Armchair must be one of that rare species, the Blood for Oil! idiots.

    Yup. It’s only the exact exchange rate that must be worked out.

  25. anonymous Says:

    MUST READ:
    Unanswered Prayers
    by Michael Leeden

    …We either declare defeat and withdraw completely tout de suite, or we surge troops into Baghdad and fight. The ISG will surely try to find some middle ground between these positions, which, of course, doesn’t exist.”

    Instead of trapping themselves in an imaginary quagmire, the commissioners can help us face the real war. What’s going on in Iraq is not “the war,” which is raging over the entire world. The real question — the life and death question — is: How can we win the war in the Middle East, which now extends from Afghanistan to Lebanon, Iraq, Israel, and Somalia?

    That question forces us to devise a strategy to deal with multiple enemies instead of limiting our strategic thinking to the Iraqi insurgency alone. It forces us to confront the terror masters in Tehran and Syria as well as the killers in Iraq. If we ask how to win in Iraq alone, we are led into a fool’s errand of trying to convince our sworn enemies–Iran has been at war with us for twenty-seven years—to act like friends. But if we ask how to win the war, we can see that we have many good cards to play, and many real allies, from the Iranian and Syrian people to the millions of Kurds in Iran, Iraq and Syria, to several other oppressed groups throughout the region, and even to leaders who today denounce us.

    http://tinyurl.com/y64o9s

  26. anonymous Says:

    Iran sent 700 Somalis to fight Israel
    Correspondents in Washington
    November 16, 2006

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20765432-601,00.html

  27. anonymous Says:

    What do we do with Iran?
    BY HENRY A. KISSINGER
    17 November 2006

    http://tinyurl.com/yjvcjm

  28. anonymous Says:

    Russia implementing arms contract with Iran – official
    11.17.2006, 10:44 AM

    http://www.forbes.com/home_asia/feeds/afx/2006/11/17/afx3185079.html

  29. Sissy Willis Says:

    As Ronald Reagan famously said, “You can accomplish much if you don’t care who gets the credit.” As far as this Democratic side show, I say, “Bring them on!”

  30. Synova Says:

    You can accomplish much if you don’t care who gets the credit…

    That’s so true as to border on profound.

    Democrats (or lefties, whatever) are humble enough not to care if we seem to be abandoning Iraqi allies and admitting defeat… but help out when the Republicans might get the credit? Are you out of your mind? The “loyal” opposition stayed focused on the *real* issue for six years… opposing Bush.

    I hope that Republicans are not so petty and work for a stable democracy in Iraq for the next two years even if Democrats will take credit for a “new direction.”

  31. justaguy Says:

    Oh, jeez, and the delusional comment about the netroots making this victory possible-ask Sen. Lamont about that. Oh, sorry, wrong reality
    graceandwisdom | 11.18.06 – 1:29 am | #

    Nice try, but irrelevant to the results elsewhere. Loserman was voted in with the majority of the Republican votes and enough of a split in the Dem vote.

    No joy for you there. I suspect you know that though. You lot are nothing if not contrarian.

  32. Anonymous Says:

    “But the above statement also contains the unstated assumption that the US should base foreign policy on what the “majority of Iraqis” want the US to do. It’s this concern that folks ‘like’ the US, that the US must NEVER do anything that someone, somewhere wouldn’t approve of, that troubles me. It’s a recurring assumption in much anti-war rhetoric and as foreign policy doctrine during the Carter and Clinton years it led directly to 9/11.”

    First off – poll after poll indicate Iraqis do not want U.S troops in their country – hardly a point of controversey – but if you believe otherwise, I’d love to hear why.

    I’ll only say, grackle, that your forgeting the invasion was a humanitarian venture – a liberation from Saddam Hussein – to allow freedom and democracy in Iraq to flourish. If that’s what you believe than you will care if Iraqi’s want you out of there country -like you did on purple-finger day. “Someone, somewhere”??? LOL.

    Clinton? Sure – why not. But please try to remember, grackle, that the Monroe doctrine wasn’t created by Clinton – or that 9/11 didn’t happen during Clinton’s term. Do you not read the news?

    “It’s when the enemy is unhappy about the US that we know the US is on the right track. They are only happy when the US has suffered a setback and always glum when the US shows some backbone. They believe the Democrat victory means the US will cut and run. I hope for all our sakes they are mistaken.”

    So now the Iraqi civilian population is the enemy. Frankly I knew they always were – but I’m quite you weren’t saying that when the U.S dropped bombs on Bagdahd or when U.S soldiers were raping and killing teenage Iraqi girls, or indiscriminately destroying villages and towns, and torturing them with impunity. It’d be interesting to check your post during the Israeli assault on the civilian population of Lebanon – were you not one of the one’s lamenting the tragic destruction of life and infrastructure, reasuring the Lebanese population that it’s not them only Hezbollah that were being targeted.

    Do you really believe, my dear friend, that having a foreign policy that creates more enemies is doing the right thing?

    I hope for your sake grackle you suffer from some time of mental disability, because truly there can be no other explanation for that post..

  33. Ymarsakar Says:

    The Left loves polls. That’s how they won the Democrat primary with Namont, right?

  34. Sally Says:

    justtheguy: No joy for you there.

    Hoo-ah. Turns out a majority of the Republican vote plus a split of the Democratic vote — i.e., those with remnants of both a brain and a backbone — trounces the Chosen One of the cut-and-runners, and guy says there’s no joy!! Oh, there is joy, guy, just not for you.

    Do you sense a little frustration, even bitterness — even desperation — already beginning to creep in to the nutroots, as they pause for breath between ululations? What if — gasp — even their last hope, the Democrats, turn out not to be quite so ready to flee as they’d been given to hope? Oh, what will the world think of us, they moan. Oh, what if all those moderate, peace-loving muslims decide to turn into jihadis? Can’t you just see the nutroots gnashing their teeth in fear and rage?

  35. grackle Says:

    First off – poll after poll indicate Iraqis do not want U.S troops in their country – hardly a point of controversy – but if you believe otherwise, I’d love to hear why.

    I don’t trust polls of Iraqis – too many things that are simply impossible to check for veracity could be in play and the temptation to fudge too great – but leave the issue of trust of the pollsters aside – the idea that an opinion poll from data gathered in a war zone is meaningful is in itself kind of dumb. My opinion is that the Iraqis want us to stay, not forever but until the government is stable, and that opinion is guided by the best poll of all – democratic elections. What’s really not a point of controversy is that the elected leaders of an ally want the US to stay.

    I’ll only say, grackle, that your forgetting the invasion was a humanitarian venture – a liberation from Saddam Hussein – to allow freedom and democracy in Iraq to flourish. If that’s what you believe than you will care if Iraqi’s want you out of there country -like you did on purple-finger day. “Someone, somewhere”??? LOL.

    That’s one of Bush’s biggest mistakes, listing liberation as ONE of the reasons for downing Saddam. There were other reasons of course, the main reason being to rid the area of a murderous bastard that also happened to be a danger to the US. Two birds with one toppling. We now know al Qaeda/Iraqi relations were cozy, that Iraqi relations with terrorists in general were warm and friendly and that Saddam fully intended to resume the manufacture of WMD as soon as he could – that was revealed by of all sources, the NYT fer gosh sakes, just before the recent elections in a backfired attempt to hurt Bush.

    Clinton? Sure – why not. But please try to remember, grackle, that the Monroe doctrine wasn’t created by Clinton – or that 9/11 didn’t happen during Clinton’s term. Do you not read the news?

    Clinton didn’t kill OBL when he had the chance because he was afraid of world opinion about the collateral casualties such a strike would entail. No OBL – no 9/11. There always seems to be an overweening desire to not ruffle the feathers of some nasty birds who will NEVER be pleased unless the US is hurt or destroyed, who will ALWAYS be angry if the US pursues a proactive foreign policy instead of the terrorist-approved Clinton/Carter timidly reactive doctrine.

    So now the Iraqi civilian population is the enemy. Frankly I knew they always were …

    Wow. Talk about leaps of logic. I say the US shouldn’t base foreign policy decisions on Iraqi public opinion, a perfectly reasonable stance, and question the wisdom of poll-taking in war zones and THAT gets translated into the Iraqi people are the “enemy?”

    … but I’m quite you weren’t saying that when the U.S dropped bombs on Baghdad or when U.S soldiers were raping and killing teenage Iraqi girls, or indiscriminately destroying villages and towns, and torturing them with impunity.

    All

  36. grackle Says:

    All of the above is pretty much your standard anti-war/anti-American diatribe. The commentor should save the sloganeering for the uninformed and ignorant.

    It’d be interesting to check your post during the Israeli assault on the civilian population of Lebanon – were you not one of the one’s lamenting the tragic destruction of life and infrastructure, reassuring the Lebanese population that it’s not them only Hezbollah that were being targeted.

    Israel’s big mistake was to try to wage limited war against Hezbollah. But it’s coming – it’s not going to be pretty and it’s going to be very, very tragic but it gets a little closer every day.

    Do you really believe, my dear friend, that having a foreign policy that creates more enemies is doing the right thing?

    One wonders if the commentor believes that having a foreign policy that is pleasing to our enemies is really the way to go.

    I hope for your sake grackle you suffer from some time of mental disability, because truly there can be no other explanation for that post..

    Ah, the ad hominem attack. Are any of us surprised?

    &nbsp

  37. Ymarsakar Says:

    I’m surprised.

    We are going to kill ALL of your friends in the Palestinian territories and the Arab/Persian world. THe only question is when.

  38. douglas Says:

    Back on track- Pelosi had to back Murtha because they both live on K Street. It was an ‘I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine’ deal. Certainly not an ideological one, with the Iraq exception (which is actually part of the back scratching). Murtha supported Pelosi for Minority leader for exactly the return favor of her support for whip if they got the majority. Pure politics, too bad for the Dems they can never stop playing pure politics.

  39. grackle Says:

    Like it not, as long as we need somebody else’s oil and gas …

    Very true, the US DOES need oil. But it needs to be explained that all the US has ever wanted is to BUY oil, just as every other industrialized nation on earth wants to do. The implication of the It’s About The Oil chant is that the US is somehow stealing or wanting to acquire oil by theft. They can’t just come out and make an explicit claim of theft because THAT direct sentiment would be easily disproved. Thus the meaningless, implication-fraught chant, It’s About The Oil.

    I wish lions didn’t have to eat, mosquitoes drink, and Americans hog, but that’s the way it is.

    The US seeks to buy a product on an open market, as does every industrialized nation on earth but that perfectly normal and mundane situation is somehow morphed into the sentiment that the US is a “hog.” It’s part of the America Is Bad Template by the Left. Assigning nefarious motives to common, innocent transactions is a favorite tactic of the anti-America crowd.
     

  40. grackle Says:

    The people want republican blood on the floor and they want impeachment and (more than anything) they want the troops home.

    Spoken like a true Bush hater, especially the part about “the people” wanting impeachment. Bush haters always seem to think “the people” want what they want, yet Bush was elected for the US Presidency twice by “the people.”
    Impeachment will be on the agenda for the real Bush haters like Pelosi but wiser heads in the Dems may think twice before subjecting the public to impeachment proceedings.

    I can even understand the Dems wanting to pay the Repubs back for the trouble the Repubs caused Clinton; I voted for Clinton(and Gore BTW) and the impeachment proceedings against Clinton were a source of extreme consternation for me. That was all before 9/11 and the subsequent Dem softness on the WOT.

    However, the Repubs MAY get lucky and the Dem hotheads MAY be allowed by the Dem leaders to try and impeach Bush. My guess is that such a move would help assure Republican victories in ’08.

    The ONLY way the Dems can get back into the good graces of folks like me is for them to start sincerely joining in on the WOT instead of whining from the sidelines while they indulge in their favorite Bush-hatred fantasy.

     

  41. Anonymous Says:

    Very true, the US DOES need oil. But it needs to be explained that all the US has ever wanted is to BUY oil, just as every other industrialized nation on earth wants to do. The implication of the It’s About The Oil chant is that the US is somehow stealing or wanting to acquire oil by theft. They can’t just come out and make an explicit claim of theft because THAT direct sentiment would be easily disproved. Thus the meaningless, implication-fraught chant, It’s About The Oil.

    No, grackle. The U.S wants to control Oil. The chant – however simplistic it is – is actually very appropriate. And in a sense it is actually stealing it because the very real policy is to prevent Iraqis controlling it’s production, distribution and it’s revenue. If I were to take your car use it as I desired – but offered to give you the odd lift – hopefully you’ll get the idea.

    And it’s not disputable that U.S policy in the middle east has been centred around oil – and it’s quite explicit in NSC documents and various leaders explict statements and of course, actions. The Monroe doctrine clearly outlined a foreign policy that recognized the power equation of oil and OFFICIAL U.S policy is to control it at any cost.

    I’ll refrain from the ad hominum attacks, grackle – but please, your arguing something out of your own personal beef with the anti-war movement – not facts.

    Your other reply – I respect your opinion – or rather your right to have one – but really what you are arguing is the legitmacy of U.S fascism.

    When you argue the U.S has a natural right to invade and control all aspects of a sovereign nation under no threat(or very little) you are accomdating an ideology of fascism.

    I’ll refrain from calling you a fascist – mainly because I don’t think you accept that you are and because you have clearly take as fact some Bush admin propganda – Iraq/Al-queda connection – Iraq’s ‘election’ giving legitimacy to the occupation, or as a sign of the will of the Iraqi people, etc etc.

    It’s a shame you don’t think more for yourself grackle – but I can understand why…

  42. grackle Says:

    No, grackle. The U.S wants to control Oil.

    If by “control” the commentor means buying oil that is necessary for ANY industrialized country then I would agree. But of course that’s the policy of ALL the industrialized nations, to try and insure a supply of a product that is the absolute life blood of ANY industrialized nation – and part of ALL their foreign policies.

    And it’s not disputable that U.S policy in the middle east has been centred around oil … it’s quite explicit in NSC documents and various leaders explicit statements and of course, actions.

    Wouldn’t any US President be bereft of their duty if they DID NOT gear at least part of their foreign policy toward trying to insure the US is able to purchase oil on the open market? Given that this commodity is necessary to the US economic health, as the commentor seems ready to admit, isn’t it really the DUTY of any President to look after the US economy?

    Furthermore, I’m wondering how the commentor reconciles his beliefs with the reality of the disrupted flow from Iraq since the war. If the US motive was to “control” oil “at any cost” then toppling Saddam would be something NOT to be desired – because of the disruption of oil production the Iraq war necessarily produced. I guess it’s all in how you perceive events and the amount of hatred for America you hold in your heart.

    America wanting to buy oil is significant of nothing more than an understandable and laudable desire to tend to the US economy by purchasing a commodity on the open market that is necessary to the health of the economy – but to the commentor this is somehow evidence of America’s badness. Strange indeed is the tortured logic of hatred.

    … what you are arguing is the legitimacy of U.S fascism.

    The fascists are Islamic, not American – but the Left seems to get confused about this all the time.

    When you argue the U.S has a natural right to invade and control all aspects of a sovereign nation under no threat(or very little) you are accommodating an ideology of fascism.

    That Saddam was a threat is no longer a real subject of debate – even the NYT admitted it just before the elections in a ridiculous attempt to discredit Bush. We all know now that Saddam was VERY friendly with terrorists of all stripes, especially al Qaeda and was intending to resume the manufacture of WMD as soon as the heat was off.

    It’s a shame you don’t think more for yourself grackle – but I can understand why…

    I’m sure that I think less of myself than the commentor thinks of himself – and that’s a GOOD thing – as Martha would say.
     

  43. Sergey Says:

    It is strange for foreigner to see the most influential world superpower behaving on international arena as teenager with Attention Deficit Disorder. If US obligations to its allies can be overturned by midterm election results, who can trust these obligations? It is not a big deal to make more enemies, but to loose existent allies and scare away potential ones is recipe for disaster.

  44. Hopper Says:

    Grackle wrote:

    “I’d have to add that this nonsense about ‘jihadis’ being ‘jubilant’ ignores completely the fact that the majority of Iraqis want the U.S to leave.”

    The above statement also contains the unstated assumption that the US should base foreign policy on what the “majority of Iraqis” want the US to do. It’s this concern that folks ‘like’ the US, that the US must NEVER do anything that someone, somewhere wouldn’t approve of, that troubles me.

    Uh, oh… Iraq is the Iraqi’s country, Grackle. Surely they have a right to express their opinion on what the US should or shouldn’t do, with respect to their country?

    You are absolutely right that the US shouldn’t base its foreign policy with regard to, say, China, on the basis of what “the majority of Iraqis” want the US to be doing in China.

    But when it comes to Iraq, what the Iraqis want should matter. A great deal, in fact.

    Uh…I get it. You probably think that the Iraqis don’t know what’s good for them. So Americans have to decide for the Iraqis, because as we all know, Americans just know better.

    “What’s good for the USA is good for Iraq, too!”

  45. grackle Says:

    Surely they[the Iraqis] have a right to express their opinion on what the US should or shouldn’t do, with respect to their country?

    But we just had to topple the leader of their country. IF the Iraqis wanted the US out of their country(I don’t believe they do), that desire should certainly be an important consideration with respect to US foreign policy BUT the primary concern of US foreign policy should never be driven by the opinion and desires of others but rather what is in the best interest of the US. This is a fairly simple doctrine of foreign policy that ALL nations follow that shouldn’t need explaining except the commentor seems unaware of it. We don’t want the US having to do this all over again in a few years because the US left Iraq prematurely.

    … when it comes to Iraq, what the Iraqis want should matter. A great deal, in fact.
    Uh…I get it. You probably think that the Iraqis don’t know what’s good for them. So Americans have to decide for the Iraqis, because as we all know, Americans just know better.

    About the Iraqis knowing “what’s good for them” – Hmmm … Well they ARE a conquered people because they let themselves be governed by a murderous and reckless asshole … but they recently redeemed themselves in my mind with a democratically elected government – and quite a enthusiastic turnout in each election, too – even in the face of death threats from the terrorists. I for one say: Forgive and forget and I wish the Iraqi people all the best – as long as they don’t give free reign to another Saddam-like idiot.
     

  46. Ymarsakar Says:

    Sergey, some of it is due to that, yes. But mostly I tend to think Americans are scared of their own power, at least the elite leadership are. In American history, always it was the people that demanded war and restitutions from the enemy. THe political chattering class was always looking for the “diplomatic solution”, like Wilson. They declared war only when the people forced them to declare wars. Therefore the fighting spirit of America was always with the common man, not with the elites. Right now, you see a lot of catering to the diplomacy and talk, because Bush and his detractors are both from the elite leadership. Bush haters, like Hollywood, hate Bush because Bush was supposed to be one of them, a John Kerry guy, a Bill Clinton, a glib and effete rich boy living in a mansion. But Bush wasn’t that way, yet he came from the same background as Hollywood rich guys, coming from an affluent family.

    Bush is afraid to unleash the full might of the United States military and nation. As is Hollywood and Co, just for different reasons. Bush fears it because he doesn’t want to see war in the world and destabilization or American deaths. The Hollywood boys and girls fear it because they hate to see America being empowered and rising out of victim hood status. The elites like to keep America down, otherwise the swarms of common folk might sweep them under.

  47. Anonymous Says:

    We all know now that Saddam was VERY friendly with terrorists of all stripes, especially al Qaeda and was intending to resume the manufacture of WMD as soon as the heat was off.

    No, we don’t all know that. Source please.

  48. Anonymous Says:

    Wow grackle – I must say I am impressed with the skillful way in which you completely dodge any of the issues – no better than dealing with accusations of fascism with “I know you are but what am I” – LOL.

    Anyway – I know it’s like talking to a brick wall, but I’ll try one more.

    The U.S should do whatever is in it’s ‘interest’ to do – does that mean regardless of international treaties, conventions and ethics – and of course the moral obligations that the U.S holds other nations to bare?

    O.K so yes – and that makes you a fascist – that’s not a leftist argument – thats just a fact.

    Surely you can understand that?

    I don’t mean to insult you grackle, but I’m seriously wondering if you are plagued with dislexia or ADHD.

    If you are then my most sincere apologies.

    By the way – have you, as a citizen and not a politican, ever considered the question of just whose ‘interest’ is being served by invading countries, stealing their resources, having the world hate you, and your government regularly relay information to you with the tactic assumption that you are an idiot?

    No?

    Well you should try it some time…

  49. Anonymous Says:

    grackle – nobody in the U.S intelligence apparutus believes Saddam had anything to do with Al-queda.

    Why do you believe it?

    Further – since you ‘believe’ that most Iraqis want the U.S in their country – why don’t you tell us why you think that -other than you don’t like polls….

  50. Anonymous Says:

    Washington Post, Sept/06

    BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 — A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

    In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

    Another new poll, scheduled to be released on Wednesday by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country.

  51. Anonymous Says:

    In my earlier post I cited the Monroe doctrine as offical U.S policy in the middle east – I meant the Carter doctrine..

  52. grackle Says:

    No, we don’t all know that [Saddam was VERY friendly with terrorists of all stripes, especially al Qaeda and was intending to resume the manufacture of WMD as soon as the heat was off.] Source please.

    Well for al Qaeda connections, we have the Clinton Administration’s word:

    http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm

    and for Saddam’s WMD intentions we have the NYT’s revelations, as reported by Newsmax(the original NYT article is available to subscribers only):

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/13/101911.shtml

     

  53. Anonymous Says:

    “Both independent analysts and officials within Iraq’s Oil Ministry anticipate that when all is said and done, the big winners in Iraq will be the Big Four — the American firms Exxon-Mobile and Chevron, the British BP-Amoco and Royal Dutch-Shell — that dominate the world oil market. Ibrahim Mohammed, an industry consultant with close contacts in the Iraqi Oil Ministry, told the Associated Press that there’s a universal belief among ministry staff that the major U.S. companies will win the lion’s share of contracts. “The feeling is that the new government is going to be influenced by the United States,” he said.

    During the 12-year sanction period, the Big Four were forced to sit on the sidelines while the government of Saddam Hussein cut deals with the Chinese, French, Russians and others (despite the sanctions, the United States ultimately received 37 percent of Iraq’s oil during that period, according to the independent committee that investigated the oil-for-food program, but almost all of it arrived through foreign firms). In a 1999 speech, Dick Cheney, then CEO of the oil services company Halliburton, told a London audience that the Middle East was where the West would find the additional 50 million barrels of oil per day that he predicted it would need by 2010, but, he lamented, “while even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow.”

  54. Anonymous Says:

    Poor sources, grackle.

    1) The NY Times ran a full gambit of stories about Saddam’s WMD programs which were false – nothing new there.

    2) The evidence cited in the other article doesn’t even cite a source for the info that Al-queda were in Bagdhad for bomb-making training.

    Both weak – and both completely blown out of the water by reputable intelligence agencies before and after the invasion.

    Your a little bit behind, grackle…

  55. Anonymous Says:

    “It’s been a long time coming: the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on what intelligence America’s spy agencies were providing the White House and what the Bush administration did with it.

    The delay is not with the report’s authors, but the Republican majority on the committee. Finally, two Republican senators, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, broke ranks and voted with the Democrats to release the findings.

    When you read the report you can understand why some wanted to suppress the information.

    To begin with, the report says there never was any connection established between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and that the CIA and other agencies reported that almost immediately after 9/11. Yet the Bush administration frequently used the supposed link as a reason to attack Iraq.

    A CIA report delivered to the White House late in 2002 concluded that Hussein “viewed Islamic extremists operating within Iraq as a threat.” Yet the very next day, Vice-President Dick Cheney charged the Iraq government “aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.”

  56. grackle Says:

    On the Washington Post article of Sept/06 about the Iraq polls – link please?

    The NY Times ran a full gambit of stories about Saddam’s WMD programs which were false – nothing new there.

    I suppose the commentor is referring to the Judith Miller articles, which the anti-war crowd has succeeded in discrediting(BTW I believe that judgement to be way too hasty).

    But what I’m referring to is the recent Nov/04 article in the NYT about WMD stockpiles which were never accounted for by Saddam. It was the talk of the blogosphere until Kerry’s “botched joke” took over the headlines and blew it off the news landscape.

    The evidence cited in the other article doesn’t even cite a source for the info that Al-Qaeda were in Baghdad for bomb-making training.

    Yes the article DOES cite sources, here’s the relevant quotes:

    One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton’s defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

    The other pronouncement is contained in a [Clinton Administration]Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.
     

  57. grackle Says:

    To begin with, the report says there never was any connection established between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and that the CIA and other agencies reported that almost immediately after 9/11. Yet the Bush administration frequently used the supposed link as a reason to attack Iraq.

    A CIA report delivered to the White House late in 2002 concluded that Hussein “viewed Islamic extremists operating within Iraq as a threat.” Yet the very next day, Vice-President Dick Cheney charged the Iraq government “aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.”

    I’m VERY suspicious of anything regarding Iraq–al Qaeda connections coming from the CIA. This is the agency that sent a known Bush hater to Niger to investigate the Iraq-yellowcake purchase attempt. That decision was no accident.

    But as the commentor has mentioned the CIA it should be noted that the CIA has itself documented many contacts and meetings between members of Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda operatives, as delineated in the link below.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html

    And my gosh I thought everyone, not just Christopher Hitchins, knew about Saddam’s harboring of Abu Nidal. Hitch interviewed him in Baghdad in the quarters provided to him by Saddam’s regime. I think we must classify Abu Nidal as a terrorist, must’nt we?
     

  58. grackle Says:

    It turns out I was off on the date(Nov/04) of the NYT article. The original is accessible only to subscribers, which makes things difficult. But the date of publication must have been a little earlier than 04 since it’s referenced in the link below which was posted Nov/03. Which would make the pub. date 02? 03? Somewhere near the first of November.

    Not that the exact date is germane to anything but it IS important to be as accurate as possible in all details.

    Basically, the NYT article under discussion, in an attempt to discredit Bush INADVERDANTLY(that’s what’s so rich) proved the legitimacy of translated captured documents that reveal explosive things about Iraq, WMD, al Qaeda & terrorists. It makes for fascinating reading. The result of the article was the documents are no longer accessible, which may have been the real intent of the article, to stop the flow of this horrendous and embarrassing(to the anti-war Bush crowd and to the CIA) information coming from those documents.

    Speaking of details, the article goes into detail about the issues of Iraq/al Qaeda/WMD under discussion and explains it more thoroughly than is practical in HaloScan.

    http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008423.php

    Other recommended readings:

    From Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi –
    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-7-2004_pg4_3

    Wall Street Journal -
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110006953

     

  59. Sergey Says:

    I feel all this talk about reasons to go or not to go in Iraq utterly irrelevant to present situation. If you seek excuses to cut and run, you should first of all understand that there is no place to run from global jihad. At some point and some place you have to confront it with all your might, because no negotiated peace with it is possible. The only possible outcome of clash of civilizations is unconditional surrender of one of them. War can begin as PC, limited war; but it always ends as a total war, with every available technology of slaughtering put in action. And you can’t surrender, because these angry white males who possess guns will not allow you do so. And, as Victor Davis Hanson so brillantly demonstrated, nothing on Earth can stop these angry white males from achiving their goals when they got really angry.

  60. Anonymous Says:

    Thanks for the sources, Grackle. It does seem that there was at least a détente between Al Qaeda and Hussein. This strikes me as a far cry from enthusiastic and powerful supporters of Al Qaeda’s vision.

    Re. oil, it’s a finite and vital resource, which at some point this century will become priceless. By establishing permanent military bases in Iraq, the USA ensures that it will enjoy unmediated access throughout the century, should the international structures governing oil trade collapse. The neocon strategy is measured in decades, not years.

    Given the points above, Hussein’s relatively secular rule vis-a-vis Iraq’s critical natural resource, it’s tough to stomach blogs that cite memos that the IIS “garnered from one of its Afghan contacts,” when there’s an elephant in the room.

    Found an interesting, off-topic interview in an academic journal and am posting it next.

  61. Anonymous Says:

    Al Qaeda Has Mobilized Muslim Masses – Against Itself
    Part 1 of interview with Giandomenico Picco

    New Perspectives Quarterly
    Vol: 22, Issue: 1, January 2005

    NPQ | You successfully negotiated the release of hostages from Hezbollah in Beirut in the late 1980s and early 1990s.What differences do you see in the kidnappings and terrorism then and in Iraq and elsewhere today?

    GIANDOMENICO PICCO | The basic distinction between the terrorists of that earlier era in Beirut and terrorists today is the former, like Hezbollah, were “tactical” and the latter, like Al Qaeda, are “strategic.”

    Tactical terrorists have a precise, well-known and unchangable political objective— such as getting the Israelis out of Lebanon or the British out of Ireland. The strategic terrorists have only a cosmic objective—the Islamization of you and me. As Ayman al-Zawahiri has said, jihadists like Al Qaeda are “Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner.” Their goals are changable for tactical advantage. For example, the Palestinian issue never entered the Al Qaeda literature until ….. Now there are varieties of kidnappings and beheadings across Iraq. They adjust their targets over time. The second distinction is the identification of the enemy. Tactical terrorists like the IRA, the ETA and the Hezbollah were very careful not to multiply their enemies. They thus very narrowly identified their well-known enemies, for example British troops in Ireland or government officials in Bilbao. Strategic terrorists like Al Qaeda hit out broadly—from the Shia tribes in Afghanistan when they were with the Taliban to Americans in New York to Indians in Kashmir to Australian tourists in Bali to commuters in Madrid to government offices in Saudi Arabia. They have no concerns about multiplying their enemies because they are against anyone who is not with them.

    The third distinction is that the tactical terrorists are well known to their enemies and negotiate with them directly or indirectly. “Negotiation” is not a word that exists in the vocabulary of the strategic terrorists. In my experience over the past .. years, most of the hostages taken by tactical Shia groups have eventually been released. The hostages of Al Qaeda-type groups have mostly been brutally killed in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. That is why we should not even try to negotiate with them.

  62. Anonymous Says:

    Al Qaeda Has Mobilized Muslim Masses – Against Itself
    Part 2 of interview with Giandomenico Picco

    A fourth and vital distinction is that tactical terrorists are rooted in territory; they are stakeholders in the lands where they operate. In practice, this means they usually have a political wing as well as a military wing. Hezbollah even has a broad network of welfare organizations for their constituency. They run businesses, hospitals and schools as part of an infrastructure, not just for show. The strategic terrorists are, by contrast, a virtual organization. They cannot be rooted, because that would mean their own defeat.

    The practical consequence of these differences is that tactical terrorists can transform and go on to live without an enemy. Like the IRA, or at least some of it, they can give up terrorism and become a political party to achieve their objectives. Al Qaeda can’t do that. Without an enemy target, they will melt like snow. NPQ | How long can the strategic terrorists go on multiplying their enemies —from killing innocent Muslim civilians to taking French journalists— without ultimately defeating themselves?

    NPQ | How long can the strategic terrorists go on multiplying their enemies — from killing innocent Muslim civilians to taking French journalists — without ultimately defeating themselves?

    PICCO | Since Sept. .., their objective has been to mobilize the Muslim masses, and in particular the Arabs. They have failed. The kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq, accompanied by the demands on ending the French headscarf ban, have turned the European Muslims against them. Hezbollah and Hamas also came out strongly against the kidnapping of the two French journalists. So did many Arab leaders. So, they have managed to mobilize the Muslim masses—but against themselves!

  63. Tatterdemalian Says:

    “It is strange for foreigner to see the most influential world superpower behaving on international arena as teenager with Attention Deficit Disorder.”

    People who love the rule of law, or sausages, should never watch them being made.

    I forget who said it, but it’s very true, and not just in the US. Of course, the international media has taken it upon themselves to force everyone in the world to see every nasty little detail of a gruesome and childish process, the better to convince them to abandon it and switch to a process that they promise is perfectly clean, or at least will be presented as such by the media: socialist authoritarianism, with the media in its rightful position of leadership.

  64. grackle Says:

    I also found some interesting reading – about exactly what the captured translated documents reveal about Saddam’s regime:

    “2001 IIS memo directing its agents to test mass grave sites in southern Iraq for radiation, and to use “trusted news agencies” to leak rumors about the lack of credibility of Coalition reporting on the subject. They specify CNN.”

    “The Blessed July operation, in which Saddam’s sons planned a series of assassinations in London, Iran, and southern Iraq.”

    “Saddam’s early contacts with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from 1994-1997.”

    “The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission knew of a renewed effort to make ricin from castor beans in 2002, but never reported it.”

    “The continued development of delivery mechanisms for biological and chemical weapons by the notorious Dr. Germ in 2002.”

    “Saddam still had all of the relevant documentation to restart his nuclear program, so the United Nations Special Commission and United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission teams obviously did not “destroy all vestiges” of Iraq’s nuclear program. After all, the documentation is what the Times proclaimed as a dangerous breach that would allow Iran to build a bomb.”

    “If the FMSO documents on the website are dangerous to publish because they might assist Iran in designing a nuclear weapon, then obviously they were dangerous sitting in Saddam’s files. Missing that particular point seems willfully dense at best.”

    “Saddam had unexpurgated copies of the IAEA report in his files — the ones that the UN inspectors are so unhappy about being hosted at the FMSO site. I wonder how that happened?”

    “Since the rest of the FMSO documents came from the same locations as the ones that the NYT proclaims as authentic and dangerous, that means that the rest of these documents are authentic as well. That’s the primary point of this post — because when one looks through the documents, it becomes clear that Saddam had many connections to terrorism, and had active WMD programs right through 2002.”

    “Actually, we have much, much more. All of these documents underscore the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and show that his regime continued their work on banned weapons programs. We have made this case over and over again, but some people refused to believe the documents were genuine. Now we have no less of an authority than the New York Times to verify that the IIS documentation is not only genuine, but presents a powerful argument for the military action to remove Saddam from power.”

    The readers must remember that all this has become known with only a small fraction of the documents translated. There is probably much more revealed in the vast amounts of documents still left untranslated – which the NYT succeeded in stopping with the article. The CIA does not want the docu,ents translated because they have thus far shown the CIA to be ridiculously wrong about its conclusion tha

  65. grackle Says:

    (continued)
    The readers must remember that all this has become known with only a small fraction of the documents translated. There is probably much more revealed in the vast amounts of documents still left untranslated – which the NYT succeeded in stopping with the article. The CIA does not want the docu,ents translated because they have thus far shown the CIA to be ridiculously wrong about its conclusion that Saddam was not working with al Qaeda and other terrorists and also wrong about its claim that Saddam was not close to developing a WMD. It turns out the US stopped Saddam in the nick of time.

    http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008423.php

  66. Sergey Says:

    “despite the election posturing, the Democrats in charge of ensuring a lasting majority are, as of now, somewhat quiet. Can it be that they are seeing that the only choices we have had after Sept. 11 have been mostly either bad or worse — and that, for those in power hoping both to prevent another such attack on our soil and not to “lose Iraq,” there aren’t any easy solutions?”

  67. aqualung Says:

    Gosh, with all of the Republican scandals past and present, this Pelosi thing is really, well, quite breathtaking!

    Mountain, meet Molehill…

    Can’t wait until the Dems start investigating Whitehouse sanctioned torture, misuse of pre-war intelligence, etc., etc. And, we still have the Scooter Libby trial to look forward to, not to mention more Abramoff revelations…

    Yep, Pelosi sure does look monumental in comparison!

  68. Anonymous Says:

    “I’m VERY suspicious of anything regarding Iraq–al Qaeda connections coming from the CIA. This is the agency that sent a known Bush hater to Niger to investigate the Iraq-yellowcake purchase attempt. That decision was no accident.”

    I’m VERY suspicious of anything that calls for an attempt to discredit verifiable fact by using such juvenile and ignorant terms as “known Bush hater”; or ignores the fact that Wilson was sent at the behest of Cheney – for what it’s worth.

    Or the fact that the CIA acts at the behest of the Executive and not the other way around – unless of course, as in this case, it is being used to pass propaganda for use on the American people to justify a war that the U.S is desperately seeking a way to get out of…

  69. Anonymous Says:

    If you were to do a search using the date and name of the journal I provided, and topic I’m sure you could find the article – if you doubt it’s authenticity.

    If only you were so cynical about your governments’ blatant and obvious lies…

  70. Sergey Says:

    aqualung, the post was abour Iraq strategy and 08 election. You can’t win presidency on senator’s unetical behavior. And go to election without strategy is a sucide. Scandals of any kind is not the theme of presidential campain.

  71. Anonymous Says:

    http://www.gregpalast.com/cable-news-confidential-an-excerpt
    Silenced by the Drums of War by Jeff Cohen Greg Palast

    Now this is an interesting read about the ‘liberal’ media…

  72. grackle Says:

    I’m VERY suspicious of anything that calls for an attempt to discredit verifiable fact by using such juvenile and ignorant terms as “known Bush hater”; or ignores the fact that Wilson was sent at the behest of Cheney – for what it’s worth.

    Wilson was NOT sent to Niger at the “behest of Cheney.” Cheney did not know Wilson. The Whitehouse asked the CIA to send an operative with NO mention of Joe Wilson to Niger to get the details about Iraq’s attempt to purchase yellowcake from Niger, which is Niger’s only imported commodity. Cheney DID NOT specify anyone in particular, as implied by the commentor.

    One of the many things that makes the CIA so suspect to me is that after receiving this perfectly normal and legitimate task(it is after all the ‘job’ of the CIA to respond to such requests from the Whitehouse) the CIA then turns around and sends Joe Wilson, an avowed Bush hater that had campaigned against Bush in Presidential elections, who they had never used before and whose only experience had been in diplomacy, not investigations of Iraqi activity on the WMD front. And on top of that upon his return Wilson lied to the media(but not to his CIA debriefers) and claimed there was no evidence of a yellowcake purchase by Iraq from Niger – which later revelations and Wilson’s own CIA debriefing contradict. It is obvious to any neutral observer that the CIA has a political agenda which is anti-Bush and which it works hard to further when it should be using its energy to protect the nation.

     

  73. grackle Says:

    I’m VERY suspicious of anything that calls for an attempt to discredit verifiable fact by using such juvenile and ignorant terms as “known Bush hater”; or ignores the fact that Wilson was sent at the behest of Cheney – for what it’s worth.

    Gee, it gets tiring trying to correct false implications from the pen of Anonymous. Sigh. Wilson was NOT sent to Niger at the “behest of Cheney.” Cheney did not know Wilson. The Whitehouse asked the CIA to send an operative with NO mention of Joe Wilson to Niger to get the details about Iraq’s attempt to purchase yellowcake from Niger, which is the only commodity produced by Niger in which Iraq would be interested in buying. The Whitehouse DID NOT specify anyone in particular, as implied by the commentor.

    One of the many things that makes the CIA so suspect to me is that after receiving this perfectly normal and legitimate task(it is after all the ‘job’ of the CIA to respond to such requests from the Whitehouse) the CIA then turns around and sends Joe Wilson, who they had never used before and whose only experience had been in diplomacy, not investigations of Iraqi activity on the WMD front. Very puzzling, since the CIA possesses a horde of experts on WMD and many experienced investigators.

    And on top of that upon his return Wilson lied to the media(but not to his CIA debriefers) and claimed there was no evidence of a yellowcake purchase by Iraq from Niger – which later revelations and Wilson’s own CIA debriefing contradict. It is obvious to any neutral observer that at least some of the higher-ups in the CIA have a political agenda which is anti-Bush and which they work hard to further when they should be using their energy to protect the nation.
     

  74. grackle Says:

    Would you rather they send a known neocon Bush worshipper who would clearly distort information to suit?

    No, not a neocon but a professional from amongst their own should have been sent. That’s what ANY Whitehouse deserves from the intelligence agencies, a neutral, experienced investigator who is an employee of the agency. The puzzling choice of an ex-diplomat with a political ax to grind to was first questioned by Bob Novak; his column doing so was what set off the whole spittin’ contest. Common sense ought to tell any who might wonder that these decisions are probably NOT made casually by those in the CIA who are empowered to make them.

    Let’s say that I was a disgruntled CIA Section Chief – really angry for some reason at Bush. Along comes this Whitehouse request for a trip to Niger to investigate a BRITISH piece of intelligence the President had mentioned in a speech.

    Now I know how Valerie Plame feels about Bush, we’ve indulged in mutual orgies of Bushatred at Beltway gatherings. She gives GREAT Bushate. Hmm … but it wouldn’t do to send Valerie herself to Niger – if the lid blows off our little misdirection the Firm must be insulated. But she might know of some suitable candidate.

    (Later) Wow, what a great idea she had! Her husband, Joe Wilson! He’s even more rabid Bush-despiser than I am! I won’t even have to do anything risky like instructing him on how I want Bush’s reputation ruined(anyone might crack under the threat of prosecution for perjury). I won’t even have to meet with him beforehand. And the beauty is that Valerie is protected from being made to testify under oath if Joe’s ever questioned or prosecuted. And I can never be implicated. Hell, I’ve only responded to a Whitehouse request and implemented an employee’s suggestion; I’ve broken no laws they could ever prove.
    &nbsp

  75. Anonymous Says:

    You are correct, grackle – I was confused by the fact that some journalists claimed that Wilson had claimed that Cheney had sent him – when he actually had not claimed that.

    However – a Senate Intelligence report confirmed Wilson’s report – that there was no evidence to support the Niger claim.

    And as I recall the CIA warned the administration not to include in Bush’s speech – which was ignored.

  76. Anonymous Says:

    Further – it was not Wilson alone who disputed the Niger myth either.

    “Previously, in February 2002, three different American officials had made efforts to verify the reports. The deputy commander of U.S. Armed Forces Europe, Marine Gen. Carlton Fulford, went to Niger and met with the country’s president. He concluded that, given the controls on Niger’s uranium supply, there was little chance any of it could have been diverted to Iraq. His report was sent to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers. The U.S. Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, was also present at the meeting and sent similar conclusions to the State Department.”

    Wiki.

  77. Anonymous Says:

    The IAEA also had this to say about the claim..

    “The I.A.E.A. was able to review correspondence coming from various bodies of the government of Niger and to compare the form, format, contents and signature of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation. Based on thorough analysis, the I.A.E.A. has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents, which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger, are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.[4]”

    How would you respond to this grackle?

  78. grackle Says:

    However – a Senate Intelligence report confirmed Wilson’s report – that there was no evidence to support the Niger claim.

    And as I recall the CIA warned the administration not to include in Bush’s speech – which was ignored.

    Further – it was not Wilson alone who disputed the Niger myth either.

    Really? Well, that’s NOT what the Washington Post said. The Post thought that the Senate Intelligence report on Wilson’s debriefing to the CIA (contrary to what Wilson claimed) actually “bolstered” the belief that an attempt by Iraq to buy yellowcake DID occur – and says flat out that the Senate report indicated no CIA warning concerning the veracity of the BRITISH intelligence finding mentioned by the President in his speech ever occurred. Here’s the relevant quotes along with a link to the entire article:

    “Wilson’s assertions — both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information — were undermined yesterday[July 9th, 2004] in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

    The panel found that Wilson’s report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson’s assertions and even the government’s previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union address.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

    Some “myth,” huh?
     

  79. Anonymous Says:

    Ahhhh – now it get’s interesting..

    The Post article claims,

    ” Still, it was the CIA that bore the brunt of the criticism of the Niger intelligence. The panel found that the CIA has not fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium in Niger to this day, citing reports from a foreign service and the U.S. Navy about uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin.

    The agency did not examine forged documents that have been widely cited as a reason to dismiss the purported effort by Iraq until months after it obtained them. The panel said it still has “not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa.”

    The foreign agency, I believe, was Italian. And as I posted above, the documents were examined by the IAEA and determined to be fake.

    But the “panel has not published an assessment to clarify or correct it’s position”.

    Which begs the question – What exactly did the panel come up with that several intelligence officals(Bush boys I’d bet)claim ‘undermine’ Wilson’s rubbishing of the Niger claim”?

    Sounds like the Post is trying to smear Wilson, who “provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because “the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.”

    I can guess the editors of the Post, not surprisingly considering the pressure all MSM were under after the fallout from the missing WMD, tried to pass their failings on to Wilson.

    Or maybe you have something else for me?

    ‘Cause I don’t see how this changes the fact that there is still, to this day, zero evidence of Saddam purchasing uranium in Niger….

  80. Anonymous Says:

    The article claims that the CIA did not tell Wilson they had doubts about he veracity of the Niger documents – but didn’t Tenet later claim(or testify)that that’s exactly what the CIA had done?

    I could be wrong, but I don’t think we’d be talking only about Wilson on that one…

  81. grackle Says:

    … there is still, to this day, zero evidence of Saddam purchasing uranium in Niger….

    Nor would there necessarily be evidence if he HAD – but in actual fact the British intelligence report referred to ATTEMPTS and never claimed to have evidence of actual purchases. Let’s go back to the State of the Union speech and Bush’s actual words:

    “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

    This is what the AH frequently offer as proof that Bush “lied.” Every word, of course, is TRUE. Black is white – up is down in AHland.

    Some further thoughts:

    I used to wonder why the Administration-Haters(AH) always wrongly claimed it to be Cheney that had made the request; who would make the same wrong assertion over and over. Why was Cheney so important to the alleged misdoing in the Plame affair? But then I realized OF COURSE it needed to be Cheney. Among the AH Cheney is literally the devil personified so having Cheney be the requestor gave the story an AHs-type symmetry and force that is almost irresistible to them.

    Likewise their hatred of Rove, who almost co-rules with Cheney in the AH Hell. They all very much wanted and needed it to be Rove who leaked Plame’s “cover.” But we now know that NO ONE in the administration outed Plame.

    A puzzling fact was unearthed during the course of this affair: Wilson apparently knew of the contents of the forged documents. Wilson, who had never been given access to the forged documents and who is not terribly careful in his public utterings, let it slip out. IF he had anything to do with the document and he’s not been very, very careful he could one day find himself in the docket.

    The final round could be the Libby trial – which I don’t think will occur but kind of wish it would. The pleasure of watching a clever lawyer cross-examine Wilson under oath would almost be worth it.

    So, ya gotta watch out for those myths, man. Some myths leave a crater a quarter mile across.
     

  82. Anonymous Says:

    I do watch them grackle.

    I think your basically drumbing up a conspiracy theory about Wilson and Bush ‘haters’, but I’m done.

    I’ve tried to hate Bush and I can’t – he’s not the cleverest, but I don’t see him as ‘bad’ man.

    Cheney, however, is pure evil.

    Gotta say….

  83. Anonymous Says:

    It didn’t ‘need’ to be Cheney – it most likely was, and there’s more than a bit of evidence for that too grackle – but, for another day….

  84. Ymarsakar Says:

    These people don’t know what evil is. Evil to them is a bad hair day when they look in the mirror.

  85. grackle Says:

    I’ve tried to hate Bush and I can’t – he’s not the cleverest, but I don’t see him as ‘bad’ man.

    Oh yeah, like we know just how much the commentor doesn’t hate Bush. Right. Bush’s intellect has been consistently attacked beginning with his first run for governor in Texas. Always content to be underestimated Bush has never lost a race. Like Rocky Marciano, Bush junior will retire from the executive office field undefeated.

    Kerry was offered up as Bush’s superior in the brains department when they ran against each other yet Bush had slightly BETTER grades at the same school. That must be why Kerry wouldn’t release his grades until AFTER the race. Odd how these things work.

    Cheney, however, is pure evil.

    Cheney is about as evil as the Rotary Club, as malevolent as the Chamber of Commerce. But once folks start fixating … HE IS SATAN INCARNATE I TELL YOU!!!

    The Plame affair was about targeting Bush’s administration for what would have been a technicality – outing Valerie Plame. The problem you see is that it turns out that IF some laws HAVE been broken, the transgressions were committed by people OUTSIDE the Bush administration. Whoa – all of a sudden it’s not news anymore – it gets relegated to obligatory coverage – if you’re MSM, only when ya absolutely gotta.

    It didn’t ‘need’ to be Cheney – it most likely was, and there’s more than a bit of evidence for that too grackle – but, for another day….

    See, here’s what I DON’T get: Just for the sake of argument – what if it WAS Cheney? It’s Cheney’s JOB to make such requests, fer gosh sakes. Why is it always necessary to reiterate the obvious?

    Readers, consider this: Bush mentions a bit of BRITISH intelligence in a speech. Afterwards some in the media question that it happened as the BRITISH claimed. Someone in the Whitehouse says hey, that’s a good point, let’s try to find out for ourselves, let’s ask the CIA to check it out. For the life of me I can’t figure out what the Bush haters find so ominous about these events. But when you are fixated very strongly … IT’S A PLOT! A NEOCON PLOT
    I TELL YOU!!!

    Why is it so important to them that knowledge of the yellowcake purchase attempt be discredited? Because if Saddam tried to purchase yellowcake it’s another proof that Saddam was up to no good, WMD-wise, during all that time, 13 years it was, that he played the UN like a harp while he was simultaneously mooning it. If you’re not trying to go nuclear, you don’t need yellowcake.
     

     

  86. Ymarsakar Says:

    He tries to hate bush but I guess his heart isn’t into it.

  87. Anonymous Says:

    No grackle – none of that.

    But please – don’t let me stop your nonsensical, grade school tantrum.

    Yammer – I realize it’s probably beyond your comprehension to understand liking the personality and not the policy, but at least have the decentecy to qualify your crass rubbish with the fact that you hate anybody who dares to criticize your right wing heroes.

    Just for that – I hate Bush too.

    So there.

    Naaa.

Leave a Reply

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



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>








Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge