Iraq’s “WMD’s” moved to Syria?

[Radar Chief]

I post this as a FWIW, not as absolute conclusion one way or another.
Though, I’ve heard this same possibility several times now.
Take it for what it’s worth.

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says
By IRA STOLL - Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 26, 2006
The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.
The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.
"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."
Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."

More here. (http://www.nysun.com/article/26514)

[Lurch]

I think most people with more than half a brain realized this about 3 years or so ago....

[jAZ]

It'll sell books. That's for sure. Oddly enough, it seems even a person with half a brain realizes that GWB isn't particularly worried about Syria and their newly acquired WMD.

No invasion or anything! No sanctions. No "Axis of Evil" no nothing.

Who'd a thunk it. ME nation who actually sponsors terrorism and they now have WMD and Bush has let them have them for years now.

This argument is a no win situation for you guys. Either Bush is continuing his cluster-f*ck of a run as President or this terrorist state doesn't have the WMD and this guy is selling a book.

[Chiefs Express]

It'll sell books. That's for sure. Oddly enough, it seems even a person with half a brain realizes that GWB isn't particularly worried about Syria and their newly acquired WMD.

No invasion or anything! No sanctions. No "Axis of Evil" no nothing.

Who'd a thunk it. ME nation who actually sponsors terrorism and they now have WMD and Bush has let them have them for years now.

This argument is a no win situation for you guys. Either Bush is continuing his cluster-f*ck of a run as President or this terrorist state doesn't have the WMD and this guy is selling a book.

With the current atmosphere created by the democrats why would anyone determine that they should carry out any further plans that include our military? Regardless of the facts there would be no support for such a move. The only thing that might get the parties involved unified in an effort to eliminate the weapons, if they exist, would be for one to be used in a terrorist attack. I don't believe any of us want that.

[penchief]

Here we go again..........for the umteenth millionth time..........

When will they ever learn.........

[Donger]

GWB isn't particularly worried about Syria and their newly acquired WMD.

A small hint, jAZ: just because you don't see it on the nightly news does not mean it isn't happening.

[jAZ]

With the current atmosphere created by the democrats why would anyone determine that they should carry out any further plans that include our military? Regardless of the facts there would be no support for such a move. The only thing that might get the parties involved unified in an effort to eliminate the weapons, if they exist, would be for one to be used in a terrorist attack. I don't believe any of us want that.
Yeah, let's put politics in front of national security. Great idea. Nevermind that Bush is rattling his war drums at Iran right now.

[Chiefs Express]

A small hint, jAZ: just because you don't see it on the nightly news does not mean it isn't happening.

Do you honestly think that will carry any weight with him? I don't.

[jAZ]

A small hint, jAZ: just because you don't see it on the nightly news does not mean it isn't happening.
That settles it. This article is correct. Forgive me.

[jAZ]

Do you honestly think that will carry any weight with him? I don't.
His post makes a lot more sense than yours.

[Donger]

Yeah, let's put politics in front of national security. Great idea. Nevermind that Bush is rattling his war drums at Iran right now.

Do you think that Iran should be allowed to continue their enrichment program?

[Donger]

That settles it. This article is correct. Forgive me.

Just pointing out the obvious.

[patteeu]

This argument is a no win situation for you guys. Either Bush is continuing his cluster-f*ck of a run as President or this terrorist state doesn't have the WMD and this guy is selling a book.

See jAZ, this is the problem. To you this is all a political game of gotcha instead of an exercise in national security.

[Radar Chief]

Yeah, let's put politics in front of national security.

Bush lied, people died. ROFL

[patteeu]

Yeah, let's put politics in front of national security. Great idea. Nevermind that Bush is rattling his war drums at Iran right now.

LMAO at the irony.

[Radar Chief]

LMAO at the irony.

That one got me too.

[patteeu]

That one got me too.

Good ol' jAZ. LOL

[jAZ]

See jAZ, this is the problem. To you this is all a political game of gotcha instead of an exercise in national security.
No it is a matter of national security. And if Syria had these WMD from Iraq, we would be WAY more concerned about them than we EVER were with Iraq. It's really just a matter of basic reasoning.

If all of those "weaspons" were ferried away to Syria, we wouldn't be sitting on our hands for the last 3 years given that the massive threat of possessing those weapons was the justification for invading Iraq.

Even I don't think Bush is so incompetent as to ignore the threat of Syria with nukes or massive chemical stockpiles. We KNOW Syria is involved in terrorism.

Call me polly-anna if you wish, but I don't think for a minute that Bush is stupid enough to let a terrorist state like Syria have and hold WMD.

If my reasoning is wrong and Bush IS letting them have those weapons, then Bush is in fact an even bigger cluster-f*ck. At that point, any political scorekeeping is totally up to you. That scoreboard is burned out at this point.

[jAZ]

LMAO at the irony.
As I said, I don't think for a minute Bush is this stupid. If he is (and he's leaving it to Syria to hold WMD) then it's not "politics"... his failure is a matter of national security.

If he isn't that stupid (and he doesn't believe Syria has these weapons), then it's not about politics either. It's about selling books to people who want it to be only about politics.

[Donger]

No it is a matter of national security. And if Syria had these WMD from Iraq, we would be WAY more concerned about them than we EVER were with Iraq. It's really just a matter of basic reasoning.

If all of those "weaspons" were ferried away to Syria, we wouldn't be sitting on our hands for the last 3 years given that the massive threat of possessing those weapons was the justification for invading Iraq.

Even I don't think Bush is so incompetent as to ignore the threat of Syria with nukes or massive chemical stockpiles. We KNOW Syria is involved in terrorism.

Call me polly-anna if you wish, but I don't think for a minute that Bush is stupid enough to let a terrorist state like Syria have and hold WMD.

If my reasoning is wrong and Bush IS letting them have those weapons, then Bush is in fact an even bigger cluster-f*ck. At that point, any political scorekeeping is totally up to you. That scoreboard is burned out at this point.

Did it even enter your mind that perhaps they are trying to ascertain whether the WMDs went to Syria or not right now? And, perhaps, they won't do anything overt until that is accomplished?

You seem to have a sort of weird "jAZ Time Scale" regarding these scenarios.

[jAZ]

Did it even enter your mind that perhaps they are trying to ascertain whether the WMDs went to Syria or not right now? And, perhaps, they won't do anything overt until that is accomplished?

You seem to have a sort of weird "jAZ Time Scale" regarding these scenarios.
3 years? That's a lot of unchecked threat for a long time. Bush was in power for less than that before he finally invaded Iraq.

[tiptap]

What does it take to produce chemical weapons of mass destruction? The binary system used by Saddam in his war with Iran was supplied by who.. oh yeah the US. But non of the production took place in Iraq. It is true that Saddam used more primitive dispersal methods utilizing helicopters but transporting that system anywhere would be combersome. So again I ask one and all where is the steel and aluminum and metal production taking place in the world. Will it is not in the Mid East. So in any sustain battle their is no replacement for high end manufactoring in the Mid East. It has to be imported.

Binary systems have to be kept up or they go bad. The idea that that supply long ago stopped is some how still good is naive. I would have better results to simply use materials within the US to make a chemical bomb than try to move something that you all seem to be concerned about.

Seeing that the judgement so far shown by this administration it seems folly to believe the worst when even a hint of the estimations has been verified.

As far as Iran, well I do remember the anxiety when missiles were located in Cuba (to counter the ones in Turkey). And it doesn't matter whether you are the bad guy in the USSR or Iran, you would be looking to deter a preemtive attack demonstrated by our invasion of Iraq.

It would be nice to have deterred Iran, but with Israel, US and Pakistan even with nuclear weapons and potential adversaries they have little incentive not to pursue a military/nuclear response.

In addition they do need energy sources when the oil runs out. No hydro sources. Just what do you expect them to pursue?

[Donger]

3 years? That's a lot of unchecked threat for a long time. Bush was in power for less than that before he finally invaded Iraq.

Well, maybe you can wave your magic time scale wand and give our intel weenies some help?

[mlyonsd]

Imagine the interesting discussions we'll have when Iraqi intelligience documents are released and they point to a relationship with AQ.

[Donger]

Imagine the interesting discussions we'll have when Iraqi intelligience documents are released and they point to a relationship with AQ.

Those documents are fakes! Look at the font!!

[banyon]

It certainly could be that this guy is "Curveball II"; and that this info was gained through torture as well and is just as unreliable.

[Radar Chief]

It certainly could be that this guy is "Curveball II"; and that this info was gained through torture as well and is just as unreliable.

I take it you didn’t read the article, or even the small portion I quoted here?
He’s published a book with these claims. It could be called a publicity stunt, but obtained through torture? :spock:

[Bootlegged]

It certainly could be that this guy is "Curveball II"; and that this info was gained through torture as well and is just as unreliable.


:rolleyes:

[Radar Chief]

What does it take to produce chemical weapons of mass destruction? The binary system used by Saddam in his war with Iran was supplied by who.. oh yeah the US. But non of the production took place in Iraq. It is true that Saddam used more primitive dispersal methods utilizing helicopters but transporting that system anywhere would be combersome. So again I ask one and all where is the steel and aluminum and metal production taking place in the world. Will it is not in the Mid East. So in any sustain battle their is no replacement for high end manufactoring in the Mid East. It has to be imported.

Binary systems have to be kept up or they go bad. The idea that that supply long ago stopped is some how still good is naive. I would have better results to simply use materials within the US to make a chemical bomb than try to move something that you all seem to be concerned about.

Seeing that the judgement so far shown by this administration it seems folly to believe the worst when even a hint of the estimations has been verified.

As far as Iran, well I do remember the anxiety when missiles were located in Cuba (to counter the ones in Turkey). And it doesn't matter whether you are the bad guy in the USSR or Iran, you would be looking to deter a preemtive attack demonstrated by our invasion of Iraq.

It would be nice to have deterred Iran, but with Israel, US and Pakistan even with nuclear weapons and potential adversaries they have little incentive not to pursue a military/nuclear response.

In addition they do need energy sources when the oil runs out. No hydro sources. Just what do you expect them to pursue?

Wow, there’s so many wrong assumptions and misinformation here it’s hard to tell where to start.
Not sure I can address everything, but I’ll try.

1. Saddam got the majority of his chemical weapons and equipment for making more from Soviet Russia. We sold him a little more, refined his processes but it’s a wrong assumption that he got them all from us.
2. A Binary shell is an artillery projectile used for delivering chemical weapons. It’s called a “binary shell” because it keeps the active ingredients separate inside the shell in glass cylinders. The g forces from firing the shell cause the glass cylinders to break and mix the active ingredients making it the freshest possible mix and because they’re kept separate until the last possible moment, increases shelf life almost infinitely. This also requires that the shell actually be fired from an artillery piece in order to mix the components, so there are downfalls also.
3. Are you try’n to claim that Saddam had no capability to produce his own artillery shells? In particular chemical ones? I’d like to see the link to that.
4. Other means of dispersing chemical weapons over intended targets are no more complicated or “cumbersome” than any average crop duster. Same principle, same equipment. In fact, chemical weapons are nothing more than highly purified, deadly, pesticides. That’s why we had so many positive hits on chemical detectors at the beginning of the war including in the Tigris River. That was probably run off from the farm fields.

That’s all that hits me right now, if I come up with more I’ll return.

[banyon]

I take it you didn’t read the article, or even the small portion I quoted here?
He’s published a book with these claims. It could be called a publicity stunt, but obtained through torture? :spock:

No I read it (the whole thing). C'mon I'm just speculating here, since that's really all anyone can do at this juncture :hmmm: . Stretch the ol' imagination a little bit. The book could easily be ghost written or have a fake general. Who could tell the difference? This administration makes most of its policy under the auspices of plausible deniability. You are right, it is more likely to be a stunt to sell books, but it is awfully convenient for W if true.

The pilots told Mr. Sada that two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, Mr. Sada said. Then Special Republican Guard brigades loaded materials onto the planes, he said, including "yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel." The pilots said there was also a ground convoy of trucks.

Wow, two whole planes worth? I thought these were supposed to be quantities of weaponry that posed an imminent danger to the U.S. That was why we couldn't proceed with more inspections, right? Hope those barrels were light, so they could shove maybe 100,000 of them on board. We would have seen a ground convoy with satellites or our air surveillance; that seems unlikely to have happened. It seems clear to me, since we're not going to attack Syria, that this is another effort to justify the ill-advised invasion by any means possible. "If there were ANY WMD's then Bush was right to invade," conservative commentators will say. Then when critics say but "There were supposed to be massive quantities that posed an imminent threat" the same conservative commentators will say "Isn't anything good enough for you people. You people are just splitting hairs and must hate America."

[mlyonsd]

No I read it (the whole thing). C'mon I'm just speculating here, since that's really all anyone can do at this juncture :hmmm: . Stretch the ol' imagination a little bit. The book could easily be ghost written or have a fake general. Who could tell the difference? This administration makes most of its policy under the auspices of plausible deniability. You are right, it is more likely to be a stunt to sell books, but it is awfully convenient for W if true.



Wow, two whole planes worth? I thought these were supposed to be quantities of weaponry that posed an imminent danger to the U.S. That was why we couldn't proceed with more inspections, right? Hope those barrels were light, so they could shove maybe 100,000 of them on board. We would have seen a ground convoy with satellites or our air surveillance; that seems unlikely to have happened. It seems clear to me, since we're not going to attack Syria, that this is another effort to justify the ill-advised invasion by any means possible. "If there were ANY WMD's then Bush was right to invade," conservative commentators will say. Then when critics say but "There were supposed to be massive quantities that posed an imminent threat" the same conservative commentators will say "Isn't anything good enough for you people. You people are just splitting hairs and must hate America."

Come on dude, you're flailing here.

I'm not staying the story is true, just that your arguments are going way out there in trying to downplay the possibility it did happen.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Wow, there’s so many wrong assumptions and misinformation here it’s hard to tell where to start.
Not sure I can address everything, but I’ll try.

1. Saddam got the majority of his chemical weapons and equipment for making more from Soviet Russia. We sold him a little more, refined his processes but it’s a wrong assumption that he got them all from us.
2. A Binary shell is an artillery projectile used for delivering chemical weapons. It’s called a “binary shell” because it keeps the active ingredients separate inside the shell in glass cylinders. The g forces from firing the shell cause the glass cylinders to break and mix the active ingredients making it the freshest possible mix and because they’re kept separate until the last possible moment, increases shelf life almost infinitely. This also requires that the shell actually be fired from an artillery piece in order to mix the components, so there are downfalls also.
3. Are you try’n to claim that Saddam had no capability to produce his own artillery shells? In particular chemical ones? I’d like to see the link to that.
4. Other means of dispersing chemical weapons over intended targets are no more complicated or “cumbersome” than any average crop duster. Same principle, same equipment. In fact, chemical weapons are nothing more than highly purified, deadly, pesticides. That’s why we had so many positive hits on chemical detectors at the beginning of the war including in the Tigris River. That was probably run off from the farm fields.

That’s all that hits me right now, if I come up with more I’ll return.

Beat me to it. Good post. Rep.

[banyon]

Come on dude, you're flailing here.

I'm not staying the story is true, just that your arguments are going way out there in trying to downplay the possibility it did happen.

Yeah, you're right. I got nothing but my skepticism-meter here. It's reading at about a 7/10. I do think that it sounds fishy though. Why'd this dude wait so long to reveal this, if he loves being freed so much? We would've given him protection in the States, if he was right. Two planes? What was in the barrels or the convoy? Sounds fishy.:harumph:

[the Talking Can]

all the WMD's are in Idaho...good lord....

[patteeu]

No it is a matter of national security. And if Syria had these WMD from Iraq, we would be WAY more concerned about them than we EVER were with Iraq. It's really just a matter of basic reasoning.

If all of those "weaspons" were ferried away to Syria, we wouldn't be sitting on our hands for the last 3 years given that the massive threat of possessing those weapons was the justification for invading Iraq.

Even I don't think Bush is so incompetent as to ignore the threat of Syria with nukes or massive chemical stockpiles. We KNOW Syria is involved in terrorism.

Call me polly-anna if you wish, but I don't think for a minute that Bush is stupid enough to let a terrorist state like Syria have and hold WMD.

If my reasoning is wrong and Bush IS letting them have those weapons, then Bush is in fact an even bigger cluster-f*ck. At that point, any political scorekeeping is totally up to you. That scoreboard is burned out at this point.

1) Why would Syria be a more massive threat than Iraq or Iran or North Korea? We believe North Korea has the worst kind of WMD (i.e. nukes) and the least rational leader (of that group), but we aren't invading them. Maybe you can help me with the "basic reasoning."

2) WMD wasn't "the" justification for the invasion of Iraq, it was "one of the" justifications for the invasion of Iraq. Among the other reasons were repeated acts of war committed by Saddam's regime against our no-fly aircraft. There were plenty of others too. Every situation requires individual assessment and a customized response. I don't know if the Bush administration has made the right calculation in every case, but I'm certain that if you can't even get this simple fact right you have no business having any confidence in your own assessments.

3) We KNOW Saddam's Iraq was involved in terrorism.

[patteeu]

3 years? That's a lot of unchecked threat for a long time. Bush was in power for less than that before he finally invaded Iraq.

There is also the matter that we are currently involved in a fairly substantial military operation in Iraq which would make an invasion of Syria somewhat more difficult than the original invasion of Iraq was.

[patteeu]

No I read it (the whole thing). C'mon I'm just speculating here, since that's really all anyone can do at this juncture :hmmm: . Stretch the ol' imagination a little bit. The book could easily be ghost written or have a fake general. Who could tell the difference? This administration makes most of its policy under the auspices of plausible deniability. You are right, it is more likely to be a stunt to sell books, but it is awfully convenient for W if true.



Wow, two whole planes worth? I thought these were supposed to be quantities of weaponry that posed an imminent danger to the U.S. That was why we couldn't proceed with more inspections, right? Hope those barrels were light, so they could shove maybe 100,000 of them on board. We would have seen a ground convoy with satellites or our air surveillance; that seems unlikely to have happened. It seems clear to me, since we're not going to attack Syria, that this is another effort to justify the ill-advised invasion by any means possible. "If there were ANY WMD's then Bush was right to invade," conservative commentators will say. Then when critics say but "There were supposed to be massive quantities that posed an imminent threat" the same conservative commentators will say "Isn't anything good enough for you people. You people are just splitting hairs and must hate America."

In the process of reading the whole thing, you must have missed this sentence (hey, it happens to all of us from time to time):

The flights - 56 in total, Mr. Sada said - attracted little notice because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in June of 2002.

It turns out that this is an import sentence because it addresses both of your major points.

1) There were only 2 aircraft, but they flew 56 flights, which along with the ground convoys, represent a significantly larger volume of cargo than what you apparently believed.

2) The cover provided by the natural disaster in Syria could explain how these shipments could occur under the watchful eyes of our overhead surveillance assets.

[patteeu]

Yeah, you're right. I got nothing but my skepticism-meter here. It's reading at about a 7/10. I do think that it sounds fishy though. Why'd this dude wait so long to reveal this, if he loves being freed so much? We would've given him protection in the States, if he was right. Two planes? What was in the barrels or the convoy? Sounds fishy.:harumph:

It's reasonable to be skeptical, IMO. The profit potential of a book is incentive enough to raise doubt about the revelations. OTOH, this isn't the first claim made in this regard. As the article points out, the Israelis were publicly making these claims in 2002. As RadarChief indicated in the OP, we don't have enough to draw a conclusion either way.

The link on the 4th page of the article (to the Fall 2005 issue of Middle East Quarterly (http://www.meforum.org/article/755)) leads to some interesting reading:

Iraqi Weapons in Syria?

While Western governments were able to pressure Moscow to alter its weapons shipments, Bashar al-Assad may not have limited himself to over-the-counter weapons purchases. The Syrian military's unconventional weapons arsenal already has a significant stockpile of sarin. The Syrian regime has also attempted to produce other toxic agents in order to advance its inventory of biological weapons.[22]

Several different intelligence sources raised red flags about suspicious truck convoys from Iraq to Syria in the days, weeks, and months prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.[23]

These concerns first became public when, on December 23, 2002, Ariel Sharon stated on Israeli television, "Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria."[24] About three weeks later, Israel's foreign minister repeated the accusation.[25] The U.S., British, and Australian governments issued similar statements. [26]

...

jAZ will be particularly interested to note the first paragraph where it suggests that Syria has stockpiles of Sarin even if you discount these Iraqi transfers.

[jAZ]

Come on dude, you're flailing here.

I'm not staying the story is true, just that your arguments are going way out there in trying to downplay the possibility it did happen.
You know, you might be right. All it takes is basic common sense to make the case that it is obviously an effort to sell books to the choir.

[jAZ]

jAZ will be particularly interested to note the first paragraph where it suggests that Syria has stockpiles of Sarin even if you discount these Iraqi transfers.
As I said, Syria was always the greater threat of the two. Of course, that didn't deter Bush from pretending otherwise in public.

[banyon]

In the process of reading the whole thing, you must have missed this sentence (hey, it happens to all of us from time to time):



It turns out that this is an import sentence because it addresses both of your major points.

1) There were only 2 aircraft, but they flew 56 flights, which along with the ground convoys, represent a significantly larger volume of cargo than what you apparently believed.

2) The cover provided by the natural disaster in Syria could explain how these shipments could occur under the watchful eyes of our overhead surveillance assets.

OK that seems to be an important sentence that I missed. I accept that I mischaracterized the article. Still seems like a lot to fit on 2 planes for an imminent threat, but I guess if they were filled with WMD's to the brom, they might be able to assault LA or NY. These are good points, but my skepticism about the source and the history here still remains...

[banyon]

IMHO, the best reason to doubt this is the delay in this guy relaying his info.

[Boozer]

IMHO, the best reason to doubt this is the delay in this guy relaying his info.

That, and the fact that we haven't found anything in Iraq that would lead you to belive there were recently WMD there. Not only did they move the WMD, they moved all traces of them being there!

Now it's entirely possible that evidence of the WMD is just being kept ultra-secret in our leak-proof intelligence agencies, but it's going to take more than this guy selling books to get me to belive that the "WMD to Syria" angle is anything more than a weak stab by Bushies to prop up their guy.

[patteeu]

As I said, Syria was always the greater threat of the two. Of course, that didn't deter Bush from pretending otherwise in public.

I think most people in the administration would agree with me that Iran is and always has been a greater threat than Iraq was, but Iraq was selected for invasion because it was lower hanging fruit and because, at the time, there appeared to be a chance for peaceful reform from within Iran that wasn't present in Iraq. Unlike Iraq, Syria hadn't been shooting at our planes for a dozen years and they hadn't been as ostracized by the neighborhood as Saddam's Iraq had been.

You may be right that Syria is a greater threat than Iraq (I dont' agree, but you might be right anyway), but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should have invaded Syria instead of Iraq or that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq at all.

[Chief Henry]

This guys book will not ever be mention'd by the NY Times, probably.

[Chiefs Express]

I take it you didn’t read the article, or even the small portion I quoted here?
He’s published a book with these claims. It could be called a publicity stunt, but obtained through torture? :spock:

You honestly think the libs will accept anything short of having the weapons in hand?

I think the torture will be having to read the book and determine within ourselves if this guy is FOS or for real. I heard him speaking on Hanity's show yesterday. I would like to have had less rambling and more fact, but it seemed like he was having some trouble finding the words he wanted to use and the accent was almost torturous for those listening.

[Chiefs Express]

His post makes a lot more sense than yours.

What, that fact has little to do with your stance on anything? I guess if that is what he said he is in complete agreement with my statement - that you would rather believe the National Enquirer than anyone with credible information - especially if it damns the president.

[banyon]

This guys book will not ever be mention'd by the NY Times, probably.

Why not? Judith Miller's NYT articles were the ones that lent credibility to the Administration's assertions of WMD's in the pre-war buildup. Seems like they'd benefit as much as anybody by getting to retract their apology.

[Bootlegged]

Why not? Judith Miller's NYT articles were the ones that lent credibility to the Administration's assertions of WMD's in the pre-war buildup. Seems like they'd benefit as much as anybody by getting to retract their apology.


Lent credibility to those who take credibility in what the NYT says.

[alanm]

See jAZ, this is the problem. To you this is all a political game of gotcha instead of an exercise in national security.
And in a nutshell that's really all democrats care about.

[CRONUS]

See jAZ, this is the problem. To you this is all a political game of gotcha instead of an exercise in national security.Based on that we move on to Syria conquer it spend 400 billion occupying find no WMDs, oh they have been moved to Lebanon. Rinse and repeat.

[penchief]

See jAZ, this is the problem. To you this is all a political game of gotcha instead of an exercise in national security.

And in a nutshell that's really all democrats care about.

Both of you have to be, like....totally shitting me, right?

I mean, the Clinton witchhunts were about "gotcha" as much as gotcha' can get.

At least the complaints about this administration have significance in relationship to the pragmatic governing of our country, the relevency of the constitution, the competence of this president, and the sincerity of the administration's political motives. All of which have dire consequences for the future of America.

Good God, people. Do you have no sense of relevency or perspective?

[Boozer]

Both of you have to be, like....totally shitting me, right?

I mean, the Clinton witchhunts were about "gotcha" as much as gotcha' can get.

At least the complaints about this administration have significance in relationship to the pragmatic governing of our country, the relevency of the constitution, the competence of this president, and the sincerity of the administration's political motives. All of which have dire consequences for the future of America.

Good God, people. Do you have no sense of relevency or perspective?

Is this the rare "reverse 'But Clinton?'" Well done sir.

[patteeu]

Based on that we move on to Syria conquer it spend 400 billion occupying find no WMDs, oh they have been moved to Lebanon. Rinse and repeat.

Is that your suggestion?

[Adept Havelock]

Is that your prediction?

Fixed your post for you. ;)

[patteeu]

Both of you have to be, like....totally shitting me, right?

I mean, the Clinton witchhunts were about "gotcha" as much as gotcha' can get.

At least the complaints about this administration have significance in relationship to the pragmatic governing of our country, the relevency of the constitution, the competence of this president, and the sincerity of the administration's political motives. All of which have dire consequences for the future of America.

Good God, people. Do you have no sense of relevency or perspective?

It's interesting that you bring up Clinton because his foreign adventures (both in terms of his decisions to take action and his decisions to refuse to act) were, for the most part, aimed at gaining some domestic political benefit. By contrast, we have George Bush doing what he thinks needs to be done for national security despite very real risks to his domestic popularity brought on by demogogues who care only about diminishing his ability to govern.

Why do you have to bring Clinton up anyway? Can't we just get over him? :p

[memyselfI]

Based on that we move on to Syria conquer it spend 400 billion occupying find no WMDs, oh they have been moved to Lebanon. Rinse and repeat.

ROFL

Oh wait.

:deevee:

[CRONUS]

Is that your suggestion?Of course not, but given this administrations predispostion for making incredible blunders nothing they do would suprise me.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

It's interesting that you bring up Clinton because his foreign adventures (both in terms of his decisions to take action and his decisions to refuse to act) were, for the most part, aimed at gaining some domestic political benefit. By contrast, we have George Bush doing what he thinks needs to be done for national security despite very real risks to his domestic popularity brought on by demogogues who care only about diminishing his ability to govern.

Why do you have to bring Clinton up anyway? Can't we just get over him? :p

It is in fact interesting that they bring up Clinton and the right the 'gotcha game'. I highly recommend anyone who doesn't believe that all the Clinton olympics were blatant partisan attacks to destroy his presidency to read "The Hunting of the President" by Conason and Lyons. It is an excellently researched book with a clearly identifiable paper trail for anyone who doubts their conclusions.

[mlyonsd]

It is in fact interesting that they bring up Clinton and the right the 'gotcha game'. I highly recommend anyone who doesn't believe that all the Clinton olympics were blatant partisan attacks to destroy his presidency to read "The Hunting of the President" by Conason and Lyons. It is an excellently researched book with a clearly identifiable paper trail for anyone who doubts their conclusions.

Politics aside are you telling me it was OK for Clinton to lie under oath?

And if your answer is no, can you really sit there and tell me he had your trust after it was proven he looked into the camera and lied directly to the American people?

[penchief]

Politics aside are you telling me it was OK for Clinton to lie under oath?

And if your answer is no, can you really sit there and tell me he had your trust after it was proven he looked into the camera and lied directly to the American people?

I don't think that was the point. I believe his point was that indeed it was a witchhunt that led to "the lie." If they hadn't been obsessed with crippling his presidency in the first place, as a nation, we would not have found ourselves to that point. Everything, beginning with Whitewater, was politically motivated.

My point, was that it is beyond ironic that republicans can even be discussing the gotcha tactics of the democrats. I mean, republicans wrote the book on gotcha politics. They wasted six years and 40 million dollars playing gotcha for political gain, only to entrap Clinton in a lie. Was the lie wrong? Absolutely.

I also think it is correct to point out the relevency of those witchhunts compared to the relevency of this president's misconduct. Whitewater and ninety percent of the so-called scandals that ensued had nothing to do with his running the country. Much of them were past personal accusations dredged up and recycled by partisan politics.

On the other hand, the currrent president's veracity and conduct is highly questionable in relation to matters most pertinent to the prosecution of his job. War and death, the relevence of the constitution, the integrity of our country around the world, and the selling of influence at the expense of the common good would be issues of great importance to any country, let alone the leading democracy in the world.

I still find it difficult to believe that some conservatives can't acknowledge either the irony in their accusations against dems or how relevant the concerns about this president's questionable conduct are, especially when his conduct has had direct and possibly dire consequences for the future of our country and our society.

[patteeu]

Politics aside are you telling me it was OK for Clinton to lie under oath?

And if your answer is no, can you really sit there and tell me he had your trust after it was proven he looked into the camera and lied directly to the American people?

The way I read his response was as an admission that the current attempts to damage Bush are nothing more than political gotcha but that it's OK because that's what he and Joe Conason think the Republicans did to Clinton. ;)

[penchief]

The way I read his response was as an admission that the current attempts to damage Bush are nothing more than political gotcha but that it's OK because that's what he and Joe Conason think the Republicans did to Clinton. ;)

The issues in question now are far more serious and pertinent. And this president's actions have made those issues controversial. If you are going to scrutinize and investigate a sitting president for his past personal digressions you should be more than willing to scrutinize and investigate a sitting president for his conduct of governmental policy.

My criticisms of this president have to do with those more important issues such as the administration's policies and the unethical way in which they attempt to accomplish their agenda. These things actually have a profound impact on my country, my life, and the lives of all citizens.

False justification for pre-emptive war, the assault on our civil liberties, the undermining of the constitution, and endorsing torture and domestic spying without legal oversight (among many other things), are all more serious to this country's future than were any of the "scandals" pursued by those idiots in the republican controlled congress and their lapdog, Kenneth Starr.

Clinton's "scandals" and personal life were dragged out in front of the entire nation day in and day out in painful detail. Now, we can't even get the corporate media to do it's job when it really matters. This president has gotten away with murder, so to speak, and has done so without an ounce of accountability.

[patteeu]

The issues in question now are far more serious and pertinent. And this president's actions have made those issues controversial. If you are going to scrutinize and investigate a sitting president for his past personal digressions you should be more than willing to scrutinize and investigate a sitting president for his conduct of governmental policy.

My criticisms of this president have to do with those more important issues such as the administration's policies and the unethical way in which they attempt to accomplish their agenda. These things actually have a profound impact on my country, my life, and the lives of all citizens.

False justification for pre-emptive war, the assault on our civil liberties, the undermining of the constitution, and endorsing torture and domestic spying without legal oversight (among many other things), are all more serious to this country's future than were any of the "scandals" pursued by those idiots in the republican controlled congress and their lapdog, Kenneth Starr.

Clinton's "scandals" and personal life were dragged out in front of the entire nation day in and day out in painful detail. Now, we can't even get the corporate media to do it's job when it really matters. This president has gotten away with murder, so to speak, and has done so without an ounce of accountability.


On the contrary, I see presidential abuse of power for crass personal gain to be a more troublesome issue, worthy of investigation and possible impeachement, than the policy disputes taking place today. Having said that, I think it's perfectly reasonable for Congress to investigate policy issues such as the terrorist surveillance activity of the NSA to determine whether the President has exceeded his authority. And if he has, they should reign him in, but it's not the kind of thing I think is worthy of impeachment. It appears to be an honest, perhaps aggressive, exercise of power for the purpose of carrying out legitimate duties.

[mlyonsd]

Clinton's "scandals" and personal life were dragged out in front of the entire nation day in and day out in painful detail. Now, we can't even get the corporate media to do it's job when it really matters. This president has gotten away with murder, so to speak, and has done so without an ounce of accountability.

You can't honestly say the media is giving Bush a free pass can you? Give me some examples.

[penchief]

On the contrary, I see presidential abuse of power for crass personal gain to be a more troublesome issue, worthy of investigation and possible impeachement, than the policy disputes taking place today. Having said that, I think it's perfectly reasonable for Congress to investigate policy issues such as the terrorist surveillance activity of the NSA to determine whether the President has exceeded his authority. And if he has, they should reign him in, but it's not the kind of thing I think is worthy of impeachment. It appears to be an honest, perhaps aggressive, exercise of power for the purpose of carrying out legitimate duties.

The NSA wiretapping is just one issue. There are many, many issues which we have both discussed ad nauseum on this board without having to recite them again. Exploiting fear of terrorism is not a be-all and end-all justification for the usurpation of power.

Having said that, reining in the president & his corporate and neocon cronies is all I'm asking for. I don't want another impeachment trial even though I disagree with your assessment about abuses of power (abuses of power in order to railroad illegal and/or unpopular polices or in order to consolidate political power illegitimately are far worse, IMO). We should not have even had to endure the last impeachment.

Bush's efforts do not appear to be honest at all. It has been his pattern from day one. To cloak Trojan Horse policies in populist rhetoric, maintain fanatical secrecy, lie and disseminate propaganda when necessary, stonewall, employ diversionary tactics, and unfairly malign his critics; that seems to be the extent of this administration's sincerity.

Of course, until this president is held even a fraction as accountable as our last president, the potential consequences of this administration's policies and unchecked abuses of power will continue to multiply.

[penchief]

You can't honestly say the media is giving Bush a free pass can you? Give me some examples.

Absolutely, I do.

We can start with the campaigns. He did shit in his past far worse than Clinton when it came to drugs and alcohol yet he got a free ride.

The cases are too numerous but I'll give you a couple:

The Super-Secret Cheneyburton Energy Task Force. The public still knows nothing.

The justification for pre-emptive war. Only after it was known that they were shittin' us did the press even try to do their job. Even now, for all we know the original justification was Jeffersonian democracy and we still think al-Qaeda was linked to Saddam and that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. That is a press that is not doing it's job.

Hell, the press didn't even pursue the Plame leak until Fitzgerald started making headlines. Think about it. It's not even a story NOW. If it were Clinton we'd be hearing about it every night.

The use of fake news stories and the bribing of the media.

The stonewalling of the 9/11 investigation and the Abu-Ghraib investigation. And right now they are stonewalling the Katrina investigation.

It really does a disservice to try to pick out a few when there are so so many. Maybe when I have more time I'll compile a list for you.

But, yeah, this president has received a free ride. His administration has exploited 9/11 beyond their wildest dreams. They have been able to parlay terrorism into unfettered power with zero accountability.

Why don't you name me one thing that they have been held accountable for. That is if you believe that they should be held accountable for anything.

[Chiefs Express]

Absolutely, I do.

We can start with the campaigns. He did shit in his past far worse than Clinton when it came to drugs and alcohol yet he got a free ride.

The cases are too numerous but I'll give you a couple:

The Super-Secret Cheneyburton Energy Task Force. The public still knows nothing.

The justification for pre-emptive war. Only after it was known that they were shittin' us did the press even try to do their job. Even now, for all we know the original justification was Jeffersonian democracy and we still think al-Qaeda was linked to Saddam and that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. That is a press that is not doing it's job.

Hell, the press didn't even pursue the Plame leak until Fitzgerald started making headlines. Think about it. It's not even a story NOW. If it were Clinton we'd be hearing about it every night.

The use of fake news stories and the bribing of the media.

The stonewalling of the 9/11 investigation and the Abu-Ghraib investigation. And right now they are stonewalling the Katrina investigation.

It really does a disservice to try to pick out a few when there are so so many. Maybe when I have more time I'll compile a list for you.

But, yeah, this president has received a free ride. His administration has exploited 9/11 beyond their wildest dreams. They have been able to parlay terrorism into unfettered power with zero accountability.

Why don't you name me one thing that they have been held accountable for. That is if you believe that they should be held accountable for anything.

How about the gain of over 1,000,000 jobs in the years since 9/11/2001?

How about the shrinking unemployment rate among Americans?

How about the growth in the GNP?

I forget myself, those are good things that he will never be given credit for.

[mlyonsd]

Absolutely, I do.

We can start with the campaigns. He did shit in his past far worse than Clinton when it came to drugs and alcohol yet he got a free ride.

The cases are too numerous but I'll give you a couple:

The Super-Secret Cheneyburton Energy Task Force. The public still knows nothing.

The justification for pre-emptive war. Only after it was known that they were shittin' us did the press even try to do their job. Even now, for all we know the original justification was Jeffersonian democracy and we still think al-Qaeda was linked to Saddam and that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. That is a press that is not doing it's job.

Hell, the press didn't even pursue the Plame leak until Fitzgerald started making headlines. Think about it. It's not even a story NOW. If it were Clinton we'd be hearing about it every night.

The use of fake news stories and the bribing of the media.

The stonewalling of the 9/11 investigation and the Abu-Ghraib investigation. And right now they are stonewalling the Katrina investigation.

It really does a disservice to try to pick out a few when there are so so many. Maybe when I have more time I'll compile a list for you.

But, yeah, this president has received a free ride. His administration has exploited 9/11 beyond their wildest dreams. They have been able to parlay terrorism into unfettered power with zero accountability.

Why don't you name me one thing that they have been held accountable for. That is if you believe that they should be held accountable for anything.

Bleh, I could argue that Bush has been accountable for every item on your list. And you can thank the media for that.

If you'd like to go through them one at a time let me know.

[patteeu]

Absolutely, I do.

We can start with the campaigns. He did shit in his past far worse than Clinton when it came to drugs and alcohol yet he got a free ride.

The cases are too numerous but I'll give you a couple:

The Super-Secret Cheneyburton Energy Task Force. The public still knows nothing.

The justification for pre-emptive war. Only after it was known that they were shittin' us did the press even try to do their job. Even now, for all we know the original justification was Jeffersonian democracy and we still think al-Qaeda was linked to Saddam and that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. That is a press that is not doing it's job.

Hell, the press didn't even pursue the Plame leak until Fitzgerald started making headlines. Think about it. It's not even a story NOW. If it were Clinton we'd be hearing about it every night.

The use of fake news stories and the bribing of the media.

The stonewalling of the 9/11 investigation and the Abu-Ghraib investigation. And right now they are stonewalling the Katrina investigation.

It really does a disservice to try to pick out a few when there are so so many. Maybe when I have more time I'll compile a list for you.

But, yeah, this president has received a free ride. His administration has exploited 9/11 beyond their wildest dreams. They have been able to parlay terrorism into unfettered power with zero accountability.

Why don't you name me one thing that they have been held accountable for. That is if you believe that they should be held accountable for anything.


Nonsense.

Just to pick at one of your examples, there would have been no Fitzgerald investigation if the media hadn't helped the democrats rally public support for a special prosecutor.

[penchief]

How about the gain of over 1,000,000 jobs in the years since 9/11/2001?

How about the shrinking unemployment rate among Americans?

How about the growth in the GNP?

I forget myself, those are good things that he will never be given credit for.

First off, this is not a list of my grievances with the Bush/Cheneyburton administration. If it were I could write a novel. It was just a shoot-from-the-hip, off-the-top-of-my-head shortlist of items which they have basically been proven to have acted inappropriately, decieved us, or betrayed the values of this country without having been ultimately held accountable.

Second, if you are going to judge this administration soley on what you believe to be economic successes, then I think you are viewing them through a very narrow lens. Not only is the economy not the only thing that matters but there are far more Americans losing from the policies of this administration than those who are gaining. Just ask those who have lost their jobs or had to accept a lower wage job with no benefits. Or ask those who have lost their health insurance or their overtime. Or ask those who worked for companies that have been allowed to renege on their pensions.

See, that is the problem with a lot of Bush/Cheneyburton apologists. They either view the administration through narrowly defined "economic" biases (i.e tax cuts) or they fall prey to this administrations exploitation of fear. Fear of terrorism and financial greed are Cheneyburton's tickets to unfettered power and zero accountability.

[penchief]

Nonsense.

Just to pick at one of your examples, there would have been no Fitzgerald investigation if the media hadn't helped the democrats rally public support for a special prosecutor.

It wasn't done on the drop of a dime. Public opinion made the difference. Just as it did when Bush flip-flopped on the 9/11 investigation and the abu-Ghraib investigation. The public has done more to "press" the issue than has the "press."

If the media were on the airwaves every night plugging away at Bush the way they were at Clinton and if there were an independent council with unlimited subpeona powers who had a political agenda (ala Starr), this administration would be in a world of shit, even with out a democratically controlled congress.

The public has been driving the resistance to the administration's digressions. The press is supposed to hound the president when it comes to abuse of power but that is apparently not the job of the corporately owned media. They sit back until they look stupid until they have no choice. But one thing is for sure; they don't dig like they do when it comes to the really important stuff, like sex.

[patteeu]

It wasn't done on the drop of a dime. Public opinion made the difference. Just as it did when Bush flip-flopped on the 9/11 investigation and the abu-Ghraib investigation. The public has done more to "press" the issue than the has the "press."

If the media were on the airwaves every night plugging away at Bush the way they were at Clinton and if there were an independent council with unlimited subpeona powers who had a political agenda (ala Starr), this administration would be in a world of shit, even with out a democratically controlled congress.

Public opinion doesn't form spontaneously. The reason it doesn't seem like the media is on the airwaves every night plugging away at Bush like they did at Clinton is because Bush's "indiscretions" are more debatable than Clinton's were.

[penchief]

Public opinion doesn't form spontaneously. The reason it doesn't seem like the media is on the airwaves every night plugging away at Bush like they did at Clinton is because Bush's "indiscretions" are more debatable than Clinton's were.

I agree to a point. If the press is doing half it's job it is at least reporting facts. When people are able to assimilate facts for themselves they just might still be able to come to logical conclusions which could compel them to oppose or scrutinze the actions of their president. That's mostly what is happening.

Just because the press might do half it's job does not mean that they are doing their job as they should. We rely on the press to dig, to pursue, and to seek the truth. We, as citizens, rely on the facts (as they seem to be) but we also rely on the truth. Much of the reason that issues have become contentious is because the public has expressed it's disapproval and the press has not pursued the truth. They are just along for the ride.

When considering this administration's penchant for extreme secrecy (even before 9/11), deceptive tactics, dishonest attacks on their critics, and ideological zeal.....how can anyone believe what they say?

Therefore, the press has a job to dig, not just report the facts as the administration would want us to interpret them. So far, the corporately owned media has failed to do it's job.

[patteeu]

I agree to a point. If the press is doing half it's job it is at least reporting facts. When people are able to assimilate facts for themselves they just might still be able to come to logical conclusions which could compel them to oppose or scrutinze the actions of their president. That's mostly what is happening.

Just because the press might do half it's job does not mean that they are doing their job as they should. We rely on the press to dig, to pursue, and to seek the truth. We, as citizens, rely on the facts (as they seem to be) but we also rely on the truth. Much of the reason that issues have become contentious is because the public has expressed it's disapproval and the press has not pursued the truth. They are just along for the ride.

When considering this administration's penchant for extreme secrecy (even before 9/11), deceptive tactics, dishonest attacks on their critics, and ideological zeal.....how can anyone believe what they say?

Therefore, the press has a job to dig, not just report the facts as the administration would want us to interpret them. So far, the corporately owned media has failed to do it's job.

You don't call getting people to break the law by divulging some of the country's most closely guarded secrets is digging? See Plame, secret CIA prisons, and NSA terrorist surveillance.

[penchief]

You don't call getting people to break the law by divulging some of the country's most closely guarded secrets is digging? See Plame, secret CIA prisons, and NSA terrorist surveillance.

Those were all the results of whistle-blowing, not the press doing it's job.

Why did the Times wait so long to report NSA wiretapping?

Even after those revelations, the press didn't push the issue on any of those stories. And they certainly haven't been willing to summarize their misdeeds or elaborate on the distinct patterns that have permeated this administration.

[patteeu]

Those were all the results of whistle-blowing, not the press doing it's job.

Why did the Times wait so long to report NSA wiretapping?

Even after those revelations, the press didn't push the issue on any of those stories. And they certainly haven't been willing to summarize their misdeeds or elaborate on the distinct patterns that have permeated this administration.

OK, OK, the media is in the back pocket of Bush. If that's what you have to tell yourself to avoid facing the fact that Bush isn't really the devil (or as Taco puts it, the worst president ever), then knock yourself out.

[penchief]

OK, OK, the media is in the back pocket of Bush. If that's what you have to tell yourself to avoid facing the fact that Bush isn't really the devil (or as Taco puts it, the worst president ever), then knock yourself out.

The facts speak for themselves. And the patterns of this administration speak louder than it's rhetoric.

[patteeu]

The facts speak for themselves. And the patterns of this administration speak louder than it's rhetoric.

The facts seem to be saying something different to you than they do to me.