+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 23

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,197

    The Questions those on left will never answer

    Liberals lying about Iraqi 'lies'
    By William Rusher
    Tuesday, September 19, 2006


    The New York Times Book Review for Sept. 17 features on its cover, and on two additional pages of inside text, a review of "The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth From 9/11 to Katrina," by Frank Rich. Rich is one of the Times' house stable of liberal columnists, so it is understandable that his account of the Bush administration's alleged lies in persuading Americans to support the invasion of Iraq would receive generous treatment in the paper.

    The reviewer is Ian Buruma, a professor at Bard College, and he discharges his obligation nobly. "Rich's subject," he explains, "is the creation of false reality." The case in point is how skillfully the Bush administration is supposed to have manipulated the press, and Buruma praises Rich's demonstration lavishly: "Frank Rich is an excellent product of that press, and if it ever recovers its high reputation, it will be partly thanks to one man who couldn't take it anymore."


    Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., speaks in front of a statue of John Adams at Faneuil Hall, Monday, June 26, 2006, in Boston.(AP Photo/Julia Malakie, FILE) Midway through his lengthy encomium, Buruma purports to summarize the falsehoods on which the attack on Iraq were allegedly based. "This," he tells us, "is how the war was sold." He then proceeds to come up with exactly three contentions, all of them made by Vice President Cheney, and declares grandly, "We now know that none of these claims, which together constituted the official reason for unleashing a war, were even remotely true."

    On the contrary, it is that assertion by professor Buruma that is not "even remotely true."

    He first quotes Cheney as saying in late 2001 that an official Iraqi connection with the 9/11 terrorist Mohamed Atta was "pretty well confirmed." Cheney was referring to a report by Czech intelligence that placed Atta in Prague, conferring with a known Iraqi intelligence agent. That report has since been criticized, and insisted upon, and is still the subject of contention, but to pretend that it has been proved false is a brazen misrepresentation of the facts. Cheney's cautious citation of it, at the time, was thoroughly justifiable.

    Buruma's third piece of evidence of Cheney's perfidy is that in the summer of 2002 he asserted that Saddam Hussein would use certain aluminum tubes "to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon" -- uranium that, "we were told, had been procured by the Iraqis from Niger." Once again, the facts are still hotly disputed, but Buruma carefully avoids mentioning that British intelligence still stands by its contention that Saddam approached Niger about buying uranium.

    But it is Buruma's second criticism of Cheney that takes the cake. In that same summer of 2002 "Cheney said that Saddam Hussein 'continues to pursue a nuclear weapon' and that there was 'no doubt' he had 'weapons of mass destruction.'"

    Now, while it is incontestable that Saddam had possessed chemical and biological WMDs, we now know that he was not close to possessing nuclear weapons at the time of our attack in March 2003. The Bush administration has fully admitted as much, blaming the error on faulty intelligence. But Rich and Buruma aren't buying that. The charge is that Cheney simply lied in order to trick us into war.

    Why Cheney (or Bush, for that matter) would declare that Saddam was nearing nuclear capability, when they allegedly knew that the contention would be proved false in a matter of months, is a good question nobody has answered. But there is a far better one. If Cheney was lying about Saddam's nuclear intentions in the summer of 2002, what was Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., doing when he said, that October, that "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons"? Or Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., when he said in that same month, "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in (Saddam's) hands is a real and grave threat to our security"? Or, if we assume that Cheney had somehow brainwashed these men, who brainwashed President Clinton when he declared, on Feb. 17, 1998, "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program" -- while George Bush was still merely governor of Texas? As I see it, the real liars are the Frank Riches, and the Burumas who tout their handiwork.


    http://townhall.com/columnists/Willi...out_iraqi_lies
    Originally posted by Americanadian
    Palin: Omit the "i" and you're left with "Pain".

  2. #2
    TheWorker Guest

    Re: The Questions those on left will never answer

    Quote Originally Posted by franKg
    Liberals lying about Iraqi 'lies'
    By William Rusher
    Tuesday, September 19, 2006


    The New York Times Book Review for Sept. 17 features on its cover, and on two additional pages of inside text, a review of "The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth From 9/11 to Katrina," by Frank Rich. Rich is one of the Times' house stable of liberal columnists, so it is understandable that his account of the Bush administration's alleged lies in persuading Americans to support the invasion of Iraq would receive generous treatment in the paper.

    The reviewer is Ian Buruma, a professor at Bard College, and he discharges his obligation nobly. "Rich's subject," he explains, "is the creation of false reality." The case in point is how skillfully the Bush administration is supposed to have manipulated the press, and Buruma praises Rich's demonstration lavishly: "Frank Rich is an excellent product of that press, and if it ever recovers its high reputation, it will be partly thanks to one man who couldn't take it anymore."


    Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., speaks in front of a statue of John Adams at Faneuil Hall, Monday, June 26, 2006, in Boston.(AP Photo/Julia Malakie, FILE) Midway through his lengthy encomium, Buruma purports to summarize the falsehoods on which the attack on Iraq were allegedly based. "This," he tells us, "is how the war was sold." He then proceeds to come up with exactly three contentions, all of them made by Vice President Cheney, and declares grandly, "We now know that none of these claims, which together constituted the official reason for unleashing a war, were even remotely true."

    On the contrary, it is that assertion by professor Buruma that is not "even remotely true."

    He first quotes Cheney as saying in late 2001 that an official Iraqi connection with the 9/11 terrorist Mohamed Atta was "pretty well confirmed." Cheney was referring to a report by Czech intelligence that placed Atta in Prague, conferring with a known Iraqi intelligence agent. That report has since been criticized, and insisted upon, and is still the subject of contention, but to pretend that it has been proved false is a brazen misrepresentation of the facts. Cheney's cautious citation of it, at the time, was thoroughly justifiable.

    Buruma's third piece of evidence of Cheney's perfidy is that in the summer of 2002 he asserted that Saddam Hussein would use certain aluminum tubes "to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon" -- uranium that, "we were told, had been procured by the Iraqis from Niger." Once again, the facts are still hotly disputed, but Buruma carefully avoids mentioning that British intelligence still stands by its contention that Saddam approached Niger about buying uranium.

    But it is Buruma's second criticism of Cheney that takes the cake. In that same summer of 2002 "Cheney said that Saddam Hussein 'continues to pursue a nuclear weapon' and that there was 'no doubt' he had 'weapons of mass destruction.'"

    Now, while it is incontestable that Saddam had possessed chemical and biological WMDs, we now know that he was not close to possessing nuclear weapons at the time of our attack in March 2003. The Bush administration has fully admitted as much, blaming the error on faulty intelligence. But Rich and Buruma aren't buying that. The charge is that Cheney simply lied in order to trick us into war.

    Why Cheney (or Bush, for that matter) would declare that Saddam was nearing nuclear capability, when they allegedly knew that the contention would be proved false in a matter of months, is a good question nobody has answered. But there is a far better one. If Cheney was lying about Saddam's nuclear intentions in the summer of 2002, what was Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., doing when he said, that October, that "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons"? Or Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., when he said in that same month, "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in (Saddam's) hands is a real and grave threat to our security"? Or, if we assume that Cheney had somehow brainwashed these men, who brainwashed President Clinton when he declared, on Feb. 17, 1998, "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program" -- while George Bush was still merely governor of Texas? As I see it, the real liars are the Frank Riches, and the Burumas who tout their handiwork.


    http://townhall.com/columnists/Willi...out_iraqi_lies
    so what are the questions you say "the lefT" wont answer???

    Providing quotes by ONE democrat doesnt suppor the FACT that saddam did not have WMD's. Kerrys quote does not indicate he had them... ""I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in (Saddam's) hands is a real and grave threat to our security"? a little different than saying he did.

    and even if he did who cares, it was bush who sold us the war on WMD's, not the other BS you and he try to shove down our throats now.

    yay, iraqis can vote now!!!! awesome....

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,272

    Re: The Questions those on left will never answer

    Quote Originally Posted by franKg
    Liberals lying about Iraqi 'lies'


    Why Cheney (or Bush, for that matter) would declare that Saddam was nearing nuclear capability, when they allegedly knew that the contention would be proved false in a matter of months, is a good question nobody has answered.
    WRONG!!!!!


    Karen Kwiatkowski retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force, proves William Rusher’s statement is a blatant lie:

    The new Pentagon papers

    A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.

    By Karen Kwiatkowski
    http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/f...eon/index.html

    Karen Kwiatkowski
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Karen U. Kwiatkowski is a retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel whose assignments included duties as a Pentagon desk officer and in a variety of roles for the National Security Agency. Since retiring, she has become a noted critic of the U.S. government's involvement in Iraq.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Kwiatkowski

    Office of Special Plans

    (repurposed and renamed in July 2003 to Northern Gulf Affairs Office)

    The Office of Special Plans (OSP) was created by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld to help create a case to invade Iraq. OSP evolved from the Northern Gulf Affairs Office, which fell under the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia policy office. It was renamed and expanded to the Office of Special Plans in October 2002 to to handle prewar and postwar planning.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php..._Special_Plans

    The Lie Factory

    Kwiatkowski, 43, a now-retired Air Force officer who served in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia (NESA) unit in the year before the invasion of Iraq, observed how the Pentagon's Iraq war-planning unit manufactured scare stories about Iraq's weapons and ties to terrorists. "It wasn't intelligence‚ -- it was propaganda," she says. "They'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together." It was by turning such bogus intelligence into talking points for U.S. officials‚ -- including ominous lines in speeches by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell's testimony at the U.N. Security Council last February‚ -- that the administration pushed American public opinion into supporting an unnecessary war.
    http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...01/12_405.html

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,197

    Re: The Questions those on left will never answer

    From Pee-Buster's link

    Following the American Conservative and Salon articles, Kwiatkowski began to receive criticism from several conservative sources that supported President Bush's policies. Michael Rubin of the National Review argued that she had exaggerated her knowledge of the OSP's workings and claimed that she had ties to Lyndon LaRouche[7].

    Their criticisms were later backed by the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence which found that Kwiatkowski could not cite a single example to support her claims [8]

    (pp. 282-283). Republican U.S. Senator John Kyl criticized her in a speech on the Senate floor [9]. On a Fox News program, host John Gibson and former Republican National Committee communications director Clifford May described her as an anarchist[10]. Kwiatkowski responded, saying, among other points, that she had never supported or dealt with LaRouche
    Originally posted by Americanadian
    Palin: Omit the "i" and you're left with "Pain".

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,307

    Re: The Questions those on left will never answer

    OK frank!?we now know why grim spends all his time here(doesn't have a life),so that only leaves you!?(and POO)and ya gotta admit!?ya all use the same MO!?hehe!!just askin.....

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    5,803

    Re: The Questions those on left will never answer

    The Intellectually bankrupt Frankie pops up out of the loo spewing the regurgitated, Zionist propagandistic conjecture once again.

    I'll repeat it.

    Iraq was not a threat to America. Iraq was a threat to Israel. America was manipulated into fighting this war on Israel's behalf due to persistant lobbying and media propaganda. Oh...let's not forget about "faulty intelligence". :rolleyes:
    franKg - "Since God was ok with Moses, Joshua and David burning cities to the ground and killing all the civilians I think he would be ok with us splashing a little water on some terrorists."

    Dr poormouth - "Exackly;
    It's not "waterboarding", it's "extraordinary baptism""

    Quote Originally Posted by carlbenator
    As discussed in a previous thread, this IRRATIONAL HATRED for the Jews and their RIGHT to SURVIVE is one of the many PROOFS of a God, AND a Devil.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    1,104

    Re: The Questions those on left will never answer

    Quote Originally Posted by Americanadian
    The Intellectually bankrupt Frankie pops up out of the loo spewing the regurgitated, Zionist propagandistic conjecture once again.

    I'll repeat it.

    Iraq was not a threat to America. Iraq was a threat to Israel. America was manipulated into fighting this war on Israel's behalf due to persistant lobbying and media propaganda. Oh...let's not forget about "faulty intelligence". :rolleyes:
    Intelletually bankrupt???? .......Zionist? Lord, give me strenght.....
    Iraq is a threat to America. Any enemy of Israel is a threat to the U.S. and Canada. We have never engaged in a fight for "no reason". You, my simple minded friend, are of the mistaken opinion that we are not orangized with a common goal. It's true, we will not sacrifice our children. Also true that we believe suicide and murder to be the worst - actually mortal - sin. So, your stupid little suicidal friend, who wheeled down the street on his little bike, with his little bomb, into the crowd of people, took out 4 canadian soldiers and many more civilians - many children. Why is that? Why would anyone decide the children do not matter..................therein lies the difference between us - that dillusional guy -didn't see God! - he had a "quickpass" to hell. Killing children is a guaraunted "quickpass" to hell. The only reason the terrorists breath is because the american people have compassion. We will not accept the death of children as a casualty of war. Truth be told - the U.S. does have the ability to wipe your sorry butt off the face of the earth - maybe that's the divine justice in the bible.....scorched earth policy? I'd cover my butt if I were you....whew..thank the lord i'm not you!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,197

    Re: The Questions those on left will never answer

    so what are the questions you say "the lefT" wont answer???
    Why did Cheney (or Bush, for that matter) declare that Saddam was nearing nuclear capability, when they allegedly knew that the contention would be proved false in a matter of months?

    How did Cheney manage to brainwash both congressmen Jay Rockafeller and John Kerry into making the statement, "There was unmistakable proof" that Saddam had WMD's ?
    Originally posted by Americanadian
    Palin: Omit the "i" and you're left with "Pain".

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,682

    Re: The Questions those on left will never answer

    Quote Originally Posted by franKg
    Why did Cheney (or Bush, for that matter) declare that Saddam was nearing nuclear capability, when they allegedly knew that the contention would be proved false in a matter of months?

    How did Cheney manage to brainwash both congressmen Jay Rockafeller and John Kerry into making the statement, "There was unmistakable proof" that Saddam had WMD's ?
    1. One could say, and I'm not saying that this is the case in reality, that it wouldn't matter if it came out to be false after the invasion (to them). They had already achieved the goal they intended, and can damage control the fallout.

    2. I have no idea. I'm not usually in the habit of defending Democrats, unless they have balls. I don't know whether people typically argue that Cheney was the one to have "brainwashed" them in the first place. There are a lot of contentions that intelligence agencies and the Pentagon were pressured to come up with the "right" intel, and I assume this is the intel they could then put the blame on. I see it as reciprocal, the Repubs used this manipulation to go to war, the Dems used it as a reason to look hawkish and keep their seats. Shameful all around.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: The Questions those on left will never answer

    Quote Originally Posted by ianmatthews
    1. One could say, and I'm not saying that this is the case in reality, that it wouldn't matter if it came out to be false after the invasion (to them). They had already achieved the goal they intended, and can damage control the fallout.

    2. I have no idea. I'm not usually in the habit of defending Democrats, unless they have balls. I don't know whether people typically argue that Cheney was the one to have "brainwashed" them in the first place. There are a lot of contentions that intelligence agencies and the Pentagon were pressured to come up with the "right" intel, and I assume this is the intel they could then put the blame on. I see it as reciprocal, the Repubs used this manipulation to go to war, the Dems used it as a reason to look hawkish and keep their seats. Shameful all around.

    1. The contention from the left is that Bush had planned on invading Iraq from the day he took office, and that 9/11 was just a convienent excuse. The problem is, their own propaganda shoots that down. Remember the video posted here a few days ago showing Powell and Rice before the attacks of 9/11 downplaying Saddam's threat to his neighbors? If the president and his administration had it in mind that Saddam was going to be removed, they certainly wouldn't have tried to down play his danger.

    2. The congress and the Senate based their belief on Saddam's capabilities, the same way the administration did... through the information provided by the intelligence communities National Intelligence Estimate's over the previous 4 years prior to 9/11. Congress is the one who demanded that the 2002 NIE be compiled immediatly, so they could review the latest intelligence and determine the scope of Saddam's threat. So for the left to suggest that they were deceived by the administration, and that is why they also believed Saddam was a threat, is absurd. What I want to know is how the left justifies in their mind that the Clinton administration said the exact same things about Iraq. How do the blame Bush for that? lol

    .

  11. #11
    TheWorker Guest

    Re: The Questions those on left will never answer

    Quote Originally Posted by franKg
    Why did Cheney (or Bush, for that matter) declare that Saddam was nearing nuclear capability, when they allegedly knew that the contention would be proved false in a matter of months?

    How did Cheney manage to brainwash both congressmen Jay Rockafeller and John Kerry into making the statement, "There was unmistakable proof" that Saddam had WMD's ?

    question 1) to have more of an impetus to war, or becauase their "intelligence" was wrong....again. why did they say he had WMDs when they knew that would be proved false.

    Question 2) Cheney didnt brainwash anyone. Kerry didnt say there was "unmistakable proof" he said this, which you provided... "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in (Saddam's) hands is a real and grave threat to our security"? As for rockefeller, who knows??

    i dont think either point is pertinent anyways. its clear we dont and never belonged in Iraq.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,272

    Re: The Questions those on left will never answer

    Quote Originally Posted by Americanadian
    The Intellectually bankrupt Frankie pops up out of the loo spewing the regurgitated, Zionist propagandistic conjecture once again.

    I'll repeat it.

    Iraq was not a threat to America. Iraq was a threat to Israel. America was manipulated into fighting this war on Israel's behalf due to persistant lobbying and media propaganda. Oh...let's not forget about "faulty intelligence". :rolleyes:
    Frank selectively ignores any information that disrupts his carefully constructed fantasy world. Long before Iraq PNAC pro-Zionist sh!tbags were busy disabling working Intel groups in the Pentagon.
    Experienced professionals like, Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski were forced to resign, retire or were moved out of key positions. In their place Cheney and others moved in Strussian PNAC pro-Zionist scum whose only propose was to create Intel that favored Israel’s Agenda.


    INTERVIEW: Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, USAF (Ret.)

    Alysheba [The Daily Kos]: The seeds of the OSP were planted, as I understand it, at the moment Bush took office.
    Before they'd even been confirmed, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith had begun purging the Pentagon of career analysts who didn't share their views on Iraq, clearing the way for an ideological platform that had been articulated in 1997 with the formation of PNAC. At the time you signed on with the NESA office, who were the major ideological "players" in the office and to what degree did the OSP "exist"?

    Karen Kwiatkowski: A lower level ideological player in my staff circle was our boss, Bill Luti. When I arrived in May 2002 into NESA, Luti was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy, Near East South Asia. He was a retired Naval Captain who had been a military aide to Secretary of Defense Cheney a decade or so earlier, and in 2001, he was reassigned to the Pentagon from a short stint on Vice President Cheney's staff in 2001.

    By November 2002, Luti had been elevated from Deputy Assistant to Deputy Under Secretary. For 2001 and most of 2002, Luti's immediate supervisor was Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman, and he was not an ideologue of the neoconservative variety. Rodman appeared to me to be largely inconsequential on many NESA policy issues, inasmuch as a lot of NESA work was conducted between Bill Luti or one of his assistants, such as Abe Shulsky, directly to and from Under Secretary for Policy Doug Feith or higher. Shulsky later headed up the OSP.

    Luti had his Ph.D. from Tufts, the Fletcher School of International Relations, and Shulsky had completed advanced study at the University of Chicago. I was told by co-workers that he had studied under Strauss there, but I don't know. Of course, other key higher level ideologues relating to Middle East policy included Doug Feith and his former patron, Richard Perle, now reincarnated as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board. Certainly, Paul Wolfowitz was a passionate ideologue.

    Almost all of the political appointees in NESA and many in other parts of OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense) Policy were also narrowly ideologically driven, at least in NESA. Guys like Dave Schenker who had come in from WINEP to work the Israel/Syria/Lebanon desk. Before I got to NESA, David Wurmser had been a political appointee within OSD Policy. Of course, PNAC itself was a significant source of members of the Defense Policy Board. There is a long list of big and not so big neoconservative fish in the tiny tank that was processing and creating Middle East policy within OSD.

    OSP existed in several forms before it was disbanded in the fall of 2003. Initially there was the smaller group (a couple of folks) that were assigned by Rumsfeld after 9/11 to reexamine the intelligence to see what had been missed or overlooked by the professional intelligence system. In retrospect, that seems quite presumptuous, but we used to love that about Rumsfeld in the early days. I don't know who these guys were, although I think Abe Shulsky could have been one of them. In any case, Shulsky was the unquestioned leader of the OSP when it had grown to about 18 or so people, and was provided separate spaces from the rest of NESA in August 2002.

    We had a NESA staff meeting that August, and Bill Luti announced that the OSP was formed, was moving out of our spaces, and curiously we were told to tell no one that it was called the OSP. Instead, we were to refer to it as the "Expanded Iraq Desk." Several weeks after the OSP folks left our spaces, Larry Franklin (indicted on May 4th for passing secrets to Israel via AIPAC) and another person who was working the Iran desk also moved up to OSP.

    Later, perhaps to accommodate Iran, it was sometimes referred to as the Northern Arabian Gulf desk. OSP did Iraq work, and also influenced and overlapped function with other parts of OSD in engaging in terrorism and WMD proliferation work. They produced sets of talking points on demand for the rest of NESA and others in OSD on Iraq, terrorism and MD. We were mandated to use these points verbatim, in their entirety and without modification or supplementation. We were directed by Bill Luti to never use an older set of talking points, but for each paper we wrote for our seniors or others, we were to request the latest set of talking points. Abe Shulsky was the final approving authority on every version of the talking points, and I remember sometimes we had to wait for him to release the current set. They were generally classified SECRET, but of course many of the phrases and points brought out in the talking points were very familiar to all Americans because they were consistently reflected in presidential and vice presidential speeches in the fall and winter of 2002.

    a: [The Daily Kos]: Anyone whose dismissal was of particular concern to you?

    KK: It seems that most of the potential non-team players in Middle East policy had been taken out or replaced before I arrived in NESA. This included the Director of NESA, Joe McMillan, the career (non-political) flag level civilian incumbent who would have served as Bill Luti's second. This position stayed vacant from 2001, and wasn't filled until after we invaded Iraq.

    Strangely, NESA was always crying for people, and trying to get them, but it is difficult to find political ideologues who are eligible for such career civil service positions. The Defense Intelligence Agency assigns a senior professional intelligence officer to each of the OSD policy directorates. NESA's DIO at the time, Bruce Hardcastle, was marginalized and complained about by the politically appointed ideologues during the time I was there. Luti was unhappy with his briefings on the WMD danger that Iraq posed to us and others, and pressured the DIO to change those intelligence assessments. Hardcastle, true to his surname perhaps, however, steadfastly exhibited courage and integrity.

    Basically, by late 2002, Luti found a different way to present the information he wanted, and ceased utilizing the DIO briefing. I was busy that fall and winter trying to arrange a visit to North Africa where Luti and Mr Hardcastle (the DIO) were both expected to attend. I was informally advised by a co-worker that Luti would not permit the DIO to be in the same room, in effect had refused to work with him in any way. It is very interesting in a policy planning organization at that level to simply refuse to work with, listen to, or be briefed by your top professional intelligence advisor.

    It seems petty and childish, but it was typical of how professional civilians and military folks were marginalized and not necessarily fired, but simply removed from access to the decision-makers on Iraq policy and planning.

    Another personnel changeout that occurred before I got there was the replacement of the retired military officer, then career civilian who worked the Israel/Syria/Lebanon desk. This individual, by reputation an outstanding action officer with lots of on-the-ground experience, was replaced by political appointee David Schenker from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel thinktank.

    I saw no one fired, but I watched as military and civilian professional alike found ways to shorten their tour under Luti and the neo-crazies. I actually was assigned in the office to replace a CIA loan officer who curtailed his 12 month assignment to NESA after only five months. He found a job in Yemen, and was grateful for the opportunity. Military people buckled under and privately called their buddies, working to get out of what is normally a prized OSD level three year tour. Civilians did the same, and those who didn't like the ideology of the new NESA found ways to leave or mentally check out.
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/16/134133/271
    Last edited by Phinnly Slash Buster; 09-20-2006 at 05:43 PM.

  13. #13
    dchristie's Avatar
    dchristie is offline Challenge Authority User Rank
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    14,663

    Re: The Questions those on left will never answer

    Quote Originally Posted by linda49
    Intelletually bankrupt???? .......Zionist? Lord, give me strenght...
    Maybe a few remedial third grade spelling classes would be helpful too.

    Quote Originally Posted by linda
    . Iraq is a threat to America. Any enemy of Israel is a threat to the U.S. and Canada.
    Care to explain how being an enemy of Israel is the same as being a threat to The US? Care to explain how Israel's practice of making enemies of the entire Muslim World on our behalf is good thing for the US? Care to explain how our unconditional support for a country that spies on us and then sells our secrets to Russia and China is a good thing? Care to explain how it is a friend of the US can attack our naval vessels, kill 34 of our sailors and get away with it? Give it a try. I enjoy a good laugh. Never mind. Just tell us why you're not living in Israel where you belong and why you think we should believe you're loyalin any way to us. Clearly, you're not on our side. Maybe it's actually because you're a treasonous spy too..no?

    Saudi Arabia doesn't even have diplomatic relations with or recognize Israel as a sovereign state. Yet, Bush has been photographed kissing their King on the mouth in public. That means, by your definition, that Bush loves America's Enemies. I've been saying it for years. Good to see some light is, somehow, seeping through your blindfold.

    Quote Originally Posted by linda49
    We have never engaged in a fight for "no reason". You, my simple minded friend, are of the mistaken opinion that we are not orangized with a common goal. It's true, we will not sacrifice our children. Also true that we believe suicide and murder to be the worst - actually mortal - sin. So, your stupid little suicidal friend, who wheeled down the street on his little bike, with his little bomb, into the crowd of people, took out 4 canadian soldiers and many more civilians - many children. Why is that? Why would anyone decide the children do not matter..................therein lies the difference between us - that dillusional guy -didn't see God! - he had a "quickpass" to hell. Killing children is a guaraunted "quickpass" to hell. The only reason the terrorists breath is because the american people have compassion. We will not accept the death of children as a casualty of war. Truth be told - the U.S. does have the ability to wipe your sorry butt off the face of the earth - maybe that's the divine justice in the bible.....scorched earth policy? I'd cover my butt if I were you....whew..thank the lord i'm not you!
    Ha..ha..ha.. You're calling others "simple minded"? At least they have a mind.

    Bush has killed more children than all the terrorists combined since the beginning of time, you profoundly clueless idiot. I really hate these fvcking Monkeys who try and obscure their obvious dearth of any common humanity whatsoever by feigning concern for children. You murderous bastards are evil beyond redemption and waving your little bible around in people's faces isn't going to fool anybody...not even your fellow bible wagging phonies. So give it a rest.

    If you were just a typical simple minded right-wing, secular brain-washed imbecile, I might invest a few minutes of opprobrium on you. But, when it comes to you loony,religio-crazies and crusading ideologues, I really don't have the time and you Treasonous Zionist Psychopaths aren't even worth 1 second of it. So, I'm showing you far more biblical charity than you're prepared to extend to any of your thousands of victims...many of whom are innocent (and dead) children.

    Try putting down the bible and pick up a newspaper someday. You might learn something really useful.
    Last edited by dchristie; 09-20-2006 at 07:19 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,221

    Re: The Questions those on left will never answer

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    1. The contention from the left is that Bush had planned on invading Iraq from the day he took office, and that 9/11 was just a convienent excuse. The problem is, their own propaganda shoots that down. Remember the video posted here a few days ago showing Powell and Rice before the attacks of 9/11 downplaying Saddam's threat to his neighbors? If the president and his administration had it in mind that Saddam was going to be removed, they certainly wouldn't have tried to down play his danger.


    .
    Your wrong grim. The invasion of Iraq was driven by the PNAC faction on this administration, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfield and not Powell, who knew that Iraq was not responsible for 911 and was not an immediate threat to the US. In fact, a PNAC postion paper says as much.

    President Bush's choice for secretary of state, Colin Powell, further complicates the situation. The Iraqis know well that General Powell fought hard against President Bush's decision to go to war in 1990. Once engaged, he famously promised to "kill" the Iraqi Republican Guards -- Saddam's praetorians -- and then didn't. As secretary of state, he quickly voyaged to the Middle East to solicit very publicly the opinion of former Arab "partners" in the Gulf War coalition, telling all that Washington was after "smarter" (read fewer) sanctions. He made appeals for renewed U.N. weapons inspections without making ironclad military threats to reinforce America's determination to search Iraqi installations.
    http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20010514.htm

    Powell's position is shown by Richard Clarke in his book, "Against All Enemies."

    By the afternoon on Wednesday, Secretary Rumsfield was talking about broadening the objectives of our response and "getting Iraq." Secretary Powell pushed back, urging a focus on al Qaeda. Relieved to have some support, I thanked Colin Powell and his deputy, Rich Armitage. "I thought I was missing something here," I vented. "Having been attacked by al Qaeda, for us now to go bombing Iraq in response would be like our invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor."

    Powell shook his head. "It's not over yet."
    (As an aside) Remember when Cheney went on the Limbaugh show and lied through his teeth about Clarke being some mid level administrator who was out of the loop? I dare you to read Clarke's book. It would be a real eye opener for you.

    2. The congress and the Senate based their belief on Saddam's capabilities, the same way the administration did... through the information provided by the intelligence communities National Intelligence Estimate's over the previous 4 years prior to 9/11. Congress is the one who demanded that the 2002 NIE be compiled immediatly, so they could review the latest intelligence and determine the scope of Saddam's threat. So for the left to suggest that they were deceived by the administration, and that is why they also believed Saddam was a threat, is absurd. What I want to know is how the left justifies in their mind that the Clinton administration said the exact same things about Iraq. How do the blame Bush for that? lol
    The difference is that Clinton never launched a preventive war against Iraq based on this evidence. Why was that? Because the evidence of wmd's and Iraq-al qaeda tie were inconclusive. Bush always had the option of telling this to the American public, but he chose not to.

    "Bush, his vice president, his secretary of state, his defence secretary, his national security adviser, and other administration officials distorted evidence, mis-represented facts, hurled unsubstantiated charges, switched stories and rationales in their attempt to win support t home and abroad for a war against Iraq."
    David Corn from "The Lies of George W. Bush"
    Last edited by bairdi; 09-21-2006 at 01:54 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    716

    Re: The Questions those on left will never answer

    Quote Originally Posted by Phinnly Slash Buster
    WRONG!!!!!


    Karen Kwiatkowski retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force, proves William Rusher’s statement is a blatant lie:

    The new Pentagon papers

    A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.

    By Karen Kwiatkowski
    http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/f...eon/index.html

    Karen Kwiatkowski
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Karen U. Kwiatkowski is a retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel whose assignments included duties as a Pentagon desk officer and in a variety of roles for the National Security Agency. Since retiring, she has become a noted critic of the U.S. government's involvement in Iraq.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Kwiatkowski

    Office of Special Plans

    (repurposed and renamed in July 2003 to Northern Gulf Affairs Office)

    The Office of Special Plans (OSP) was created by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld to help create a case to invade Iraq. OSP evolved from the Northern Gulf Affairs Office, which fell under the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia policy office. It was renamed and expanded to the Office of Special Plans in October 2002 to to handle prewar and postwar planning.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php..._Special_Plans

    The Lie Factory

    Kwiatkowski, 43, a now-retired Air Force officer who served in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia (NESA) unit in the year before the invasion of Iraq, observed how the Pentagon's Iraq war-planning unit manufactured scare stories about Iraq's weapons and ties to terrorists. "It wasn't intelligence‚ -- it was propaganda," she says. "They'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together." It was by turning such bogus intelligence into talking points for U.S. officials‚ -- including ominous lines in speeches by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell's testimony at the U.N. Security Council last February‚ -- that the administration pushed American public opinion into supporting an unnecessary war.
    http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...01/12_405.html
    Phinnly, I really love how you like to quote the same kind of people. It takes a real coward to cry wolf AFTER THE FACT! Why do you continually give credence to these kind of people? If she knew they were lying, why didn't she say something then? Was it because she was scared? Or that she really didn't give a ****? Or was it because she was lying? I guess the Air Force's Core Values of "Integrity First" "Service Before Self" and "Excellence in All We Do" really didn't apply to her while she was on active duty. I really wish you would stop worshipping people like her. If people like her really cared about what they claim to care about, they wouldn't care about the personal consequences of their own actions. As far as I'm concerned, she blantantly violated the oath that she SWORE to uphold.
    A giant mushroom cloud, 24 empty missile tubes... It's Miller Time!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    5,803

    Re: The Questions those on left will never answer

    Quote Originally Posted by linda49
    Intelletually bankrupt???? .......Zionist? Lord, give me strenght.....
    Iraq is a threat to America. Any enemy of Israel is a threat to the U.S. and Canada. We have never engaged in a fight for "no reason". You, my simple minded friend, are of the mistaken opinion that we are not orangized with a common goal. It's true, we will not sacrifice our children. Also true that we believe suicide and murder to be the worst - actually mortal - sin. So, your stupid little suicidal friend, who wheeled down the street on his little bike, with his little bomb, into the crowd of people, took out 4 canadian soldiers and many more civilians - many children. Why is that? Why would anyone decide the children do not matter..................therein lies the difference between us - that dillusional guy -didn't see God! - he had a "quickpass" to hell. Killing children is a guaraunted "quickpass" to hell. The only reason the terrorists breath is because the american people have compassion. We will not accept the death of children as a casualty of war. Truth be told - the U.S. does have the ability to wipe your sorry butt off the face of the earth - maybe that's the divine justice in the bible.....scorched earth policy? I'd cover my butt if I were you....whew..thank the lord i'm not you!
    Here...read this, then let me know if you can understand what the problem is. Read it all before you pass judgement on it. And please, note the author and his background.
    franKg - "Since God was ok with Moses, Joshua and David burning cities to the ground and killing all the civilians I think he would be ok with us splashing a little water on some terrorists."

    Dr poormouth - "Exackly;
    It's not "waterboarding", it's "extraordinary baptism""

    Quote Originally Posted by carlbenator
    As discussed in a previous thread, this IRRATIONAL HATRED for the Jews and their RIGHT to SURVIVE is one of the many PROOFS of a God, AND a Devil.

Similar Threads

  1. Questions that Righties can't answer ....
    By rodney walker II in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-20-2014, 09:32 AM
  2. Jim Goad: The Day I Left The Left
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-19-2011, 05:10 PM
  3. Oh great tree hugging left, please answer the foll
    By oneway in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-05-2008, 03:39 PM
  4. Cheney to answer "tough questions" from Larry King
    By Long Time Austinite in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-30-2007, 03:42 PM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-07-2006, 05:32 AM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
000, 2001, 9/11, ???, access, account, action, actions, active, adams, administration, admit, admitted, advanced, adviser, advisor, affairs, africa, age, agen, agent, aide, al qaeda, alleged, america, american, announced, another, appeared, arab, asia, assistant, asy, attack, attacked, authority, bad, baghdad, bags, balance, balls, based, basic, bastards, behalf, bet, biblical, bit, blame, blaming, blatant, blood, bogus, bomb, bombing, boston, british, bruce, build, buster, cake, called, calling, canadian, capabilities, captain, career, carefully, case, center, central, cer, chairman, che, cheney, cherry, chicago, claims, clearing, cli, clifford, clinto, clinton, close, clueless, colin, college, comments, condi, confirmed, connection, cons, conservative, constant, continues, core, correct, couldn, country, cover, coward, crowd, cry, crying, czech, damage, david, day, days, dead, dear, death, decision, declared, defend, defending, demand, dems, department, desk, destruction, develop, difficult, dio, diploma, diplomatic, director, disaster, disputed, disturbing, divine, doesn, don, dont, douglas, dow, due, ear, earlier, early, ells, eme, ended, enemy, entire, excellent, expose, extremists, eye, face, factory, fall, fallout, fathers, faulty, feature, felt, final, fired, flag, floor, focus, folks, fool, forget, fox, france, frank, franklin, front, general, george, george bush, george w. bush, gibson, gotta, governor, greatest, grim, ground, groups, guys, hamilton, handle, hands, harbor, head, held, hell, hey, high, higher, highly, homework, house, html, huma, hussein, ial, ian, idiot, ill, in front, indicted, institution, interview, invade, ion, iraqi, isn, issues, jay, joe, john, john kerry, joy, judiciary, katrina, kerry, killed, kind, larry, latest, laugh, liberals, liberty, lied, light, limbaugh, lines, lis, listen, living, loan, lol, long, lot, loves, lying, making, mass, mea, meeting, members, mentally, millions, mind, minister, mohamed, moment, monday, month, mossad, national, new york times, newspaper, nice, niger, nuclear, oath, october, office, official, officials, opportunity, order, org, organization, outs, pages, paper, par, part, partners, passionate, pathetic, patriots, paul, paying, payroll, pen, pentagon, person, personal, peter, piece, planned, planning, plans, platform, players, point, policies, policy, pos, position, post, posted, potential, powell, power, praises, prepared, presiden, president, prevent, price, product, program, promised, property, prove, proved, proves, public, public opinion, question, questions, quickly, quotes, ready, real, reality, reason, rebellion, receive, refused, regime, release, reliable, remember, removed, renewed, reporting, reputation, resign, respect, response, responsible, rest, retired, reveals, review, rice, richard, riches, rick, rio, riots, ron, room, russian, scum, search, seats, secretary, secrets, security, select, senate, seniors, sense, september, served, service, set, shoo, short, side, signed, simply, smarter, soldiers, source, sources, spends, staff, state, states, stood, stop, stories, story, strategy, street, stupid, subs, summarize, summer, support, supported, supporting, suppressed, swe, system, taken, takes, talking, tan, ted, tells, terrorist, texas, text, thought, threat, threats, throw, ties, times, title, told, top, tour, trac, tradition, treatment, truth, u.s. government, ubes, unit, united, united states, uranium, url, usual, vacant, version, vice, victory, vote, wait, wanted, war, wash, watched, weapon, wednesday, weeks, wikipedia, william, winter, wolf, won, wont, worked, workers, working, worth, year, years, york

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •