Powered by TypePad

« Discrepancies, Real And Imagined | Main | The Times Discovers Ari Fleischer »

July 26, 2005


Steven J.

KIM - "SJ, haven't you seen the quotes from prominent Democrats attesting to WMD in Iraq. "

They believed the Bush lies.


Jim E. There has been a lot of bogus polling. No conspiracy, that's out of your head. Just bias and incompetence. A sufficient reason for widespread polling errors.

I have a problem with your selective quoting. They are commonly not direct, or in context, and even when they are, the selection reveals the bias of the argument. It looks good on paper(to you), but it is generally meaningless. I'm sorry you don't see that. Someday, you may.


SJ, so you have seen all the quotes from Democrats attesting to Saddam's WMD. Now are you seriously going to tell me that all of them derived their belief from listening to Bush tell lies? And by the way, what lies did he tell?

And you still haven't told me how your citation upthread supported Wilson's contention that he'd been ignored.


The good news is, Fitzgerald has weapons of his own to strike back at these hearings and the details behind them. Would it beyond the realm of the possible for him to indict a sitting senator for obstruction? Not at the rate the GOP is chewing through the rule of law.

The bad news is, Fitzgerald has to pick his battles. He can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, you know. But in my mind, if the hatchet men of the GOP want to lash itself to the deck of The Chimperor, they can go ahead. This thing can be stopped, but not without running the train off the rails, to mix my transport metaphors.


And what does your SSCI citation show except that to believe Joe Wilson was an error?


There has been much speculation about Valerie Wilson and whether or not she was undercover.

What about Brewster-Jennings & Associates? Was the company known publicly to be a CIA front before Robert Novak wrote about it? If this was classified information, is at as serious from a legal standpoint to disclose a front company's identity as it is to disclose an operative's identity?

Maybe this is one of the things that the Congressional committees should be addressing.

Seven Machos

I love the Lefty linkers -- so sweetly naive. Their thought process seems to be: "I have linked. Ergo, I have proven. No argument or thought necessary."

1. "Bush wanted to invade Iraq as early as Feb. 01." This is dubious, but so what?

2. "When 9-11 occurred, there was a big push to find out if Saddam had anything to do with it even though we knew it was Al-Queda." husseinandterror.org. husseinandterror.org. HUSSEINANDTERROR.ORG.

3. "In addition to the Downing Street Memos, there are 3 US reports that Bush had determined to invade as early as March 02." WHERE? Who wrote these reports?

4. You call Bush a "WAR CRIMINAL" and a "TRAITOR." How is Bush a war criminal? What has he done that is criminal? How is he a traitor? A traitor is "one who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason." Bush certainly has not betrayed his country. Treason is "violation of allegiance toward one's country...especially...by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies." Bush definitely has not done this. He has waged war against the enemy. I do not call Joe Wilson treasonous, but this definition fits him better than it does Bush. You can only possibly argue that Bush betrayed your trust. BUT YOU NEVER TRUSTED HIM, ANYWAY! If I don't trust you, how can you betray my trust?

Again, for the record, I know I am foolishly beating my head against a wall. I know I'll never change a guy like Stevie's mind. But you have to argue. You can't cede. So, for all you lurkers out there, this is for you, man...


Or else the IED set to blow off in The faces of Bush and Rove will now go off in the faces of Wilson and the MSM, maybe the CIA. A suicide metaphor.

Seven Machos

"Would it beyond the realm of the possible for him to indict a sitting senator for obstruction?" YES.

On what basis do you presume that Fitzgerald cares about any congressional hearings? Certainly, that's the first question. If he does care, why presume that he would be upset in any way? The Lefties here look at everything through the Bush-Rove-bad-evil prism.


SM, I do think linking has made arguing both better and worse. You can marshall facts wonderously, but you can also link instead of think. The link is there; the logic is not. And there is a lot of that around here as they get more and more desperate at the thought of Rove skipping away.

Skipping away? The law won't touch him, and hearings will give him the political cover. And it all goes double for Bush.


The horror with which Tatel (a Clinton apointee) and Sentelle (a Reagan apointee, bete noir of Bill Clinton, friend of the VRWC, Ken Starr, and Jesse Helms, Scalia's replacement on the DC Circuit and all around conservative) reacted to the secret evidence suggests that it is entirely possible that the internal CIA investigation into the matter concluded sources connected to Plame had been killed.

Of course that's pure speculation on my part. Perhaps no one connected to Plame or BJ&A met any bad fate (though wasn't BJ&A rather close to Saudi Aramco? uh oh...) But it's not baseless speculation. The IIPA wasn't written for no reason. "The most insidious of traitors" are indeed.

The again, maybe Tatel and Sentelle are just impressionable.

Steven J.

TRELANEY - "There has been much speculation about Valerie Wilson and whether or not she was undercover."

Mostly from traitors who are trying to prevent Bush from being sent to The Hague.
Here's the truth:

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for July 14

ANDREA MITCHELL: The other thing is a lot of misreporting, including in some of the papers today about what her role was. She was back in the States, had been back in the States since 1997. But she was still covert. She was considered a CIA officer, and a covert officer at Langley. Now she had previously been what was considered under non-official cover, which meant that she was of the deepest type of undercover spy overseas, meaning she had a job in a CIA front organization, a company that took years and years to establish. And that revealing her name was serious because anyone who ever dealt with that company or with her, any foreign national CIA agent, agent that is a term used for foreigners, that person or persons could then be suspect and could then be under life-threatening conditions.

Seven Machos

Kim -- Agreed.

Jim E. -- You do not know the difference between lying and being wrong. You should look into this because it is clouding your understanding of the world.


"Man, where were these people in November? Crazy Americans. So mercurial. Just think: if you could ONLY have had the timing right, 57 percent of the American people would have voted for Kerry. Right? Right???"

Seven M

Nixon won the election of November, 1972 with 60.7% of the popular vote and lost only Mass and DC. His support at the end of March, 1973 was 57%.

Bush won the election of November, 2004 with 49.4% of the popular vote and won with by a margin of 16 electoral votes His support at the end of March, 2005 was 45% - the lowest of any post WWII president.

Nixon resigned in August 1974. Twenty-four percent (24%) of the population still supported him according to a Gallup just befoe his resignation. Isn't in interesting that approximately 25% of the population think the White House is cooperating with the investigation and support retaining Rove under any circumstances?

I wonder how many are the same folks?

Steven J.

3. "In addition to the Downing Street Memos, there are 3 US reports that Bush had determined to invade as early as March 02." WHERE? Who wrote these reports?

Bush has decided to overthrow Hussein
By Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott
Posted on Wed, Feb. 13, 2002


A Partner in Shaping an Assertive Foreign Policy
Elisabeth Bumiller. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jan 7, 2004. pg. A.1

Richard Haass, the former director of policy planning at the State Department who is now the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, recalls going to see Ms. Rice in July 2002, well before the president began making a public case for ousting Mr. Hussein, to discuss with Ms. Rice ''the pros and cons'' of making Iraq a priority.
''Basically she cut me off and said, 'Save your breath -- the president has already decided what he's going to do on this,' '' Mr. Haass said.

"We're taking him out"
Daniel Eisenberg. Time. New York: May 13, 2002.
Vol.159, Iss. 19; pg. 36, 3 pgs

TWO MONTHS AGO, A group of Republican and Democratic Senators went to the White House to meet with Condoleezza Rice, the President's National Security Adviser. Bush was not scheduled to attend but poked his head in anyway-and soon turned the discussion to Iraq. The President has strong feelings about Saddam Hussein (you might too if the man had tried to assassinate your father, which Saddam attempted to do when former President George Bush visited Kuwait in 1993) and did not try to hide them. He showed little
interest in debating what to do about Saddam. Instead, he became notably animated, according to one person in the room, used a vulgar epithet to refer to Saddam and concluded with four words that left no one in doubt about Bush's intentions: "We're taking him out."

Seven Machos

Oh God! Not Brewster-Jennings again! Because THAT'S never come up here.

Plame had not been undercover since 1997. If she was, Joe Wilson blew her cover, and I suggest that this cold, hard fact will be established by the Fitzgerald investigation.

However, if Andrea Mitchell says something, you know it's objective and unbiased. I mean, talk about a great journalist with immense credibility. I have NO IDEA who Andrea Mitchell voted for or what policies she supports.

This is the thing:


Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan - the sure sign of a biased and unobjective Bush hating reporter. I'm outing her to you Seven, because her husband gets quoted in the Times all the time (although you might have heard his name at a DC coctail party).

Seven Machos

Well, stop the presses, Stevie: After September 11, President Bush decided to go to war against Iraq before making the case. HE DECIDED BEFORE TELLING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!! Well, sir, that's a first in American history, if not in American life. Me, I always tell people what I'm going to do, and then I decide. Why, just today, I went to lunch at Burger King, and only afterwards did I decide to go to Burger King.

This is news? This is worth hunting down and cutting and pasting and even putting the important parts in bold? Strange. Are you upset that he didn't take a poll first? That he didn't call you personally?

Seven Machos

I don't find Andrea Mitchell to be a voice of authority. I don't care who she is married to.

Steven J.

SEVEN - "I have NO IDEA"



Actually, she was still undercover in 1999, as the FEC report states. Furthermore, she took several business trips abroad in that post-1997 time frame. And I'll bet she didn't wear her "CIA Agent" windbreaker on the flights out, either.

Seven Machos

Tex: You are slipping. Big time.

1. "[Bush's] support at the end of March, 2005 was 45% - the lowest of any post WWII president." However, "Nixon resigned in August 1974. Twenty-four percent (24%) of the population still supported him..." Call me crazy, but something seems wrong about this argument. Get it together, Tex! Throw me a bone here. Maybe an appellate opinion.

2. "Bush won the election of November, 2004 with 49.4% of the popular vote." I was not aware that John Kerry won the popular vote. I thought the only two-term president in recent history to receive less than 50 percent of the vote twice was Bill Clinton.

In fact, Bush took 51 percent of the vote. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Elections2004/president.html

Seven Machos

That's all you have, Stevie? Pretending that a sarcastic comment of mine was not actually sarcasm. You've come a long way.


Hey Seven-don't forget in 2000 Bush got less votes than Gore-at least Clinton got more than the other guys in the race!


I thought it was 7-2 Bush in 2000.


Woops - Bush got 50.8% (still a long way from 60.7%) - I inserted the wrong line from the table - mia culpa.

We haven’t made it to August of 2006 (the parallel of August 74) yet - but you guys are in Nixon territory already on this one. Only a quarter of the population believes your side of the story -just like Tricky Dick had at the end.


Senator Roberts, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said on Sunday that he doesn't know if "driving back and forth to work at the CIA headquarters...really qualifies as being, you know, covert." If Senator Roberts doesn't know, then all the speculation on this blog is certainly not going to settle it one way or the other.

Why don't we just give both sides the benefit of the doubt. The CIA considered Valerie Wilson to be covert, but Karl Rove and Lewis Libby had no reason to be aware of any covert status.

Jim E.

"Why don't we just give both sides the benefit of the doubt."

Does that mean you retract your smear that Plame (a CIA operative working on WMD) did nothing to help the country in the war on terror, Davis?

Seven Machos

Davis is absolutely right.

Tex: Again, let's think our contentions through. Iran-Contra. Whitewater. Monica. And you think something a political consultant may or may not have done regarding a CIA officer who may or may not be covert and her definitively lying husband is going to rise to the level of Watergate? This is dumb hyperbole.



Did Bush Deliberately mislead country on Iraqi WMD

Yes 51%

No 47%

Wow! 47% of the country is idiots.

Seven Machos

Yeah, Martin. They're all dumb as a box of hair because they don't think Bush "deliberately misled" the country. I don't think Bush "deliberately misled" the country. Therefore, I am stupid. I know that my level of discourse clearly evinces my stupidity. I wish I could be as smart as you.

All Republicans wish we could be as smart and as knowledgable as you are. I mean, if Republicans could just be half as smart as you are, I bet they'd have control over both branches of Congress, the presidency, and more than 30 state goverments.


Argumentum ad populum


"Regardless of who demanded them, I think it's a very bad idea to hold them before Fitzgerald finishes his investigation, since anyone compelled to testify (on pain of a contempt-of-congress penalty) would presumably become immune from prosecution afterwards."

Posted by: Fredrik Nyman | July 26, 2005 08:57 AM

Fredrik - great post.

Seven Machos

Marty, the only line of reasoning you know is the fallacy (common among unserious, self-important Leftists) known as argumentum ad everybodyum whoum doesn'tem agreeom withom meum isum stupidum.


Get it through your noggins. He didn't mislead. Saddam was even more dangerous than we feared. I defy anyone to show that he wasn't.


Dunderheads. Mislead? Bah. They just resent an epochal leader.

Geek, Esq.

"Get it through your noggins. He didn't mislead. Saddam was even more dangerous than we feared. I defy anyone to show that he wasn't."


"The government's most definitive account of Iraq's arms programs, to be released today, will show that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, U.S. officials said yesterday. "


G, E. You should read the whole Duelfer Report and Claudia Rosett's reporting. Particularly the Main Points section of the Duelfer Report.

Please don't demean yourself and misrepresent the Duelfer Report by selective quotation from it. It's dishonest. Please stop. It makes me not know how to think. Except, of course, about you.

Tommy V


This is exactly why you shouldn't quote just one line, it can be misleading. From the same article:

"The official said Duelfer will tell Congress in the report and in testimony today that Hussein intended to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction programs if he were freed of the U.N. sanctions that prevented him from getting needed material

Duelfer's report said Hussein was pursuing an aggressive effort to subvert the international sanctions through illegal financing and procurement efforts, officials said. The official said the report states that Hussein had the intent to resume full-scale weapons of mass destruction efforts after the sanctions were eliminated, and details Hussein's efforts to hinder international inspectors and preserve his weapons of mass destruction capabilities."


Epochal. Try to think of the last President who made so few mistakes. I go back to Lincoln,but I'm a poor historian.

Seven Machos

Geek, welcome back. When such an unbiased arbiter of the Iraq War as the Washington Post says something, it must be true. Ultimately, though, I don't want to argue WMD. In retrospect, the WMD aspect was substantially and wrongly overplayed in an effort to gain support from the American Left and European countries.

I believe the Iraq War was and is right and good from a geopolitical, foreign-policy standpoint. Changing the political dynamic in the Islamic world is crucial if we are to avert a terrible clash of civilizations in the future.

The Left disagrees. That's fine. That's politics. What's not fine is that a lying tool like Joe Wilson attempted to discredit the administration through smoke and mirrors and, well, lies. Since that didn't work, his supporters have attempted to indict members of the Bush administration for responding to the original smear.

Ultimately, this non-scandal is not going to matter. It's not going to be Watergate. The Downing Street Memo won't be Watergate. Poor Jeff Guckert won't be Watergate. The fake Thanksgiving turkey won't be Watergate. Falling off a bicycle won't be Watergate. Choking on a pretzel won't be Watergate. The "Mission Accomplished" banner won't be Watergate. Bush's failure to get a physical 35 years ago won't be Watergate.

Tommy V

"It's not going to be Watergate. The Downing Street Memo won't be Watergate. Poor Jeff Guckert won't be Watergate. The fake Thanksgiving turkey won't be Watergate. Falling off a bicycle won't be Watergate. Choking on a pretzel won't be Watergate. The "Mission Accomplished" banner won't be Watergate. Bush's failure to get a physical 35 years ago won't be Watergate."

Very funny. Well done. And you didn't even include them all!


Teflon Epochal


No Seven, I don't think this "rises to the level" of Watergate, but Watergate didn't rise to the level of Watergate till Nixon fired the presecutor. So its somewhat interesting that only now is it becoming important to hold hearings to discuss the CIA's policy with respect to covert status. Is that a shot across Fitz's bow? I guess we will see.

I do think that only Republican core supporters (25%) think the White House is cooperating and that Karl should not get the boot under any circumstances - and that is all I said.

Think man - Nixon had this level of support and he was forced to resign!

You have made it quite clear that you stand proudly with the "he may be a felon - but he's our felon" supporters of Rove - regardless of what the facts may show. We are in the realm of pure speculation on the "facts" about who leaked, why they leaked, and was it intentional or merely sloppy. We are nowhere near a standard of proof one way or the other, but it appears I could get a directed verdict from you as there doesn't seem to be any set of facts which would lead you to think our President ought to fire Karl for laxity with respect to security.

The goalpost moves after each new leak, but it now appears to require that Rove had to:
- initiate an intentional release of Plame's identity as a NOC to a reporter with knowledge that she was "covert" (no duty to inquire)
- that the CIA's determination that her covert status was justified is not enough if we can make an after the fact determnation that her covert status was not justified
- all of this can be overriden for a good enough political reason - like embarassing the President.


There is nothing to be gained by attacking Valerie Wilson, as I have been guilty of doing. I no longer agree with the purported Karl Rove statement that she was "fair game". There must be thousands of couples working in fairly senior positions in Washington. They need to be treated as individuals.

There have been suggestions that Joe and Valerie Wilson conspired to set up the Niger trip with a view to embarrassing the President. That is preposterous. Joe Wilson was qualified for the limited scope of his assignment. In the months immediately following 9/11, all Americans were focused on capturing terrorists, not on politics.

Somehow Joe Wilson "got off the reservation", into Democrat politics and the Kerry campaign. It is very questionable if he had the right to speak out as he did. He has had difficulty explaining the findings of his own trip while incorporating into his criticisms other knowledge picked up from his contacts (especially about the forgeries). Whether he has lied or exaggerated the importance of his findings, the SSCI report gives some guidance.

Since Joe Wilson spoke out, he IS fair game. He may have troubles because of this with the 2 Congressional committees. But his wife should be left alone. It is unbecoming of "family values" Republicans to smear her.

Seven Machos

Tex: Ninety percent of Americans don't know and don't care about this non-scandal. Thus, using polls is not your best argument here. We care because, left and right, we are political junkies who need a hobby.

Here we have a president who has been charged with drunken driving, bad grades, drug use, trading Sammy Sosa, and whatever the hell Rathergate was supposed to prove, and you think this is going to stick? Bush Derangement Syndrome has a serious hold on your mind, my friend.

Also, no one has been indicted. No one has shown that a crime has been committed. If it is shown that Rove committed a crime, I will be the first to show him where the door is. But you can't ask people to resign just because their political enemies have accused them of Bad Things. That's Lenin-Stalin territory.

Any indictment could just as easily come down to Wilson, or Plame, or some leaking hack at a dead-end job at CIA. When that happens, and I think it will (if Plame was covert though I don't think she was), Big Media and the Left will move on to the next non-scandal and the case will become a page A-27 article, like Sandy Berger's FEDERAL INDICTMENT.

Geek, Esq.

The Duelffer report used the term "diminishing threat." It's logically impossible to square that finding with the notion that he was as dangerous as Bush was saying he was.

No WMD's, no concrete plans for WMD's. Not much of a threat.

DW West

Maybe the Deputy White House Chief of Staff and the Vice President's Chief of Staff should consider resigning. Both made false statements to the public about their involvement in sharing information with the Press (through their designated spokesman Scott McClelland, and in Rove's case further through his lawyer).


Geek, you've caught the selective quote disease from Joe. Get well soon.


Oh, DW, stop talking through your hat and put it on your head. What's your hurry?


Sentence first - verdict afterwards.

Seven Machos

Geek -- Some facts on Saddam Hussein's regime:

1. Saddam’s government killed 5000 people with chemical weapons at Halabjah, and stuffed another 400,000 or so into mass graves.

2. Saddam’s government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers.

3. Saddam Hussein's government provided diplomatic help and physical protection to Islamic extremists including Abu Abbas, former secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Front, who masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro.

4. Terror mastermind Abu Nidal also enjoyed Saddam's hospitality from 1999 to 2002.

5. Abu Musab al Zarqawi is believed to have received medical treatment in Saddam's Iraq for a leg injury.

6. The Associated Press reports that Coalition forces shut down at least three terrorist training camps in Iraq. The most notorious of these was the base at Salman Pak, about 15 miles southeast of Baghdad.

7. Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the al-Qaeda bombers who hit the World Trade Center in 1993, fled to Iraq after that attack and lived there freely, reportedly with a government salary.

Seven Machos


1. How do you know that these individuals made false statements?

2. If these people were to resign even though they did nothing wrong, would you be happy? Why would you be happy? Would you feel like you had won something?

Tommy V


The term "diminishing" was used by the writer of the story, not the Duelffer report itself.

It was used in the 1st paragraph of the story, and continued reading shows the first paragaph is a very curious way to describe the rest of the story.

Also in the 1st paragraph the writer says there were no "concrete" plans to develop WMD but then goes on to say that there were in fact plans to develop WMD. One has to assume the journalist was being clever by the use of the word "concrete".

Readers of NY Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, and LA Times will note the trend of the last few years of headlines and 1st paragraphs that seem to be poor summaries of the remaining story.

This one proves no different, nor do your selective quotes.


Straw to lie through.
Bowler strikes goo.
Derby bred thorough.
Top o' the Day, to you.

Jim E.

I found your recent post a pleasant surprise. Very few of us here are retrospective or ever admit mistakes of any kind as you did with your past characterization of Plame.

Tommy V,
The excerpt in your 3:29pm post was quite underwhelming since getting rid of UN sanctions is quite a different issue than declaring a pre-emptive war on a country that wasn't even a threat to its immediate neighbors, much less the U.S. Geek's excerpt, contrary to your assertion, was not misleading at all.

For you to write "Saddam was even more dangerous than we feared" is almost more retarded than Seven Machos' greatest hits. (Almost.) How can Saddam be MORE dangerous when he didn't have any of the WMD that we were supposed to fear? Anyone else want to back kim up on this point?


SM, I hate to rain shells full of poisonous dissent on to your fierce little battle, but I'm a Halabja skeptic. I'm not certain that that can be laid at Saddam's feet. It's ironic that the iconic exemplar of Saddam's heinousness may be specifically a canard, but generally, utterly accurate.

Jim E. You wouldn't say that, that Saddam was not more dangerous than we feared, if you have understood the implications of the writing of Charles Duelfer and Claudia Rossett. Freed of sanctions, in control of a state capable of high technology, Saddam would be a nightmare.

You haven't answered my question of whether or not you believe we should have deposed Saddam. C'mon. let's talk about that. That is what this is about, after all.


Jim, you might want to check out Thomas Joscelyn's two articles "The Pope of Terrorism" online at the Weekly Standard. I hope you'll find them interesting.

Jim E.

You're saying Saddam is "worse" than we feared? Worse than a "mushroom cloud"? Give me a break.

Depending on how long the articles are, I might take a look at them. Link? Or could you summarize? And for the record, I'm not -- nor is the vast majority of the left -- a defender of Saddam. I'm not a defender of any despots that oppress and starve their country and have a hatred of Israel. I'm pretty well-versed on how evil (and yes, that word is appropriate) Saddam was/is.

Would you guys eat up articles posted at the Nation?

In the meantime, I await the Seven Machos/kim slugfest.

Tommy V


"Geek's excerpt, contrary to your assertion, was not misleading at all."

I think people can read what he wrote, and the article itself and make up their mind.

"getting rid of UN sanctions is quite a different issue than declaring a pre-emptive war" I don't understand, did you mean "keeping" UN Sanctions and invasion are two different ways to have handled Iraq? Otherwise I don't understand your point.

(Few peope believe it would have been feasible to keep sanctions going forever, especially now since we know so many influential nations were being bribed )

Kim is by no means alone in thinking that Saddam was possibly more dangerous as his grip on his own country was deteriorating and sanctions were unlikely to last indefinitely.

Seven Machos

Jim -- Try weeklystandard.com.

richard mcenroe

Can we get Karl a Marine uniform?

Jim E.

"did you mean 'keeping' UN Sanctions and invasion are two different ways to have handled Iraq?"

Yes. The status quo was working (at least in terms of U.S. national security, and the national security of the countries around Iraq). Rice and Powell said precisely that prior to 9/11. And all of the evidence since the war shows that Iraq's ability to harm the U.S. or its neighbors was way less than estimated.

It's strange you would say the sanctions couldn't be sustained. Says who? While not perfect, they worked. I remember the Bush adminstration saying in the spring of 2003 that it wasn't feasible to have the U.S. military parked outside of the U.S. while UN military inspectors got to go wherever they wanted inside Iraq. Those were the days. That wasn't feasible, but having the thinned out military trying unnsuccessfully to pacify the country IS feasible? Which killed more Americans: sanctions, or the ongoing war & occupation? The CIA thinks the Iraq war has made the u.S. less safe.

"Kim is by no means alone in thinking that Saddam was possibly more dangerous"

OK, now we have someone seconding kim, albeit with zero evidence. Iraq wasn't even a threat to its neighbors; how in the world was Iraq a threat to the U.S.? You can't simultaneously blame the CIA for bad intelligence and then say Iraq was even "worse" than we thought.

Tommy V

Jim. like I said, Kim is by no means alone. This is David Kay giving his oral report to the senate.

"Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion — although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."

You may disagree with Kay, but he hardly "retarded".


Saddam was working to have the sanctions lifted. Have you read the estimate of how long it would take him to build enough anthrax to wipe out the world.
Did you intend for no-fly zones and sanctions to go on forever? Sorry, shot was not on board. Saddam was dangerous and getting more dangerous by the minute. You are foolish to not understand that.

Seven Machos

I agree with Kim. And when we disagree, it's okay, because people who aren't suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome can agree and disagree amiably, without calling everyone stupid and accusing them of lying.

Jim E.

Tommy V,
The key word in Kay's testimony is "potentially." He's not talking about Iraq circa 2003, but an Iraq in the undeterminite future after some indeterminite events have taken place. "Potentially," Canada could be more dangerous to U.S. national security than previously thought. Talk about being selective with your quotes! (David Kay is famous for saying we were "wrong" about almost everything.)

Seven Machos says he agrees with kim. You mean the time she wrote that she's not sure Saddam is to blame for Halabjah, the number one point on your list? Apparently you have a different definition of "agrees" than I do. If Joe Jackson or JBG had written kim's exact words alluding to Saddam's innocence on that point, you would have called them Saddam lovers or some such smear. Instead, you ignore it and say you "agree with kim." Hack.



Time to rant.

This is all bullshit.


What is so telling is that for those who spend so much time and energy arguing against the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent arrest of Saddam Hussein, is the little, if any, voice given to the well being of the Iraqis themselves.

This point is crucial, I believe, in exposing the totally partisan nature of the anti-war left (or wherever-the-hell they claim their politcal leanings) and the truly illiberal nature of their position.

L'affaire Plame is a sordid and quite sorry attempt to damage a sitting POTUS during war, at a time which, the removal of brutal totalitarian regimes had either taken place or decisions to do so were being undertaken.

For anyone to claim that opposition to the war was done on humanitarian grounds, I would submit that to do after reading A Matter of Principle : Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq would simply be impossible.

And yes, I am calling out Geek, esq. and others as illiberal, reactionary, and partisan hacks, who for their own personal and partisan political reasons, feel it in their best interest to abandon the almost 30 million Iraqis to totalitarianism.

L'affaire Plame is no greater a cause than marginal tax rates, drilling for oil in the so-called "pristine artic", or whether or not candidates for the SCOTUS can maintain their attorney-client privilege.

C'mon people!

Be honest for JustOneMinute.

BushBad, RovEvil.


This is about slogans, not ideas.

To hell with the Iraqis.

Uday and Qusay were just fine.

Rape rooms.



Invading Kuwait.

Trying to kill a former POTUS.

Terrorizing Israel with scud missiles.

Who the fuck cares?



It is so tiring.

So predictable.

If Rove did something wrong, he'll get busted.

Just like Sandy Berger, only worse.

If not, then can we MoveOn?

There's a war on folks.

Whether you like it or not.

Sorry to break the bad news.



No, Jim E. Halabjah is a special case. Check it out a little. There is little certainty about what happened, but I believe Iranian gas killed the bulk of those villagers.

Saddam claims he heard about it by reading it in the newspaper. I believe him on that.


Me too. Them Libruls give me the creeps not wanting all those Iraqis to be free.

Seven Machos

Jim -- You are reaching.

I think the implication was clear in what I wrote. I said Kim and I disagree about the gassing. We agree about other things. We can do both agreeably.

Really, which of us sounds petulant and unreasonable here?



For many years I considered myself a liberal Democrat, hell, I voted like one.

But the wheels have come off the wagon.

There is no there there.

I mean really, let's be honest, WTF?


MTT: Those who read Iraqi blogs last year were not surprised by purple fingers in January. It is just stunning to me how liberals can support criminals in Iraq and not their vastly more numerous victims.


Jim, the articles are essentially about Saddam's ties to terror networks and to a man Joscelyn calls "the Pope of Terrorism" - Hassan al-Turabi. Interesting reading regardless of one's politics.


I opposed the war. I thought sanctions were working. They weren't.

Tommy V



That's your answer? Seriously? Canada could "potentially" be more dangerous, so Iraq being "potentially" more dangerous then we thought is no big deal?

The entire concept from start to finish has been about Hussein's "potential", and now you think that's a word that negates the threat because it was only a "potential" threat.


And there was nothing "selective" about that quote. It means what it says, and says what it means.

You said it was retarded. You asked for evidence. I gave you David Kay. I'm afraid your pride has gotten in the way on this one.


They refuse to believe that Saddam was dangerous because their politics requires them to minimize his danger. They'll argue that, but clam up when it comes to actual support of Saddam. That, even they can't quite stomach. So they're stuck in a dilemma. By their own miserable irrational choice. We should pity them.

scott ferris

Does anyone think Sadam was a threat to the US? We were lied to about the original claims for the war and this administration and it's toadies have lost any credibility regarding pre-war claims or justification for this war. All these war supporters, chickenhawks, ought to just shutup and enlist. Public support is declining, and will continue to, as Iraq descend into chaos and civil war thanks to Bush. No amount of happy stories from Iraq is going to change the facts on the ground.

Jim E.

Tommy V,
The Kay quote does not bolster the allegation that Iraq in the spring of 2003 was more dangerous than feared. In fact, we now know that Iraq was much LESS dangerous than advertised (no WMD, remember).

As for speculation about an alternate, counterfactual future, well, that's an entirely different -- and interesting -- issue. It's an area where your Kay quote might come in handy.

Tommy V

"No amount of happy stories from Iraq is going to change the facts on the ground."

Aren't those happy stories some of the facts on the ground?

Oh, okay. You mean, "no amount of happy stories is going to change your mind. "

Alright, that's more clear. I understand now.

"All these war supporters, chickenhawks, ought to just shutup and enlist."

This would be fair if all those against the war have to live under Saddam.

Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?


Oh go soak your head in a bucket of MSM newspapers.

Jim E.

kim wrote: "They refuse to believe that Saddam was dangerous."

In terms of U.S. national security, Saddam was NOT dangerous at all. He was dangerous to his own people, but not to the U.S.

But that's besides the point, since I was responding to your allegation that Saddam's Iraq was even "more dangerous" than Bush and others described it prior to the war. You're trying to alter your original statement. Nice try.


I mean, Scott, go soak your head in a bucket of MSM.

Jim E.

Me Too Then,
According to your logic (6:22pm), the Bush administration is illiberal and in favor of the ongoing Sudanese genocide. After all, they are doing nothing about it. The Bush administration -- and its supporters -- must feel it's in their best interest to abandon all of those poor Africans to tortuous deaths.


Jim E. No, I'm saying that Saddam was even more dangerous than we originally thought. We were thinking he might consider supplying rogue terrorists with WMD. In fact, he was planning to set up Iraq as a rogue, WMD containing, state. I suspect you don't perceive any danger in that, but some of us do.

In terms of US national security he was months away from being able to launch an anthrax attack.

I think you may be willfully stupid. Read Claudia Rosett. Read Charles Duelfer. Read about Saddam Hussein, for God's sake.

Scott Ferris

I would rather read John Burns or Juan Cole then drivel from the right anyday. Go enlist if you support the war.

scott ferris

If you think Sadam was a threat to the US you are bigger idiot than I thought. If you support the war you should enlist or shutup, we have enough chickenhawks at home and in the administration.


The Bush administration and Powell have done their level best to get the UN to act on Sudan. I have little doubt that we would be in there with troops if we weren't pre-occupied with Iraq.

By the way the aggressors seem to be Islamic in the Sudan. Might not moderate Islam have a thing or two to say about the genocide? Might not Africa?

Seven Machos

Scotty -- Where to begin?

1. Have you read any of the above comments? I think Saddam was a threat to the US because he harbored and supported terrorists and clearly desired WMD. I would add that having ready bases and thousands of troops bearing down on Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia is geopolitically invaluable, and the real reason for the invasion.

2. Nobody lied about the war. No one thought there was no WMD but said so, anyway. Lying and being wrong are not identical.

3. How come all this loss in credibility and public support by "toadies" and "chickenhawks" hasn't translated into any electoral victories whatsoever? Perhaps you are wrong. Perhaps you can't win an election EXACTLY because nobody wants to listen to overwrought loons like yourself preach and drone, so they vote for Bush and the Republicans despite Bush's frequent stumbles and missteps.

4. Admit it, pal. You want Iraq to have a civil war. You want our military and political efforts to fail so that Bush is disgraced. Who cares how many people are killed, or tortured? Who cares if this bunch of sand people is ruled by a crazy thug?

5. Where are all these "happy stories from Iraq"? They certainly aren't in Big Media. are they?

You'll have to do better than that worthless screed here. I will give you a solid "D," though. At least you didn't mention Blood for OIIIILLLL!!!

scott ferris

If you think Sadam was a threat to the US you are bigger idiot than I thought. If you support the war you should enlist or shutup, we have enough chickenhawks at home and in the administration.

Tommy V


"The Kay quote does not bolster the allegation that Iraq in the spring of 2003 was more dangerous than feared."

I guess now if you've moved the discussion to the Spring of 2003, I suppose you would be correct. But no one ever said that Iraq was more dangerous "now" (now being Spring 2003) then it ever will be.

It was made clear that they thought Iraq was a "gathering threat" and would be a threat in the future. This was very clear, and there was a very long national debate about whether a nation should act pre-emptively of a nation that is not an immediate threat.

This is why you, and other people, called it a "pre-emptive war", because the threat was not immediate but in the future.

You seem a smart fellow, I know you know this. And it's okay to disagree with Kay. But the point here is that Kay disagrees with you.

They were completely wrong about WMD. Stick to that. You can still make points with that.

But when someone says Iraq was more of a threat than we thought, say that you completely disagree. But don't say it's retarded, and that no one else believes that.

Don't say that, because it is not true.

(I'm not sure how much I agree with it. You will note that I consistently said, "Kim is not alone in believing this")

You debate with your ego and you need to be "right" and you paint yourself in a corner. You end up parsing words, and changing arguments midstream.

Very smart, knowledgeable, caring people disagree with you on things. You need to get over the left's delusion that people who disagree with them are stupid. That's a belief for self-image and it is not rooted in reality.


Juan Cole? The poster boy for ignorance informed by bias? No wonder you think the way you do.

Tommy V

"Admit it, pal. You want Iraq to have a civil war. You want our military and political efforts to fail so that Bush is disgraced."

You know, I don't like to say it, but to be honest with you, I really suspect it is the case for some people.

Like that writer from slate admiting he was disappointed that the Iraqis didn't put up more of a fight in the initial invasion and how bad he felt that he was thinking that way.

It's just weird. They really would rather see Bush disgraced...

Jim E.

"Jim E. No, I'm saying that Saddam was even more dangerous than we originally thought."

Um, yeah, I get it, and that's the sentence I've been responding to. What the "no" for?

I have no doubt that he had ambitious plans. But we know now he didn't have the means for any of those plans. Saddam was either crazy or bluffing or both. He was LESS dangerous than we thought. The burden is on you to demonstrate how Bush underestimated Iraq's danger to the U.S.

Seven Machos

Also, I love the "go enlist" canard. Scotty wants to use the fact that we have a volunteer army against me. That's very junior high.

Scotty: I am in favor of the police. Should I become a cop? I am in favor of fire prevention. Should I become a firefighter?

I don't remember anyboidy demanding that Clinton become a figher pilot during the period when we killed and maimed many people in the Balkans with intense bombing. Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson's war. Funny, I don't recall ever reading that people argued that should enlist.

Support for war does not require people to go out and enlist. Scotty, I bet you support socialized medicine. Should you be required to open a free medical clinic?

scott ferris

Ignorance is believing in something when the facts prove otherwise. Do the country a favor and get an education, or even better enlist and go support your war. I am sick and tired of all the keyboard war supporters who have no knowledge of the middle-east, don't speak Arabic, and are experts on the minutie of Iraq WMD.


It's not just wierd, it's just a little psychotic. The anger felt about Bush's 2000 electoral legitimacy is being replaced by panic at the fear that they may be semi-permanently losing the electoral struggle. We see the symptoms here. Bush Derangement Syndrome is aptly named, and it is not an imaginary disease. It's epidemic.


Jim E. Read Duelfer and Rosett. All the proof you'd want.

But I also explained it several posts back. The one that you thought had an extraneous 'no'.

scott ferris

Perhaps we should be more worried about Americans who can't read and compete in the global economy. Why do you think Toyota decided to build a plant in Ontario Canda rather the in the Southwestern US, even when they were offered hundred of millions in tax breaks? It's ironic that those southern states were so willing to fork over the money to get the plant, but not to spend the same money to raise the educational standards in their schools. It's a classic penny-wise, pound-foolish approach. Perhaps if we weren't supporting an unnecessary war we would have money to fix our education system.


And I'm tired of the keyboard war opposers who've never read an Iraqi blog, don't speak Arabic, and don't know shit from shinola when it comes to topics martial.

The comments to this entry are closed.