Wright Is Wrong On Sudan

I can't imagine having the time or inclination to fact-check every assertion and accusation made by Jeremiah Wright, but this, from the newly-released ABC News transcripts of his ghastly sermons, struck me:

We bombed a plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hardworking people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they would never get back home.

Clinton's bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan was a debacle, but were there "hundreds" of civilian casualties?  The Times reported that

There were no known deaths at the plant, which was hit at night, when it was closed, but local reports said 10 people were hospitalized, 4 of them in critical condition.

...A hospital spokesman said today that 10 people wounded from the strike were admitted to the wards. Four of them were in critical condition, he said. The plant does not operate at night, and there were apparently few workers around during the attack.

Or, from the London Observer:

Sudan has said 10 people were injured, five seriously.

I didn't save the link, but the argument has been offered that since the factory in Sudan made medicine, the US bombing reduced available medicine in Sudan; therefore, we killed civilians.  But clearly Wright is talking about people who were killed that day.

Comments

[PMII]

No cooment - I don't want to be a racist.

On another note - is it just me or is McCain 08 starting to sound like Kerry 04?

[Pofarmer]

So, what else is new?

Both Wright and Obama seem to rely on the Leadership lying to the masses for power.

[Appalled]

I think we can stipulate that Wright's sermons are not accurate without increasing your Lexis bill unecessarily.

By the way, did you know Obama has a http://obama.senate.gov/press/071012-obama_statement_90/> position on the Sudan, and has visted there? Or is the official position that Obama is a hollow man without positions?

[Sue]

and has visted there?

Is that a qualification for his presidency...finally?

[Jane]

So if you listen to the commentary on Wright's performance this morning, at least according to Juan Williams, Obama was not helped, and was certainly hurt.

[Appalled]

Sue:

Nah. But what one sees in the local commentariat is less about what Obama thinks, and more about who he knows and what they think. (I hesitate to use the word "think" with Wright.)

Our host goes on about Obama as an empty suit - without much evidence of checking out his substance. So, in my guise as comment thread gadfly, I'm dumping in some of his alleged substance. (I'm trying to do that without hijacking the topic -- that's rude.)

[Sue]

Appalled,

I'm glad you used the qualifier alleged.

[DebinNC]

Wright said at the NPC that along with hearts and minds that need changing, so do "laws and social orders". I'd like to hear more from him about what exactly he means by that. Also, it likely won't be reported, but Wright has very disrespectful imo to the white woman in charge of the event this morning, who asked him a series of questions at the end. For example, referring to Obama's contention he wasn't in church when the "snippets" comments were made, she asked Wright if Obama was "a regular church attender or prone to dozing off" and Wright's answer - "He goes to church about as much as you do", he said with a smile. Lots of similarly snarky asides were said with a smile. His personality is "a difference" which I nowfind "deficient".

[kim]

What's different is the ghilly suit. It changes with surroundings. Uncanny, but just obvious as hell once you know he's wearing an invisibility cloak.
==================================

[Rick Ballard]

From the BHO Blather cited by Appalled:

"The international community must reject these obstructionist tactics, insist that diplomatic breakthroughs and paper agreements are followed up with real action, and hold the regime in Khartoum accountable for its actions."

Sounds almost like a UN resolution on Hussein's Iraq, doesn't it? I wonder what "real action" is in what passes for BHO's mind? A strong letter? A stern rebuke? Sanctions? - but then, what about the, sob, children?

I'm afraid that I have rather grave reservations about BHO's ability to undertake "real action". Unless the action involves slithering, that is. I'm wholly confident of his ability to slither.

[kim]

He's parsel tongued, too, you notice.
========================

[kim]

He Who Must Not be Middle-Named.
======================

[sbw]

Appalled: Or is the official position that Obama is a hollow man without positions?

I said without principles, not without positions.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

I saw the question and answer session at the NPC this morning. What a disaster for Obama. It's pretty clear that Wright is just another race hustler, and not a very bright one at that.

He sees his big chance right now. He's going to hit the circuit and cash in. Barack can kiss any chance of the presidency good-bye. Maybe even any chance at the nomination.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Also, Wright got another fact wrong at the NPC. He claimed that we sold Saddam his biological/chemical weapons. Which clearly, we did not. He probably got them from his sponsor; the USSR.

[MayBee]

From Appalled's link:
A focused and revitalized diplomatic effort that includes all parties that helped negotiate the CPA is the only way in which this process can be salvaged.

The only way!
And what do you think about it, Mr. Conversation Starter?

[MayBee]

I saw the question and answer session at the NPC this morning. What a disaster for Obama.

"Louis Farrakhan did not put me in chains, and he did not make me this color"

Was Rev Wright in chains? Did I put him in chains?
Obama has got to be wishing this man would just shut up.

[narciso]

I recall that Scott Ritter, made that point in 'Endgame', before he was blackmailed/
bribed into doing the Lindbergh dance of appeasement/sympathy. He's also the source for the particular Sunni tribal makeup of
the Iraqi army and security forces (Dulaimi,
Ubeidi, Jibbour). Going back a few years, Hersh of all people, cited him to explain how Primakov Former KGB Arabist operator
involved in the failed Feb. 1991 ceasefire
attempt, was Iraq's client and not the other
way around. As Foreign Minister, he had a part in the negotiations that revamped the
UN inspection regime in Iraq; so as to make
Butler Kay, and Ritter's type ofinspection moot; naturally they chose Hans Blix, who missed the NK's progress at YongByon a decade before. He tried for the Big Prize, but much like the Highlander series, there can be only one ex KGB honcho at the top; which Putin assured with an ad that painted
Primakov as a washed-up has-been. That staffer will probably be signed up by Barry's team any day now.

[Appalled]

MayBee:

I do not believe that when our current administration talks, anyone bothers to listen. That's a direct consequence of Iraq, folks.

As for Obama's position -- yeah, we could redouble our eforts and impose some more economic sanctions. Will it so much good? Depends if anyone else in the world feels this one deeply enough to try anything once there is a new administration in. I'm guessing not. But I think the chances are better with a new administraton, smply because there will be more respect for a leader who is not shoot first, get proper intelligence later George.

(What about McCain? Don't know, yet.)

[Danube of Thought]

"Or is the official position that Obama is a hollow man without positions?"

My official position is that he's a hollow man. The "positions" of hollow men are of little moment. And I have little interest in whom Obama "knows"; I do think that the people with whom he chooses to associate over a long period of time are a legitimate issue in this campaign. Obama agrees.

[cathyf]

He claimed that we sold Saddam his biological/chemical weapons.

Well chemical is different, but Saddam's anthrax came from a mail-order bio supply house in Iowa. That's why Saddam cannot be ruled out as a source for the 2001 anthrax attacks -- that anthrax came from those stocks.

[Danube of Thought]

"'People were legitimately offended by some of the comments he had made in the past,' Obama said. And, 'the fact that he is my former pastor ... makes it a legitimate issue' in the presidential campaign."

--Fox News Sunday, April 27. Fair, Balanced and Unafraid, as always.

[MayBee]

I do not believe that when our current administration talks, anyone bothers to listen. That's a direct consequence of Iraq, folks.

I believe that like Zimbabwe, DPRC, and Rwanda before it, when people talk about sacrificing for African nations, nobody bothers to listen. So "diplomatic talks" only go so far.

I don't find the call for "diplomatic talks for all interested parties" to be much of a position (other than a fall back position). It is what everyone says when they are pretending that saying just the right thing will get someone to stop doing exactly what they want to be doing.

Now, I do believe in diplomacy. But yelling "diplomacy!" isn't a position nor is it a policy.

[Appalled]

DOT:

I think Wright is clearly an issue (but, since Obama agrees, that probably just makes me a good Obamabot). Wright seems intent on making himself even more of an issue, by acting the fool.

Nobody, including scary Larry, has established a relationship with Ayers that goes beyond the relationship a politician will have with a political power broker in his district. (Non-profit organization are a dime a dozen in local politics -- service on the same board means very little.)

[MikeS]

Could some one help me out on these position papers that we find on the candidate websites?

Are these things written by the candidates? Karl Rove (writing in Newsweek)implied that they were written by academic campaign advisors, then focus-grouped and edited by the candidates media group.

[ben]

"Or is the official position that Obama is a hollow man without positions?"

Appalled's position on Obama continues to be that we should ignore what he said and who he associates with and what his record is and what his accomplishments are and what his experience is, and instead go to his website and learn about his "position on issues".

It's not the way the real world works. With McCain his record is there for all to see. Hillary also, take it or leave it. With Obama, there is very little record, so to fill in the blanks, his relationships to Ayers and Wright are important in that context. These relationships are 1,000 times more revealing than Obama's canned speeches. A hollow leopard does not change his spots.

[Appalled]

MikeS:

Position papers are not written by the candidate. Seeches are not usually written by the candidate. Nor are press releases. Usually.

But, if you want to know what a candidate is committed to, a position paper is a fiar place to look.

[Appalled]

ben:

I thnk I said guilt by association only takes you so far. Obama's association with Wright -- since it was voluntary and of long standing -- probably tells us a lot, though i don't think the whole of the man is "God Damn America". Wish Obama wuld be a little clearer about what he takes from Wright.

As for Ayers, we have some incidental contacts. I think if you looked at any other Chicag politician (say, like Mayor Daily), you would see similar incidental contacts. In other words, no big deal.

[MayBee]

But, if you want to know what a candidate is committed to, a position paper is a fiar place to look.

Unless it has his handwriting on it, then he has nothing to do with it.

[Thomas Collins]

Re diplomatic talk: Didn't the Euros talk a lot with the Persians about their nuclear program? And the Persians just ignored them.

I think Israel's bombing of Syria's nuclear facility is the type of talk that the Persians, North Koreans and Syrians are most likely to hear.

[MayBee]

As for Ayers, we have some incidental contacts. I think if you looked at any other Chicag politician (say, like Mayor Daily), you would see similar incidental contacts. In other words, no big deal.

Not no big deal, but a wide-spread problem.

[MikeS]

I do not believe that when our current administration talks, anyone bothers to listen.

I don't understand this statement. We know from opinion polls that in the African countries, Asian countries, and India respect for the U.S. has increased in recent years. Are you referring to France and Germany, or Britain, Italy, Australia?

I don't get it.

[Danube of Thought]

“This is a phony issue,” Obama said [on Friday, April 25]. “So let me address it right now.”

[ben]

"simply because there will be more respect for a leader who is not shoot first, get proper intelligence later George."

Repeating this canard endlessly still does not make it true. The President does not "get proper intelligence", he uses the intelligence that is available. So this shoot first is baloney, Bush acted on the intelligence that convinced everyone else, the CIA, the Europeans, John Kerry, Hillary, etc. that Saddam had WMD. He made a decision based on available information, that's what Presidents do. He also tried to get the UN to enforce their own resolutions, and maybe if that pressure had been brought to bear Saddam would have come clean. Finally, he gave Saddam the opportunity to step down to avert the invasion. So the George shoot first comment is more of Appalled's unmitigated BS, like last night when he compared Oliver North to Ayers ("they both schemed to kill people")

[clarice]

No big deal? It explains why we have no major candidates running for president from Chicago--or Seattle or San Francisco, doesn't it? They have too little in common with the rest of the country which seems to believe it is a great place worth defending.

[MikeS]

...a position paper is a fair place to look.

I believe that stuff is just so much pablum.

I think that everyone, except Obama supporters, agrees that it is the candidate's responsibility to tell voters what he thinks is important and what he will do regarding those issues.

[Sue]

As for Ayers, we have some incidental contacts. I think if you looked at any other Chicag politician (say, like Mayor Daily), you would see similar incidental contacts. In other words, no big deal.

Then there should be an unwritten rule. No Chicago politicians need apply for president.

[narciso]

Appalled, it has nothing to do with this admimistration's standing. It has to do with Petrochina's investments (who Corzine
wrote the public offering for)in the Sudan,
Russia's involvement there and in Iran, and their hope to recover holdings in Iraq. Primakov and to a lesser extent, even Zhirinovsky role in the oil for food scam
figured into the latter example. Egypt's refusal to take responsibility for what was the old colonial mandate and bring the Bashir Janjaweed regime to account. Sudan has oil, although in the south near Suakin; where the Chinese army is. Venezuela, has oil, yet the UN General Assembly cheers Chavez's every delusion. And Iran, is nearly swimming in 'crushed dinosaur' and you see what kind of reception, Mahmoud gets.For god's sake, we have tiny Chad as the spearhead for the feckless AU force. 250,000 to 500,000 dead in Darfur, and the UN is still crucifying Israel and to a lesser extent us, for Jenin, and the phantom 600,000 dead in Iraq, a sizable portion is due to insurgent activity. That's the text of Durban 2, You have the moron or the shameless opportunist Richard Falk, calling for an investigation into the neocon's role in 9/11. Are you !@#!@$@#$% kidding me. Clooney and all those 'well intentioned' folk calls to intervene in Sudan, would go South, the first moment
a Global Hawk hits a Janjaweed column.

[bio mom]

Thomas Collins: Yes. Right on. It is as if the last 3 or so years never happened. Diplomacy with Iran!! What the heck was the point of the French, English, and German outreach to Iran all about then? And we agreed. NOw, somehow, all we need is dipoomacy!! This is starting to feel like Alice Through the Looking Glass time.

[Appalled]

clarice:

Get it from their own mouth, not from some proxy.

ben:

It was pretty clear by March, 2003 that something could well be screwy with US intelligence, based on the results the UN inspectors were bringing back (which, in no way matched the US intelligence).

[ben]

" I think if you looked at any other Chicag politician (say, like Mayor Daily), you would see similar incidental contacts. In other words, no big deal."

How many contacts do you have to have with a terrorist before they are no longer incidental?
And probably nobody would care much about the contacts if it didn't seem quite obvious that Obama and Ayers share a lot of the same ideology. We are not worried about McCain's "contacts" with the North Vietnamese, for example.
Finally Obama is running for President, not Alderman. So his relationship with a terrorist bomber, unrepentant to boot, is quite relevant, sorry.

[Sue]

I think Appalled knows that the contacts and people Obama has chosen to associate with are relevant. Which is why they are trying so hard to disassociate him from those contacts and people.

[Barry]

But, if you want to know what a candidate is committed to, a position paper is a fiar place to look.

I presume the word "fiar" is mispelled.
The pronunciation, fire, fits well though.
His position papers are suited for the fire.

[Great Banana]

"It was pretty clear by March, 2003 that something could well be screwy with US intelligence, based on the results the UN inspectors were bringing back (which, in no way matched the US intelligence)."

Assuming for the moment that this is true - that the inspectors - who Saddam was activiley working to thwart in their work, who reported to the same corrupt institution that brought us the oil for food scam, as well as many others, are you seriously suggesting that the U.S. should not follow its own intelligence, but should instead defer to the U.N. for all decisions relating to national security?

Or, are you simply throwing dirt at a wall in the hopes that people will stop laughing at your defense of Obama and Wright?

After all, you can't argue that the U.S. intelligence did not say what it said, so you change the argument to "but the U.N. weapons inspectors said something different. When the above is pointed out to you and that question asked - how will you attempt to move the goalposts this time in order to keep your meme alive?

[drjohn]

"I can't imagine having the time or inclination to fact-check every assertion and accusation made by Jeremiah Wright,"

Just a minute- isn't it racist to question anything Wright or Obama say?

[ben]

"based on the results the UN inspectors were bringing back (which, in no way matched the US intelligence)."

Saddam kicked out the inspectors, violating the surrender terms of the first Gulf War. For several years there were no inspections. As a last ditch effort he allowed them back but refused to let them have unfettered access. And the intelligence was not only US, it was the unanimous view of the British, the Germans, the French, etc. that Saddam had not come clean. It turns out that Saddam WANTED the world to think he had WMD, and whoops, his bluff got called.

[MikeS]

If Obama had only one questionable association, I could probably agree that it was no big deal.

MarkO has pointed out that Obama has a pattern of questionable associations. That makes it a bigger deal. It does seem that these people, Ayers, Michelle Obama, and Rev Wright, share the idea that America is a shameful country. This shared ideology increases the size of the deal again.

[Danube of Thought]

"It was pretty clear by March, 2003 that something could well be screwy with US intelligence, based on the results the UN inspectors were bringing back (which, in no way matched the US intelligence)."

Give us a list of the people who said, by March, 2003, that they thought it was clear that something could well be screwy with US intelligence.

[MikeS]

Saddam kicked out the inspectors

1. Saddam claimed he had destroyed all WMDs.
2. General Kemal Hussein defected to Jordan and exposed Saddam's program of hiding WMD from inspectors.
3. Based on this intelligence inspectors began finding undeclared WMDs
4. Saddam ejected inspectors.
5. Bush's military build up convinced Saddam to let inspectors back in.
6. Saddam claimed that the rest of the WMDs described by Kemal Hussein had been destroyed while inspectors were not allowed in the country.

Entirely too much emphasis is put on 'stockpiles' of WMDs. Saddam's stockpiles are not as important as his capacity to produce more WMDs.

[pagar]

" I do not believe that when our current administration talks, anyone bothers to listen."

"I don't understand this statement. We know from opinion polls that in the African countries, Asian countries, and India respect for the U.S. has increased in recent years."

The groups that do not bother to listen and have not bothered to listen are called terrorists. That was the position that the North Vietnamese took when fighting the US in Vietnam. Article

"Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy."

That is the position every terrorist organization in the world today takes.
They are told everyday,by the American leftists: they do not have to defeat the American Military, they only have to hold on until the American politicians surrender to them at the conference table because the leftist Americans will not let America defend itself.

[sbw]

Appalled: It was pretty clear by March, 2003 that something could well be screwy with US intelligence, based on the results the UN inspectors were bringing back

In an odd way, we can agree that something could well be screwy with US intelligence. Still is.

But that does not change the fundamental truth that one UN inspector was all it took to show that Saddam was obstructing inspections. That was reason enough to act.

[Daryl Herbert]

Pres. Clinton bombed the plant because the CIA suspected it was being used by al-Qaida, not as "payback" for anything.

[Danube of Thought]

"Obama has two constituencies -- African Americans and college-educated liberals. They're both passionate bloc voters and will turn out in droves. But their numbers are limited. They'll give Obama Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Mississippi, Illinois, and maybe California and Oregon, but that will be about it."

--William Tucker, April 28

[Appalled]

Danube:

Since you ask, here.

[Barry]

"U.N. arms inspectors are privately complaining..."

"U.N. sources have..."

"...express that anger privately..."

"...that one source..."

CBS News with another unsourced story. And Appalled thinks this is evidence of assertion.

[Barry]

of his assertion

[Appalled]

Um...Barry. How did the whole WMD thing turn out?

[MikeS]

Um...Barry. How did the whole WMD thing turn out?
The Duelfer Report found that "in some ways" Iraq's WMD programs were more dangerous than had be supposed before the war.

They were referring to ways that terrorists might get their hands on Saddam's weapons without official approval.

[Danube of Thought]

Thanks, Appalled--you've cited us to anonymous UN officials complaining about three or four false leads, including al Sayoud 2 missiles, research buildings, "incriminating evidence" at some palaces, and aluminum tubes. Would you care to name an American source?

Any sources of any kind disputing that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons? (I'll spot you Scott Ritter for openers--but of course he'd been paid $400K by Saddam.)

And your comment to Barry about how it all came out tells us nothing at all about the intelligence consensus at the time of the invasion. But keep trying.

[cathyf]

Entirely too much emphasis is put on 'stockpiles' of WMDs. Saddam's stockpiles are not as important as his capacity to produce more WMDs.

The Manhattan Project produced three nuclear weapons. One was tested at Trinity, one dropped on Hiroshima, one dropped on Nagasaki. On Aug 10, 1944, the US did not have any nuclear weapons. Unless you believe that the Japanese surrendered because they were duped by their bad intelligence that the US had a stockpile of these weapons, I'd say that "stockpiles" (or more precisely, lack of stockpiles) is highly overrated.

[MayBee]

Wait. So what does this have to do with Barack Obama calling for "more diplomacy!" in the Sudan being a detailed policy position?

The trick of being POTUS is deciding what to do after the More Diplomacy! doesn't work?

I contend that what is happening in the Sudan right now is exactly what Bush, Obama, Clinton, Gordon Brown, and the UN are willing to let happen after diplomacy fails/ed.

[Danube of Thought]

We now know what some anonymous UN inspectors said. Let us consider what the UN Security Council said in September, 2002:

"That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments

"That '...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations.'"

It would appear that the Security Council was not persuaded by the anonymous inspectors to withdraw or modify anything it had had to say on the subject.

[MayBee]

doesn't work.

[Barry]

Um...Barry. How did the whole WMD thing turn out?

Quite well. I am very sure Saddam and his terrorist gang will no longer threaten the USA.

Of course, you were supplying evidence of how we should have known Saddam was an innocent lamb, without WMD. And CBS reporting an anonymous sourced story doesn't cut it. Against a factual background that Saddam had WMD and used them, our intelligence and that of our allies said he had them, you expect us to take CBS's story as proof positive, in that time period.

BS

[ROA]

From the Duelfer Report:

Given Iraq’s investments in technology and infrastructure improvements, an effective procurement network, skilled scientists, and designs already on the books for longer range missiles, ISG assesses that Saddam clearly intended to reconstitute long-range delivery systems and that the systems potentially were for WMD.

• Iraq built a new and larger liquid-rocket engine test stand capable, with some modifi cation, of supporting
engines or engine clusters larger than the single SA-2 engine used in the Al Samud II.

• Iraq built or refurbished solid-propellant facilities and equipment, including a large propellant mixer, an
aging oven, and a casting pit that could support large diameter motors.

• Iraq’s investing in studies into new propellants and manufacturing technologies demonstrated its desire for
more capable or effective delivery systems.

[Appalled]

Danube:

It was the UN inspectors who were on the ground and complaining that US and other intelligence was bull. I rate that more highly than stuff from people who were removed from the situation who were coming up with nothin that was verifiable from the ground.

Sure would have been nice if the invasion machine could have been slowed down to determine why the US intelligence that was supposedly providing us with the casus belli wasn't turning out to be correct. But trying to figure out what was wrong with what we thought was so true before committing lives and billions of dollars wasn't the Bush/Rumsfeld way, was it?

And, Danube, I hope yu are such a believer in expert consensus that you are going to become a big, big supporter of the next Kyoto treaty.

Barry:

There were no WMDs. Please remember that. It will help you to understand why your fellow voters will likely not feel the way you do this year. The Duelfur report is lipstick on a big ol' pig.

[Appalled]

Barry:

The thing you are not getting is that the inspectors were reporting back to the intelligence sources sending them the bad data. They weren't just complaining to reporters.

I would not expect the US government to act on the basis of CBS news reports. I would expect they would take what they were hearing directly from UN inspectors very seriously.

Hm, this started as a thread on the Sudan. Oh well, another thread hijacked. Sorry, TM.

[ben]

From Joe Klein of Newsweek:

"And worse, Wright's purpose now seems quite clear: to aggrandize himself--the guy is going to be a go-to mainstream media source for racial extremist spew, the next iteration of Al Sharpton--and destroy Barack Obama."

The Democratic rats are abandoning the Wright ship. How long before they realize Ayers is just as toxic or worse.

[Danube of Thought]

“There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him.

“And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that.”

--Joseph C. Wilson IV, February 6, 2003

Perhaps the administration was persuaded by Ambassador Wilson's assessment of Saddam's capabilities.

And if the Security Council wasn't impressed with the anonymous complaints of four instances of failed intelligence, none relating to chemical or biological weapons, why should the US government be impressed? And what evidence do we have that the anonymous inspectors told anyone other than CBS News, and in particular the US government?

[Danube of Thought]

Isn't Joe Klein with Time?

[MayBee]

Hm, this started as a thread on the Sudan. Oh well, another thread hijacked. Sorry, TM.

You could have written about how bad the intelligence was on the Sudan factory, if you wanted to stay on topic.

[ben]

"Isn't Joe Klein with Time?"

Is he? I got that from Redstate, which states:

"Rememeber, this isn't a conservative. This is Joe Klein from Newsweek. Raising serious questions about Jeremiah Wright is now fully mainstream."

http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/
now_the_left_finds_wright_unacceptable

[Appalled]

MayBee:

Blame Ben, who thinks I was mean to W in passing and started to refight the Iraq war.

[MikeS]

On the Sudan thing, why did President Clinton think Saddam and al Qaeda were collaborating?

How long did the Iraq Survey Group say it would take Saddam to start production of Chem/Bio weapons?

[see how easy it is?]

"Sources close to the situation believe Appalled is not sorry the thread was hijacked."

[ben]

"Blame Ben, who thinks I was mean to W in passing and started to refight the Iraq war."

Mea culpa.

[Barry]

"Barry:
The thing you are not getting is that the inspectors were reporting back to the intelligence sources sending them the bad data. They weren't just complaining to reporters."

And you know this how?

The thing you are not getting is:

1) Saddam had WMD and used them. It doesn't take much to imagine he might still have them given his "rapport" with the inspection team, in that time period. At that point, after 9/11 and the Anthrax Attack, it was incumbent upon Saddam to prove he did not have them. He refused to open up and do this, thus getting his justice.

2) CBS can not be trusted. There report is meaningless, then and now. Ask me how we know this.

3) You assume Saddam did not have WMD. I make no such assumption. There were disposal plans in place (Russian designed) to quickly get rid of the evidence. It could be moved and hidden. Some of the WMD evidence is in plain sight but not acknowledged because it won't fit into your "Bush lied, people died" view. Mobile Bio-weapons labs. Remember those? Those have been redefined as mobile hydrogen producers for weather balloons. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? Have you any science background to understand that you do not need mobile hydrogen labs? You produce it and bottle it and ship it to wherever it is needed.

[boris]

Ever hear anything like this "Don't make me come in there or you'll be sorry".

Saddam had plenty of opporunity to get with the program before W had to go in there. Then it was too late.

[sbw]

[OT] Continuing my one-note samba, I just posted an essay on Accessible Democracy that wraps important, useful concepts up into a single, tidy package. [/OT]

[Cecil Turner]

There were no WMDs. Please remember that.

Yeah, and the post-9/11 anthrax came from Steven Hatfill's pond. Remember that, too.

The aspirin factory strike was based on one soil sample, which is pretty darn thin. Saddam's nefarious intentions, by comparison, were an open book.

[Sue]

I think it is a given that our intelligence agencies suck. They apparently are staffed with Valerie Plame/Larry Johnson types. I used to feel comforted by the thought that intelligent people were watching out for us. Not anymore. My worry now is are there any intelligent people in intelligence.

[MayBee]

I'll bring it back around for Appalled.
Rev Wright went over to Libya to meet with Kaddafi and didn't detect the nuclear program. I question the intelligence.

[Danube of Thought]

Appalled, if you would "rate more highly" the unattributed quotes of four anonymous UN sources concerning a handul of instances of faulty intelligence--none of it bearing on chemical or biological weapons--over the accumulated worldwide intelligence of the preceding decade, that is your prerogative, which you exercise very well in hindsight.

Senator Obama, of course, sees the matter quite differently from you. It appears that, notwithstanding his admittedly uninformed 2002 speech, had he been privy to the intelligence reports at the time of the invasions (and surely he would have given appropriate weight to the four anonymous UN fellows), he might well have voted to authorize the invasion:

"In a recent interview, [Obama] declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information HE HAD AT THE TIME. 'But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. 'WHAT WOULD I HAVE DONE? I DON'T KNOW.' What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made'" (New York Times, 26 July, 2004).

There were, to be sure, a number of US Senators who voted against the AUMF. Not one of them based his vote on suspicions that Saddam did not have WMD.

Certainly if I thought there were an "expert consensus" that the Kyoto treaty should be ratified by the US, I would be all for it. There is no such consensus, and I oppose ratification. At least in that regard I have a 95-0 Senate vote in my favor, even more overwhelming than that authorizing the war against Saddam.

[ben]

Saddam had WMD and used it..against his own people and the Iranians. He invaded Kuwait and Iran. He lobbed SCUDS into Israel. He paid the families of suicide bombers in the West Bank. Do we really need to discuss whether his word was his bond?

[Michael Chaney]

...but this, from the newly-released ABC News transcripts of his ghastly sermons, struck me...

You forgot the double quotes around the word "sermons".

[Barry]

It's all a charade. Appalled and his group could care less about the truth. All they care about is electing more socialists/communists. Every instance of the mis-reporting, the fact that the Democrats all said and believed Saddam had WMD, the fact that Saddam had WMD and used them, none of it matters. Appalled knows all of this, but he will continue to push the tired old memes because that's what they do.

[royf]

It's all a charade. Appalled and his group could care less about the truth.

 Of course its all a charade. Why else would you never ever even hear an acknowledgment of the CIA photos showing truck caravans lined up at the Syrian border just before the invasion. Have you ever heard one of the Dems comment on General Sada of the Iraq Air Force? Of course not after all what would the Commanding General of the Iraq Air Force know about air lifting WMDs out of Iraq.
 

[Jane]

I'm so sick of listening to the looney left on WMD's. Before that, they couldn't open their mouths without saying "Al Gore won the election". I swear, they all have ADD.

[Rocketeer]

"And, Danube, I hope yu are such a believer in expert consensus that you are going to become a big, big supporter of the next Kyoto treaty."

And there we have it, folks. Appalled is terribly confused, which explains the Obama love. Look - he thinks intelligence work has become a hard science, and that what were formerly known as hard sciences base their findings on consensus rather than fact.

[Danube of Thought]

My favorite tidbit about this "consensus" occurred a few months back when Al Gore was bemoaning the fact that it took the scientists so long to reach it. He said something like, "I only wish they had reached it ten years ago."

Note the terminally deceitful politician at work: First, his statement assumes that we all understand, of course, that there is indeed a consensus. Next, he proceeds on the assumption that what "scientists" do is sit around seeking consensus, as opposed to seeking knowledge and truth independently.

I suspect that this comically fat man with the world-record carbon footprint has had no exposure pf any kind to the scientific method.

[kwo]

Appalled wrote...
As for Ayers, we have some incidental contacts. I think if you looked at any other Chicag politician (say, like Mayor Daily), you would see similar incidental contacts. In other words, no big deal.

Wow, did you really compare Senator Obama to Mayor Daly? Is that supposed to help Obama in some way?

And you know David Duke used to be quite the power broker in Louisiana. Didn't see many national Republicans associating with him, even though Duke claimed to be a Republican.

So yeah, when it comes to someone as extreme as Ayers, I'd say guilt-by-association applies.

[Barry]

I swear, they all have ADD.

I often have the same thought. And then I come back to my senses and realize how purposeful the game is played. Ignore all the evidence, ignore the threats, ignore the Anthrax attack, ignore the deaths of 3000 on 9/11, ignore the statements of leading Democrats prior to the attack on the credibility of Bush and WMD, ignore the Clinton administrations goal of regime change in Iraq, ignore the actual evidence of connections to Al Queda in Iraq, ignore the actual WMD and programs found in Iraq, ignore it all. And why would they do this? Because America is not yet socialist enough and is therfore a bad place.

The ends justify the means.

[Appalled]

Barry:

I'm so glad you know exactly what I want. I'm sure it makes your life so easy -- you don't have to listen to anyone -- just the voices in your head.

royf:

Even W doesn't agree with you.

Rocketeer:

Cute turn of phrase. But users of intellignce is supposed to take into account all information -- including that from the ground saying the US hot tips are bunk.

Jane:

Because Bush did not listen to dissenters on WMD before 2003, you have to listen to your political opponents go on about it now.

[Jane]

Because Bush did not listen to dissenters on WMD before 2003, you have to listen to your political opponents go on about it now.

Anyone still bitching about WMD is not informed enough to be a political opponent Appalled. It's as stupid an argument as Gore winning the election and immediately signals that the person pushing it, has no clue.

Just words.....

[Barry]

I'm so glad you know exactly what I want.

You are quite welcome. It is easy to discern. Perhaps you would care to comment on why I might be wrong. Give us your vision of the what the USA should be. And, if you would be so kind, explain how all those leading Democrats thought Saddam had WMD (and voted to authorize the Iraq war), and why the Clintons policy towards Iraq was Regime Change.

[Enlightened]

"Because Bush did not listen to dissenters on WMD before 2003, you have to listen to your political opponents go on about it now."

Actually, no we don't. The same one-trick pony canard, ad nauseum 5 years later, is merely a prime example of why the left can get nothing accomplished. Multi-tasking is an art that the left just can't seem to grasp.

Prying a leftard off a talking point gone nowhere is not worth the bandwidth.

[MayBee]

Bush couldn't afford to get intelligence from the ground about WMD. Iraq had every opportunity to hide things, but that isn't the only reason. We couldn't trust Saddam enough to let him rule without sanctions or no fly zones, and that's exactly what would have happened had the inspectors found no weapons.***

***we never would have trusted those results anyway

[Rocketeer]

"But users of intellignce is supposed to take into account all information -- including that from the ground saying the US hot tips are bunk."

Talk about your cute turn of phrase. Actually, Appalled, users of intelligence is [sic] supposed to take into account credible information. I think we've established that the UN inspection regime was anything but credible...even in the absence of found WMDs - at least found to date. And that is saying something.

[Veeshir]

Okay Appalled, let's say you're absolutely correct.
There were no WMD or WMD programs in pre-invasion Iraq. There were no terrorists, no terrorists training grounds (Salman Pak had an airplane fuselage to train flight attendants), there was absolutely no reason to invade Iraq.

Now what? We're there.
Where to now? That's the question before us.
I'm gonna have to assume your position is the same as this editorial titled:
My Solution to Iraq Is to Never Have Gone There

[Avril]

While I am decidedly not an Obama supporter, I think we need to step back and look at Rev. Wright objectively. Here is an elderly Pastor who is being asked to repudiate everything he has said and taught for the years he has been in the black pulpit. Even for Obama, he is not willing to do this. He must truly BELEIVE that white men are evil and that white men are out to hurt African American citizens.
The more people poke at stick at him, the more riled up he is going to get. Just because Rev. Wright believes these sad,sad things about white America, does not in any way prove Obama is in agreement with him. But I do not think that ALL he has done for Obama can be measured in sermons. There must be a gentle, teaching part of this man that we do not see.
Every older preacher must believe that his life has made a difference for the better in those he has served. I don't think he will deny himself-and I think the more people push him to repudiate his own teachings-the more unkind the results will become.