The Fearsome Power Of The Sith Lord

Demonstrating yet again the fearsome power of the Sith Lord, Maureen Dowd sets out to write a column about Dick Cheney's uncanny ability to bedevil his foes and ends up committing plagiarism.  To her small relief, this will at least distract people from the factual problems in her column.  Her lead:

Dick Cheney has done many dastardly things. But presiding over policies so saturnine that they ended up putting the liberal speaker from San Francisco on the hot seat about torture may be one of his proudest achievements.

Oh, I'm sure he's proud to have brought Ms. Dowd down a peg, too,  and I hope MoDo knows what happens next if she ignores this warning shot.  However, the Sith Lord also threw Ms. Dowd a bit of rope - the plagiarism incident has distracted everyone from the erroneous timeline with which she supported her plagiarized material.  Here is the problematic factual support for the plagiarized conclusion:

In The Washington Note, a foreign policy blog, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff at State, wrote that the “harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002 ... was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and Al Qaeda.”

Well, that was what Wilkerson wrote in describing the interrogation of Qaeda operative al-Libi, but as Thomas Joscelyn of the Weekly Standard pointed out, the timeline is wrong - per reports released in 2005 and covered in the Times, al-Libi had confessed to a Qaeda-Iraq connection by February 2002.  Either enhanced interrogation started even sooner than we believe, or al-Libi confessed to Qaeda-Iraq ties under conventional interrogation [or, as reported elsewhere and noted by Wilkerson, al-Libi was rendered to the Egyptians and confessed there.  Well, I knew that yesterday...] [Misery loves company - Wilkerson has Marcy Wheeler spinning in circles, too.  I say Zubaydah was the compliant one.] 

Since people surely lie on occasion under normal interrogation, the latter is possible.  Or maybe al-Libi was subjected to some early rough stuff - I suppose that it is also possible that the Levin Senate Armed Services Committee report somehow overlooked that al-Libi interrogation.  Levin dates the CIA enhanced interrogation program to Zubaydah in April 2002 and the inception of the military program to the summer of 2002.

That said, Bush did sign a memorandum stating that the Third Geneva Convention did not apply to detainees on Feb 7, 2002.

I am sure that as soon as a lefty blogger posts some clarification of this timeline problem that Maureen will run with it.  Maybe even with attribution.

STILL MYSTIFYING.  Here are the relevant Wilkerson passages:

Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002--well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion--its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa'ida.

So furious was this effort that on one particular detainee, even when the interrogation team had reported to Cheney's office that their detainee "was compliant" (meaning the team recommended no more torture), the VP's office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods. The detainee had not revealed any al-Qa'ida-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, "revealed" such contacts. Of course later we learned that al-Libi revealed these contacts only to get the torture to stop.

The compliant detainee sounds like Zubaydah.  However, al-Libi was handed over to the Egyptians in January 2002 and returned to US custody in February 2003.  The Times has this:

The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition.

By Feb 2002 the al-Libi claims had made it into US intelligence reports.  So the idea that the enhanced interrogation of Zubaydah stopped after the al-Libi confession makes little sense; it would make more sense to say that al-Libi's confession gave a new sense of urgency to the Zubaydah interrogation.  

Well.  I seem to be having a slow brain day, but the Wilkerson claim seems to be that Zubaydah didn't confess to Iraq-Qaeda ties under either conventional or enhanced interogation, even though that was the principal priority.  Information about the LA airport attack and the Garuba cell that was gleaned from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was just gravy.

FWIW, this DNI summary of the High Value Terrorist Detainee program (apparently released in Sept 2006) summarizes a number of plots disrupted by the interrogation program.  Do note, however, that most detainees were not subjected to enhanced techniques; this is a defense of the whole program, not the enhanced program.

KIDDING?  Wilkerson explains the timing issue to Spencer Ackerman:

If their account is the accurate one, explain to me why Tenet and McLaughlin [then the director and deputy director of the CIA] came to Secretary Powell in February 2003–yes, 2003–with the information about al-Libi as if it were fresh as the morning dew. Powell was ready to throw out almost everything Tenet had given him on the contacts of Baghdad with terrorists, particularly al-Qa’ida. Suddenly, on 1 Feb, there was the shocking revelation of a high-level al-Qa’ida operative who had just revealed significant contacts between al-Qa’ida and Baghdad. Powell changed his mind and that information went into his presentation to the [United Nations Security Council] on 5 Feb 2003. We were never told of the DIA dissent.

First of all, is Wilkerson seriously claiming that the Feb 2002 report is bogus and misdated?  As to Tenet and McLaughlin's excitement - think of it as hype and marketing as they tried to dress mutton as lamb.  Presenting Powell with a year-old report that was riddled with caveats may have struck them as less persuasive then waving a document purportedly hot off the fax machine.

Not that I think spies would ever play anyone, or that Colin Powell could get played...

Comments

[maryrose]

Modo has definitely stepped in it with her plagarism and false facts.Another casualty of the NYT meltdown...

[bad]

Let's be fair, TM. Expecting MoDo to know "facts" reported in the Times is a little much. Nobody actually reads the Times.....

[Jack is Back!]

al-Libi lied and MoDo cried. I mean who are you to believe anymore - surely not Cheney, he kept too many secrets. Joe Biden can't keep a secret which should worry us more than Josh Marshall and MoDo sharing the same spit of liberal outrage disguised as a narrative proof agenda.

[Semanticleo]

"the plagiarism incident has distracted everyone from the erroneous timeline"

Uh, Maguire....I believe that's called 'unintended consequences', but I'm sure you'll
accept the bad along with the good with yer usual good nature.

[PaulL]

Wilkerson, interviewed 12/13/05:

Let me put it this way. There were times in this administration where I felt with regard to the national security establishment that Colin Powell was the only sane member of the administration. Under those kinds of circumstances, you don't want leave. ... You want to stay and do damage control.

[bad]

Colin Powell, another example of AA shooting us in the tookus....

[Appalled]

TM:

Check the LUN. Al Libi gave up the Iraq information while under rendition in Egypt.

Wilkinson's story works, if Cheney was trying to get confrmation of a story Al Libi gave up under, um, "Extremely Enanced Interrogation Techniques".

Just because Wilkinson does not have the whole story doesn't mean he is not correct about the Dick Cheney part of the time line.

[Semanticleo]

"....the latter is POSSIBLE. Or MAYBE al-Libi was subjected to SOME EARLY ROUGH STUFF - I SUPPOSE that it is also POSSIBLE that the Levin Senate Armed Services Committee report SOMEHOW overlooked..... "

Holy Moly.

That's a lot of weasel words in one graf.

Doubt creeps in slowly but surely.

Perhaps Maguire's referring to Cheney as 'Sith' is not so 'tongue-in-cheek'.

[Rick Ballard]

Bad,

Lots of people read the Times. If you happen to be staying in one of the hotels where the Times dumps free papers in order to enhance fraudulent circulation figures, you get the Times shoved under the door. Daddy described it happening to him in SF very recently. That's why opening the window in a hotel room before retiring is always a good idea. Waking up to the smell of a fourth rate columnist stinking up a third rate newspaper is very unpleasant.

Daddy was looking forward to awakening to the familiar stench of the Chronicle but it's slightly ahead of the Times in the race to bankruptcy - I don't think it can afford to deliver free papers to drive phony circulation numbers any more.

[fdcol63]

And Pelosi was already fighting a war in Iraq in 2002.

Gawd, these people just can't keep their lies straight.

[bad]

Just because Wilkinson does not have the whole story doesn't mean he is not correct about the Dick Cheney part of the time line.

As I recall, after "Bush lied" was accepted as truth, every other thing Bush said was unreliable.

We really don't want to operate under double standards do we?

[Semanticleo]

"these people just can't keep their lies straight."

Any mirrors in yer neck of the woods?

[Semanticleo]

"every other thing Bush said was unreliable."

You accidentally said something important.

It's about credibility, isn't it?

[Appalled]

Oh, heavens...Wilkinson's explanation of the Standard's refutation is just plain WEAK:

"If their account is the accurate one, explain to me why Tenet and McLaughlin [then the director and deputy director of the CIA] came to Secretary Powell in February 2003–yes, 2003–with the information about al-Libi as if it were fresh as the morning dew. Powell was ready to throw out almost everything Tenet had given him on the contacts of Baghdad with terrorists, particularly al-Qa’ida. Suddenly, on 1 Feb, there was the shocking revelation of a high-level al-Qa’ida operative who had just revealed significant contacts between al-Qa’ida and Baghdad. Powell changed his mind and that information went into his presentation to the [United Nations Security Council] on 5 Feb 2003. We were never told of the DIA dissent."

And what about the timeline — or suggested timeline — in the original post?

"I am basing my conclusions on the fact that DCI Tenet and DDCI McLaughlin presented the information about al-Libi to Secretary Powell in Feb 2003 and not in Feb 2002. The strong impression was that the interrogation had just occurred or, at a minimum, that Tenet had just received the information (otherwise, why wouldn’t they have given it to Powell much earlier, say when he first expressed concerns over the terrorist links some days earlier?). I have no idea when the Egyptians waterboarded al-Libi other than what Tenet and McLauglin implied in their presentation to Powell–which, incidentally, was quite effective on him."

All this from LUN. Crap, I thought I did a better job of reconciling the two stories. It's pretty clear that Wilkinson is simply reporting overheard gossip, and should be accorded as much respect as your average Fleet Strett journalist.

[fdcol63]

So, when Pelosi bases her actions and policies on the "lies" of the CIA, she expects to get a pass.

But when Bush based his actions and policies on the "lies" of the CIA, which according to Pelosi habitually "misled" her and the rest of Congress, somehow Bush doesn't get the same benefit of the doubt?

Instead, she and the Dems have accused Bush of "lying" and "misleading" them and the rest of the country.

Do none of you liberals see the inconsistency here?

[narciso]

They sent him to Egypt, where the Mukharabat
buries you in a box, hangs you on a rusty meathook, and other such delicacies. Not as crude as Waterboarding. Although maybe that's why the DGSE, the SVR, the Egyptian and Jordanian Mukhatabat's did think there were WMD's That's where the President is going to in the next two weeks. I'm actually surprised he was able to live that long after that experience.You are incomparably dense and stupid, Leo, cobalt 60, depleted uranium dense

[Cecil Turner]

Wilkinson's story works, if Cheney was trying to get confrmation . . .

No it doesn't. Part of his central contention is:

The detainee had not revealed any al-Qa'ida-Baghdad contacts yet.

That's false. There's exactly zero sense trying to figure out whether the rest of his supposed mindreading is valid, because it's based on vaporware.

[bad]

Well sure, Rick. The Times gets delivered but is it actually read? Daddy isn't the average bear....

[Semanticleo]

"Do none of you liberals see the inconsistency here?"

It is possible Bush was incurious enough to be punked by Cheney, but that's the best that could be said about Bush.

[Sue]

Powell knew in 2003 that waterboarding was taking place? Wilkerson knew in 2003 that waterboarding was taking place? And Armitage would have resigned had he known it was taking place. These people lie just to lie, don't they?

[Sue]

Am I remembering correctly that Powell fired Wilkerson, or accepted his resignation?

[Buy Nahncee a ticket on a swift boat to California]

Sign the 180! Oops, I mean Release the Cheney Memos!

[J]

wilkerson is one of powell's hitmen, I place no value on anything he has to say.

[fdcol63]

" ... It is possible Bush was incurious enough to be punked by Cheney, but that's the best that could be said about Bush. ..."

Ah, yes. The tired liberal meme of "Bush is a village idiot, the real puppet master is Cheney." (Or Rove, depending on the day.)

[I mean on 'Thors' Day.]

You know, Obama is hiding behind a pending court case to avoid releasing the memos, but he certainly has the power to do it anyway. I think Cheney is going to hammer him about this on Thursday.

[Appalled]

Cecil:

You know, there is an excellent Ellery Queen novel, The Greek Coffin Mystery, that always nags at the back of my mind when one of these situations comes up. Generally, the narrative hook for the story is that Ellery, based on whatever facts of the case he's managed to dig up, comes up with these fantastic deductions at strategic moments during the story which point to a diufferent party doing the murder. Each time, party a, b or c clearly did not do the murder. Finally, Ellery putsall the pieces together,and the murderer is caught.

I think, in cases like this, you get a similar pattern. Folks make broad generalizations from the info that they have that turn out to be bogus. (Like Wilkinson saying the detainee had not copped to Al Q Iraq link, when he had already offered that info up.) But they still have legitimate information that explains a piece of the puzzle. I was trying that idea on for size...

On looking at Wilkinson's refutation of the Standard article, however, it just looks like he is repeating gossip. And I am just going to drop this subject, accordingly.

[Semanticleo]

I sense genuine discomfort.......across the board.

[fdcol63]

And I sense panic and fear among Pelosi and the rest of the Dems.

If the full extent of their knowledge of, awareness of, and acquiescence to the enhanced interrogation techniques that were being used becomes known to the American public, all of their lies and hypocrisy and political grandstanding will be exposed.

[Sue]

Maybe not. Maybe the split came after Wilkerson and Powell were both gone from the Bush administration and Wilkerson, who wrote a letter of resignation but never used it, until he needed to show his displeasure over detainee treatment (what is it with these people?) and Wilkerson claimed Powell no longer spoke to him. Oh well.

[Danube of Thought]

Sorry to go OT, but check the LUN for a succinct description of what has happened to California.

[verner]

Translation, Wilkerson has squat, but the Nation Institute will hang it's hat on anything.

They must be getting the message that the current torture meme is backfiring, so it's back to the drawing board.

By the way, I still believe there were A-Q Saddam links.

1. Saddam was not secular, and was taking a Jihadist turn.
2. Saddam was a known supporter of anti-American terror.
3. Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war.
4. It took almost no time for the Baathists and A-Q to begin coordinating attacks
5. Even before the war, Ossama issued a strongly worded statement of support for Saddam.

Sorry, but I refuse to ignore the evidence that is right in front of my nose.

And I also think that Saddam was ready, willing and able to restart his WMD programs as soon as he could bribe enough UN officials to turn their backs.

And I also think the Ruskies had a year to help him take WMD out of the country for safe storage in Syria-or elsewhere. That might just have been part of the bombing the Israelis just conducted that the Syrians don't want to talk about.

[What? Me, Worry?]

Nevermind that the Democrats are just re-inforcing their already widely perceived wussiness about national security. God help them when the next terror disaster happens. The first question on everyone's mind will be 'What caused the failure of intelligence?'

[bad]

Thanks for that link DoT. Soon we will all be Californians....

[bad]

"The first question on everyone's mind will be 'What caused the failure of intelligence?'"

OOO, OOOOO!!! I know the answer!!!

Bush and Cheney

[PaulL]

Appalled,

It's WilKERson. Quit with the WilKINson!

[Appalled]

I probably should have simply gone with W. But that nickname was taken.

[Sue]

verner,

I always go back to the 90s and how the Clinton administration with the help of the media was convincing us that Iraq was pursuing WMDs. How the SoS for Clinton was asked was it worth 1,000,000 children dying to continue the embargo and she said yes, without batting an eye. How ABC did a special, in 1998, on terror ties and the picture morphed on screen from bin Laden to Saddam.

I have always looked forward to the trials that will never happen. Because if they did, the country would have to accept that the intelligence was shoddy in both administrations or there were ties between AQ and Saddam. It's better for them if the story remains Bush lied, kids died.

[Old Lurker]

Remember when we forced Carol Herman to announce her name at the beginning of her posts so we could page-down past them? Do you think...

[Danube of Thought]

Good catch, Sue. If this truth commission crap ever gets off the ground, I would dearly love to see Armitage under oath. I would volunteer to come out of retirement pro bono publico to do a bit of cross.

[hit and run]

DoT:
Sorry to go OT, but check the LUN for a succinct description of what has happened to California.

And here is the visual, from Pt. Loma Blvd in your neck of the woods:

Sign reads: Ninjas Mugged My Family Spare Change for Kung Fu Lessons Please

It was the Ninjas.

[Rick Ballard]

Bad,

Dunno about that "we will all be Californians". It looks like the voters in CA may force something that looks like bankruptcy (there is no provision in the bankruptcy code for states, AFAIK). Ogabe is going to have GM and California both in his incompetent thieving hands within a month.

If the Wall Street annelids could summon (from an outside source) the courage to utter "no mas" to Team TurboZero's quest for cheap money we would see a shift in the wind rather quickly. OL has it exactly right - accepting less than banana republic rates from a government run as a banana republic makes no sense.

[Cecil Turner]

On looking at Wilkinson's refutation of the Standard article, however, it just looks like he is repeating gossip.

Looks to me like you're about halfway there. It's pretty clear that point isn't true, and it's central to making his case. It's also obvious that he's not writing pieces in the Washington Note and appearing with Rachel Maddow because he's trying to burnish his conservative credentials.

I'm all for charity where the issue is in doubt, but there's little reason for that here. He obviously got caught in a lie, and just as obviuosly wants to try to defend that lie in order to grind his axe in a personal attack against VP Cheney. Searching for some other attribution isn't sensible. Wilkerson is the liar here, nobody else.

[clarice]

I agree, Verner.
I think the notion that one could establish the truth of the sponsorship of a false flag operation to the level of proof required to convict someone for murder is bizarre.

There's no question the first WTC bombing was run out of Iraq with help from the Iraqi secret service. Why was this different? And what was a 727 in Iraq used for training purposes all about..

There's more, of course..including the meeting in Prague which too many are willing to ignore on the flimsiest os excuses.

[bad]

I hope you're right, Rick. But I look at the mountain of debt accumulating and the thirst for more from the DC idiots and I'm less than optimistic.

[Semanticleo]

." Folks make broad generalizations from the info that they have that turn out to be bogus. (Like Wilkinson saying the detainee had not copped to Al Q Iraq link, when he had already offered that info up.) But they still have legitimate information that explains a piece of the puzzle."

Happens in every organization wherein secrecy
(corporate trade secrets, national se3curity)
is employed. Pieces of info are withheld for a legion of reasons, and so a partial truth becomes the whole truth. Semantics, and yer general miscommunications
probably plays a role, as well. In this case we have a pathological compulsion to CYA or keep certain suspect loyalties in the dark. I think Powell certainly qualifies on that matter, so his associates
had holes in their data chain.

[Sue]

DoT,

I made that point to my husband last night. If the rest of the country can't see how Obama's progressive liberal policies will hurt us, we have no further to look than very progressive liberal California. I didn't use the canary analogy. And I didn't put it in writing so I can't claim plagiarism. Just great minds and all of that.

[Semanticleo]

"accepting less than banana republic"

Sheesh, Marmalard.....

Didn't you decry so-called BDS for 7 years?

I think the New OBDS should be named in honor of yer paranoia......

O'BANANAS

[RichatUF]

geez had and written then deleted a comment about Iraq and al-Qeada, so now maybe I can recreate it.

Fitzgerald must have waterboarded al-Fadl before his grand jury testimony in 1998. Curiously, the Farouk Hijazi-OBL meeting in Afghanistan at the conclusion of Operation Desert Fox is also not mentioned. Nor the Iraqi sponsored attempted bombing of RFE/RL in Prague (the attempts were 98 and 01).

[Danube of Thought]

Beautiful pic, Hit--I'm about ready to hop in the car and go over to give that dude a shiny nickel for creativity.

[Semanticleo]

"There's more, of course..including the meeting in Prague which too many are willing to ignore on the flimsiest os excuses."

Or the Israeli surveillance team across the East River on 9/11?

[narciso]

In other news, can James Fallows ever really buy or lease a clue, one of these days, he was sent to Japan to cover the Japanese boom, engineered by the wondrous
industrial policy, of MITI, Von Wolferen
along with Pat Choate, Perot's second VP
believed the same thing, and he missed the
implosion of the bubble, actually he missed
the bubble. After that kind of a foul ball, you would think you would be more cautious in your calls. But no, he seemed prescient in the first part of the Iraq operation, but he was ultimately wrong there, too. His latest is the hosannas for the Notre Dame speech, which as a Catholic, well there are no words.

[Danube of Thought]

Wow--troubling that this one was only 5-4 (Mueller, Ashcroft can't be sued by Mohammedans claiming abuse). LUN

How many can guess the names of the four dissenters without looking?

[Original MikeS]

It made sense to ask high level al Qaeda leaders about their involvement with Iraq, but I never bought into the idea that if a person, group, or country wasn't involved in the 911 attacks they could not be enemies or adversaries of the U.S.

I still agree with 75% of U.S. citizens who, in March 2003, thought the U.S. should depose Saddam Husein. Even though occupation that followed that 3 week war did go much worse than I had hoped, I still think it was one of the most successful military interventions in history, and possibly President Clinton's best idea. I am very pleased to see Saddam gone and Iran bracketed by huge U.S. military bases.

I still agree with the conclusions of the Duelfer Report that Iraq's WMD programs were much more dangerous than had been supposed before the war.

I am still amazed that news organizations with infrastructure designed for, and personnel skilled at acquiring and verifying facts, don't seem to care a whole lot about facts.

[bad]

"I am still amazed that news organizations with infrastructure designed for, and personnel skilled at acquiring and verifying facts, don't seem to care a whole lot about facts."

Original MikeS, Isn't conveniant for O that there are even fewer of these "fact finders" than there used to be. With jobs on the line, finding the "right facts" is more important for "journalists" than ever before.

[Tom Maguire]

OK, I plagiarized some updates based on the material in the comments. That Wilkerson response is comical.

As to why I forgot that al-Libi was sent to Egypt, I am blaming the Day Quil, but prion-based diseases are a possibility.

[Jane]

We really don't want to operate under double standards do we?

Bad,

That really says it all.

[bad]

isn't IT conveniant

[MayBee]

Good catch, Sue.

[bad]

"First of all, is Wilkerson seriously claiming that the Feb 2002 report is bogus and misdated?"

These people lie all the time, TM. Just ask Nancy...

[Original MikeS]

the "right facts" is more important for "journalists"

So true Bad. I don't generally empathize with "journos", but their Obamania has caused me to feel embarrassed for them.

[Ignatz]

-Remember when we forced Carol Herman to announce her name at the beginning of her posts so we could page-down past them? Do you think...-

OL,
Carol was kind of loquacious.
I find the present paramecium to be shortwinded enough that I can actually see its taxonomic classification from the top of the comment and look aside as I pass.

Until TM employs a fumigant it'll do for now.

[Jack is Back!]

We don't have Obama Derangement Syndrome like you reality-based lefties have with Bush, semanticieo. We have what is called pragmatic acceptance of the inevitable corruption of the American psyche and educational experience. He is whoever you guys want to make him but we don't have to accept the agenda or narrative. Move past Bush and Cheney if you can (but you can't since it is more intellectually easier to pursue an negative than it is to prove your so-called positive).

[Semanticleo]

"see its taxonomic classification from the top of the comment and look aside as I pass."

A GWB characteristic that works fine for me.

[Cecil Turner]

In this case we have a pathological compulsion to CYA or keep certain suspect loyalties in the dark.

This ship has sailed. Wilkerson has already had an opportunity to explain the lapse, but instead insists the previous Al Libi confession must not have happened. It's too late to look for an honest explanation.

Any other rhetorical hoops you want to jump through to defend an obvious liar? While you're at it, why not explain Wilson's "twisted intelligence" (that precisely matched the CIA's work product), or his wife's "walking by guy" when faced with an obvious time warp problem?

[Neo]

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) "ought to either present the evidence or apologize'" in the wake of her comments that CIA officials misled her about the use of controversial interrogation techniques on terrorist suspects.

"Lying to the Congress of the United States is a crime," Boehner said ...

LUN

[Semanticleo]

"We have what is called pragmatic acceptance of the inevitable corruption of the American psyche and educational experience."

But that doesn't quite roll off the tongue as nicely, does it?

[Semanticleo]

"It's too late to look for an honest explanation.'

That's teh problem with you people.

You think the truth has an expiration date.

[Old Lurker]

"paramecium"

Word.

[fdcol63]

When the US invaded, Dem politicians assured us we'd suffer mass casualties because Saddam would use his WMDs against us when we crossed the Red Line.

He didn't, either because:

1) We disrupted his command and control systems so much that he couldn't get his order to the appropriate units.

2) The commanders of those units were too afraid of the US response to their use.

3) He had already shipped them to Syria.

4) He never had them.

But if it was #4, he succeeded in convincing everyone - EVEN THE DEMS - that he in fact had them, thus their dire warnings when the US invaded.

[Cecil Turner]

You think the truth has an expiration date.

"You people" just find another disposable personality willing to lie to advance the narrative. Then you all swear that the BS must be true, and change the subject when it fails the most basic fact-check. "Wilkerson/Wilson/Plame/Pelosi, et al, lied . . . nobody cared."

[Semanticleo]

"Then you all swear that the BS must be true,"

What's the expression.....where there's smoke
there's.......nothing to see here. Move along?

[fdcol63]

When a confused, botox-filled head spins around as it says "Does not compute! Does not compute!", is it at risk of imploding?

[glasater]

Don't think it's been mentioned recently but a reminder of Stephen F. Hayes book The Connection is worth another look.
Mr. Hayes lays down a trail of dots between AQ and Saddam.

[Cecil Turner]

What's the expression.....where there's smoke
there's.......nothing to see here. Move along?

There's smoke all right . . . Wilkerson is blowing it up your skirt. And you're just too confused to understand that false accusation doesn't make Dick Cheney a liar, it makes Lawrence Wilkerson a liar.

He didn't, either because:

Those weapons are unsuitable for hitting tactical units in the field, which are also the best-equipped to handle such attacks. US troops are particularly well-equipped (though it doesn't feel like it when you strap on the MOPP gear), and such an attack would be very counterproductive.

[Neo]

where there's smoke there's....... probably illegal drugs

[Sue]

I wonder if Wilkerson could be the "walking by guy"? No, nevermind. He was still in the state department during that time. I so hope Novak has left us with the name of that guy.

[Sue]

But then, UGO aka Armitage, was the source for Novak's column. Wilkerson could have been sent over to see if Novak bit.

[Semanticleo]

"Wilkerson is blowing it up your skirt. And you're just too confused to understand that false accusation doesn't make Dick Cheney a liar, it makes Lawrence Wilkerson a liar."

Cecil;

As usual, you are too narrowly focused. Try to see the big picture. It's not about Wilkerson, as much as yer handlers want to make it so. There is a preponderance of evidence that the books have been cooked. The question is; how far up does it go? no low-level scapegoats, please.

In the land of Myopia, the blind man is King.

[Danube of Thought]

I see the doddering old fool Byrd has been hospitalized. Tut tut...

[Ann]

glasater, That was a terrific book.

Dibs, Dibs, Dibs

[Ann]

Stephen F. Hayes

[cathyf]

Hey, we ALL got mugged by NINJAs (No Income No Job or Assets) and their Liar's Loans.

[Thomas Collins]

OK, DOT, I swear I haven't looked. My guess is that the four dissenters are Rollickin' Ruth, Suave Steve, Jumpin' John Paul and Ducky Dave.

[Sue]

You know, the more I think about it, Wilkerson could be the "friend" of Wilsons that went up to Novak on the street to engage him about a subject that Armitage had been talking to Novak about. Why would Novak so casually talk about what Armitage had told him if he wasn't convinced the person he was talking to was also "in the know" with Armitage?

[glasater]

Ann--he is a handsome fellow for sure. I'll bet he's more than a little bemused why his book wasn't taken more seriously when it was written.
Fox is using him on Special Report from time to time as the "expert" on the former Vice President--aka "The Sith Lord".

[Danube of Thought]

Concerning the origins of the Iraq War, it is appropriate from time to time to remind ourselves that 75% of the congress voted to authorize it in October 2002.

And then there's always this delightful trip down memory lane:

"The [Iraq Liberation] Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:

"committed various and significant violations of International Law,

"had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and

"further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council."

"The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support 'regime change.' The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives and by unanimous consent in the Senate. US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998.

"The law's stated purpose was: 'to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.' Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction.

"Congress found: 'It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.' On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.

"President Clinton stated in February 1998:

"'Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal....'

"--President Clinton ~ 1998"

Remember how the JFK sycophants claimed he had simply "inherited" the Bay of Pigs plan from Ike? It certainly appears that GWB simply inherited his Iraq policy from Clinton and the congress, but unlike JFK he executed it successfully.

[glasater]

Sue--Wouldn't Novak have known who Wilkerson was at the time?

[Sue]

glasater,

Yes. Did Novak say he didn't know who the "stranger" was at the time?

[Sue]

I thought Novak said he didn't know the "stranger" on the street and Wilson were friends.

[Sue]

I'm thinking if it was Wilkerson, Novak will never tell us. Because if it was, it will be shown Novak was used by Powell, Armitage and Wilkerson not Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby. And Novak won't want it to be shown he was used by anyone.

[Sue]

And I will never be convinced Armitage wasn't trying to get this story in the papers. First to Woodward, who didn't bite and then to Novak.

[clarice]

If anyone wants to I called Gourmet on a piece of propaganda and a lefty teacher at a small school took issue with my calling it propaganda..He's asked for a fuller response to be a "teaching moment" for his class.

I have researched the facts and am firmer than ever that this is a bit of propaganda peddled by CIW a Soros operation, but Cecil and others who love to dissect this stuff might be interested in noting for the class the particular techniques involved, some of which I haven't looked at since high school.

The article is here:
http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2009/03/politics-of-the-plate-the-price-of-tomatoes>You say tomatoes, I say Soros

The teacher by the way is published in such places as CounterPunch so you can imagine what the original class discussion on this article was like.

Contact me at [email protected] if you are interested.

[Porchlight]

Sue,

I don't have Novak's book (Prince of Darkness) at hand but IIRC Novak wrote that the man in the street was a stranger to him at the time. He gives a pretty detailed physical description of the guy and he comes off as a short, geeky, clerical, gov't dogsbody type. Novak's story always reminded me of Slugworth in the (Gene Wilder) Willy Wonka movie and that's exactly who Wilkerson looks like, lol.

I'll look it up when I get home and let you know.

BTW Novak's book is totally fascinating reading for anyone who wants to know what actual journalism looked like, back when it was still practiced. I really enjoyed it. I bet you anything Jake Tapper has read and absorbed every word.

[Sue]

Porch,

Ahh...I just hate Wilkerson so much I want him to be the snake. I still find it odd that Novak would just spout off something to a complete stranger.

[bad]

Sue,maybe Novak used "man" loosely and he really spoke with a woman; perhaps an attractive woman....which would explain the loose lips. Novak was beguiled, befuddled and attempting to impress.

[JM Hanes]

Sue:

"I still find it odd that Novak would just spout off something to a complete stranger."

Me too. That part of the story has always made zero sense. If he were a stranger, he would certainly have had to identify himself in some way -- which is presumably the piece that Novak left out.

[bad]

Gee Porch, that info certainly makes my attractive women scenario juuuuust a touch outside.

[Porchlight]

Sorry, bad. :)

It does seem odd that Novak would talk to a stranger like that. But he explains it carefully in the book and, obviously, expresses regret for having done something so unwise. Seemingly the stranger hit a nerve and he reacted in annoyance. He posits it as a "I have no idea why I did this, but I did, and I wish I hadn't" kind of thing.

Goodness knows I've felt that way plenty of times.

[bad]

OT but worth the read. Megan McCardle linked to this NYT story of an NYT economics writer's decline into sub-prime mortgages and massive debt.

One of the first things you notice is that the guy is paying $4,000 a month in child support and alimony.

LUN

[bad]

OOPS, forgot to mention that the economics reporter for NYT with big debt problems and a sub-prime mortgage has a book on his experience coming out next month.

The NYT article is an excerpt from his book. Pretty awesome advertising. Wonder if Geithner will tax him for the value...