quote:Originally posted by Futile Gesture
I’d like december to prove that he is not a secret pie eater. He can demonstrate this by showing us the pies he hasn’t got.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
december—you’ve earned this.
However, when I post stuff like this, I get called a nut.
Of course, I post it all in huge typefonts…
ps–I’m taking a few days off from work, people. And I promise to cool off with the giant type.
Not quite. I’ll give Secretary Powell a LOT more leeway than President Bush when it comes to these things, but this is a long way from “Oops we sure fucked up on that one”
Quote:
Q Mr. Secretary, regarding that erroneous report last January that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium in Niger, does the administration owe Americans and, in fact, the world an apology for making that statement? And should the administration beat Congress to the punch by making a detailed investigation and a detailed explanation of how something so important and so wrong got into a presidential address?
SECRETARY POWELL: I think this is very overwrought and overblown and overdrawn. Intelligence reports flow in from all over. Sometimes they are results of your own intelligence agencies at work. Sometimes you get information from very capable foreign intelligence services. And you get the information, you analyze it. Sometimes it holds up, sometimes it does not hold up. It’s a moving train. And you keep trying to establish what is right and what is wrong. Very often it never comes out quite that clean, but you have to make judgments.
And at the time of the President’s State of the Union address, a judgment was made that that was an appropriate statement for the President to make. There was no effort or attempt on the part of the President, or anyone else in the administration, to mislead or to deceive the American people. The President was presenting what seemed to be a reasonable statement at that time – and it didn’t talk to Niger, it talked specifically about efforts to acquire uranium from nations that had it in Africa.
Subsequently, when we looked at it more thoroughly and when I think it’s, oh, a week or two later, when I made my presentation to the United Nations and we really went through every single thing we knew about all of the various issues with respect to weapons of mass destruction, we did not believe that it was appropriate to use that example anymore. It was not standing the test of time. And so I didn’t use it, and we haven’t used it since.
But to think that somehow we went out of our way to insert this single sentence into the State of the Union address for the purpose of deceiving and misleading the American people is an overdrawn, overblown, overwrought conclusion.
from here, about 2/5ths down the page.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200307100800.html
-disclaimer. I do not pretend to know how balanced allafrica.com’s reporting is, just that this purports to be a transcript of Secretary Powell’s q&a
There’s more, but it seems to me that it’s more of an excuse than an apology.
I find the Bush zealots totally amazing. No matter what the asshole does, they have a ready-made excuse for him.
A war on false premises and outright lies? Hey, no fucking problem, we’ve got it covered. We’ll just make-up Bushit excuses as we go along. With the American public being so gullible and all, one of them will stick.
Sad to see they are probably right.
America: lie about a BJ, get impeached, lie about a war, kill/maime thousands upon thousands of innocents, get re-elected.
Nauseating.
Or this:
The first massive tax cut was an economic failure. Bush’s Administration is forced to stonewall all of the committee’s investigating 9/11 regarding what was known prior to 9/11 happening. Unemployment is the worst it has been in years. Not only is Afganistan not being rebuilt as promised, Osama and the Taliban are still free to operate. Bush’s far-right agenda and unilateral actions have raised resentment and disgust with the Administartion to an all-time high. The trade deficit is enormous. The dollar has lost alot of its former strength. Bush is widely seen as anti-environment, pro-tax cuts for the wealthy, beholden to religious and arch-conservative groups, and widely ineffective in dealing with the corporate scandels of the men who often gave give the Pubbies great sums of money.
Surprised he started wagging the dog? Nope, I am just surprised he waited as long as he did.
BTW:
For the revisionist history Bush Apologistas:
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al claimed actual live WMDs in his hands ready for use against us. Tons of them. Tons!
Oops, we meant “some”
Oops, they are here somewhere-- just wait!
Oops, the Iraqi people must have looted them, yeah that’s the ticket!
Oops, we meant active “programs”- we didn’t actually say that but anybody but liberals knew what we meant. Besides Saddam was bad! And he had oil. Well we will be done there anyday now.
Oops, we meant they were thinking about programs. Or investigating them. I think the evil liberals are hiding the programs too. Oh in regards to the half-ass occupation and rebuilding plan Rumsfeld insisted on: Hey 18 year old soldiers are dying, but “bring them on!”. Please don’t point out all the chickenhawks and “Daddy got we out of the war” types in the Oval Office-- that’s a mean nasty liberal thing to do.
Oops, we meant it was 9/11. That’s it. Thank god I am not Tony Blair. Oops, the mike is still on?
:rolleyes:
Same thing happened with Nixon as well. Unfortunately, things are different now.
Since then, the single-interest groups have only gotten more powerful. Think they care about anything other then their pro-life, pro-gun, anti-union, pro-tax cuts, pro-logging, development and mining without “burdens” agendas? Add in a captive media sector based on pandering to these groups, and very closely tied to the Adminstration and old Tricky Dick would be right proud of Curious George. Looking at the media coverage in England, and the political pressure there versus here is very telling.
Shock and awe indeed.
So were WMD’s the only valid reason to oust Saddam? Is toppling a dictator never acceptable? Admittedly it’s not always feasible to attack any and every country ruled by an oppressive regime. But sometimes it can and should be done. If we never find WMD’s it’s not going to make me think that a brutal regime is acceptable as long as it’s an internal affair.
That is not the point. WMDs were the reason that Bush gave for invasion. It looks increasingly likely that either he was miseld or he lied. If Bush had made the case that we needed to oust Saddam because he was an evil, oppressive dictator, then we would not be having this discussion.
The end does not justify the means.
If we never find them that means they lied to us.
Obviously you are too dense to have a problem with that.
The real question is, how many times do we have to say this before it sinks in?
We’ve repeatedly heard that September 11th caused the administration to evaluate everything in a new light, yet they’ve never connected the dots for us on exactly how that that tragedy necessitated our altruistic liberation of the Iraqi people. Without WMD’s or evidence of WMD’s, the logic gets very twisty.
I won’t address the second sentence except to say that I think when a debate moves to the Pit one should preserve the decencies of debate. Obviously you do not share that view.
If we never find WMD’s it doesn’t mean much of anything. You can’t prove a negative. Do you really think that the Iraqi government would have left their stockpiles of chemical weapons lying about to be easily discovered? I doubt it. I also doubt we’ll ever find anything conclusive.
But we know that the former Iraqi government had chemical weapons in the past, and that they used them to murder thousands of their own citizens. When the murderer gets rid of the gun does that make him any less guilty? Incidentally, if anyone’s interested the links I just gave are not run by Kurds.
Yes, Saddam used NBC weapons to kill people in the past. He did so with the tacit permission of the United States. He has not used NBC weapons since the United States became his enemy, despite far better reasons for doing so than just wanting to kill Kurds (i.e., massive foreign invasion of Iraq resulting in the overthrow of his government). If anything, the fact that we know that he had NBC weapons during and after the First Gulf War bolsters the argument that there was no need for the Second, as the fact that Saddam had not used such weapons suggests he was already properly deterred from using such weapons against the United States.
Additionally, if Iraqi NBC weapons were hidden as well as some are now suggesting, it would suggest that the Iraqi government never had any intention of using those weapons.
I’ve asked this question before on these boards, and as far as I know I’ve yet to receive an answer: if Saddam Hussain was not able or willing to use NBC weapons against the United States to preserve the existence of his own government, why would he have been so eager to use to use them against the United States for the hell of it? Better yet, if he had the opportunity to do so for twelve years after the First Gulf War, why didn’t he?
My thoughts exactly.
The problem with the brutal regime card is that the US has supported brutal, oppressive regimes in the past and does so today. Heck, the US has installed brutal, oppressive regimes. Just take a look at the history of US interventions in Central America over the past hundred or so years for some examples. This is why the ‘Saddam was/is a bad man’ argument doesn’t carry much weight – the US doesn’t overthrow dictatorships out of an inherent sense of altruism. The US more or less sided with Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war.
With regards to the Kurds, the US sold them out in 1975 as part of a rapprochement between the Shah and Iraq, leading to Kissinger’s famous quote, “Covert action should not be confused with missionary work.”
blah
“We know for a fact that there are weapons there.”
Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. "
George W. Bush
January 28, 2003
"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. "
Colin Powell
February 5, 2003
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons – the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. "
George W. Bush
February 8, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. "
George W. Bush
March 17, 2003
"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes. "
Ari Fleisher
March 21, 2003
"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them. "
Gen. Tommy Franks
March 22, 2003
"One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites. "
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
March 22, 2003
"We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. "
Donald Rumsfeld
March 30, 2003
"I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found. "
Ari Fleischer
April 10, 2003
"We’ll find them. It’ll be a matter of time to do so. "
George W. Bush
May 3, 2003
"I’m absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We’re just getting it just now. "
Colin Powell
May 4, 2003
"I’m not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein – because he had a weapons program. "
George W. Bush
May 6, 2003
Not much of anything?
**
I thought we knew where they are? See above.
**
Why not?
Oh yeah because they lied to you there ain’t no fucking WMD!
You know, that little list of quotes would work nicely in the GD.
Where ya hiding Spectre?
I didn’t know the United States was appointed the world’s judge, jury, and executioner. Especially for a guy whom we gave the gun to in the first place.
Self-appointed, of course. Evidenced by Bush setting up military tribunals to try, convict, and no doubt execute citizens of its best allies in the Iraq war: British and Australian.