Asymmetrical Information

Jane, by all means people should criticize the Bush Administration's execution. What is wholly lacking in most people, however, and particularly among Democrats in this election cycle (as it would with Republicans in a different set of circumstances), is any historical perspective regarding the prosecution of wars. The history of warfare, even solely among the victors, is a history replete with foul-ups, snafus, fiascoes, bunglers, crooks, and other assorted human failings. In the end, the only things that counts is victory, and the parties that keep adjusting, and keep slogging through, despite tactical setbacks, thereby dictating events to the enemy, are the parties that more often than not prevail. The stories of a military and a political genius of American history, Grant and Lincoln, repectively, are testaments to the power of slogging through.

Victory in this case should be defined as an Iraq that has some semblance of being governed by consent, and is able to fully exploit it's mineral resources. The war is not lost yet, and adjustments must be made, and likely are (as far as anyone can tell from this vantage point), but it is important to criticize without falling prey to ahistorical defeatism, although I am not saying that you have done that.

I think the lesson many Democrats learned is that such a strategy worked pretty well for the right wing and was therefore worth a try.

1) I have always found it extremely unlikely that someone in the most powerful job in the world would take a huge risk to make a few million dollars for his friends. And that if he did so, he would do it through some crazy Rube Goldberg scheme instead of simple pork.

2) No, really what these accusations are about the refusal by certain parts of society to acknowledge that other points of view exist. It's easier just to ascribe them to greed, especially when one has no idea how companies really make money anyway.

3) Honestly, I'm still at square 1 with Joseph Wilson. He goes to Niger, chats up some buddies, they tell him they don't know about any recent uranium sales to Iraq -- and this proves what, exactly? It's been clear from the start that he's a wildly partisan, disingenuous crackpot, which wouldn't invalidate any data he had but he never had anything. I never understood why we were supposed to be so impressed by him.

Yeah, I have no idea why a couple hundred billion dollars and tens of thousands of lives would be the appropriate subject matter of a "federal case".

Q But, still, those countries who didn't support the Iraqi Freedom operation use the same argument, weapons of mass destruction haven't been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?

THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html

Jane, I do believe you're wildly overreaching. The report in question blows a hole in Wilson's credibility; it says that he was wrong to say that his wife didn't help get him assigned to Niger. But it sure as shit doesn't vindicate Bush.

But it sure as shit doesn't vindicate Bush.

No, of course not. Nothing does, or ever will. The man's evil, I tells ya! Can't you sheeple seee that? Can't you...?!?!

You are simultaneously way too cynical and not nearly cynical enough!

Absurdity has gone mainstream in American Pop Culture.

The very same folks who are skewering President Bush for his alleged faulty prosecution of the War in Iraq would be quadruply mortified if, God forbid, he ever became competent at the process of regime change.

So, the President is wrong for deposing the Hussein regime, and doubly wrong for not having done so enough to be more experienced at it.

We should have had more troops in Iraq. Because of the war in Iraq our forces are spread too thin elsewhere. Wa, wa , wa.

We should have had a better plan. I suppose our enemies would have gone along with our "better" plan more willingly than they did our regular plan, right?

We should not fight terrorism abroad, and we must not limit our civil liberties at home.

I suggest to anyone who honestly is concerned about a breakdown of civil liberties within our borders, that choices must be made, even if you don't feel like it.

The Left elevates politically expedient "victimhood" to an artform; while at the same time works at moving us all further toward the brink of victimhood on a heretofore unimaginable scale.

But that would be the President's fault too, cause he's the reason they're pissed at us, right?

I honestly belive at this point that Progressives should probably stay away from issues concerning national security and the economy and stick to gay wedding planning.

Oh yeah, and the fact that the President did not manage to get the French to sign on to our war against their own business partners proves that he's hopelessly incompetent at diplomacy.

I disagree that the dems have thrown everything they can at Bush. If Clinton would have said, 'When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible' to answer rumors of cocaine abuse, the reps would have pounded away until they got a honest answer. The idea that the best way to pay for 911 and several new wars is with a tax cut recieved little criticism from the dems until the campaigns started. The opening of a White House office for faith based organizations recieved very little criticism. There are much larger incidents that the dems have not addressed at all. For example, the Enron bankruptcy was devastating to a large number of Americans, and very bad for the economy. The DOE and Cheney had met with Enron at Enrons request just prior to the bankruptcy. Bush had stated he didnt even know Ken Laye, but quickly changed his tune when presented with correspondence with Laye in which he used the cute nickname 'Kenny boy'. When you consider the vigor the reps attacked the nickel dime Whitewater land deal, its unbeleivable the dems didnt pursue Enron much harder. For all the supposed activest judges on this Supreme Court, they somehow concluded that making Clinton available for deposition in a sexual harrassment case wasnt the judiciary overruling the executive in violation of seperation of powers, but forcing Cheney to release the Enron minutes was. Yet you hear nothing from the dems.

All pols spin. A good number flat out lie. But all lies arent equal, and the ongoing lies about the war in Iraq are the worst political lies I have ever heard. I was disgusted with Clintons hubris and deception, and wanted him removed. But after the past three years my attitude is bring Clinton back for a third term, all is forgiven.

I was thinking more broadly than just Joe Wilson, Ted -- the British report is about to vindicate the claim that yes, the British government, as Bush said in his speech, believed that Saddam was attempting to buy uranium, a claim that seems to have a lot more legs than you would think if you read the left half of the punditocracy, and certainly seems to vitiate the claim that Bush deliberately misled the American people into war. The report on the CIA also discredits the claim that George Bush knew that there were probably no WMD, but told the nation there were, that being the definition of "lying".

Having claimed that the Bush administration lied us into a war, the left is now spectacularly handicapped in trying to make the more convincing claim that he bungled us into the war, because they've now earned the perception that the left will say anything about George Bush in the hopes that it will help them electorally.

For example, the Enron bankruptcy was devastating to a large number of Americans, and very bad for the economy. The DOE and Cheney had met with Enron at Enrons request just prior to the bankruptcy...Yet you hear nothing from the dems.

1) Three years later, I still don't understand where I'm supposed to see a scandal. What was at the time the 8th largest company in the US (Could that really be right? I must be misremembering.) met with some Bush officials prior to their bankruptcy and the administration refused to bail them out. If that's cronyism, we need a lot more of it!

2) The Democrats aren't overly interested in pursuing an in depth investigation of Enron's political dealings? Gee, I can't imagine why not!

This is my understanding of the Wilson intelligence on Niger. Wilson went to Niger to investigate the possible sale of Uranium to Iraq at the recomendation of his wife. He concluded that the security and sales protocal performed by Niger was very good. There is no mention of anything Wilson stated being inaccurate. Heres the twist, at the time of the report the CIA claimed the Brit intell was bad, and that they had reviewed all the Brit intell in reaching that conclusion. The Brits are now claiming they had another intell source that wasnt made available to the CIA. And still hasnt been made available to the US. It should be noted that this Brit intell claim was made in the same report that stated Saddam could strike the Brits with wmd in 45 minutes time. And it doesnt in anyway change the fact that the documents that started this whole wild goose chase were forgeries provided by Chalibi.

Otter theres no doubt some dems fed at the Enron trough. But between the Bush denial of even knowing K Laye, the Cheney refusal to release the minutes, the fact that some foreign nedia have claimed that UBL getting hold of leaked transcripts of the DOE/Enron minutes accelerated 911, and the size of the bankruptcy and its effect on the economy, you have to conclude the American people should see those minutes. Believe it or not, I would think we are entitled to see those minutes even if it were a dem in the White House. And again, compare Enron to White Water, and if your nonpartisan you reach the conclusion that the Enron bankruptcy is far more worthy of investigation than White Water.

Re Bush put us into war on iffy intelligence.

How can the Dems pound Bush on the Hussein WMD stuff, when they just finished pounding him on why didn't he act (action presumably involving attacking Afghanistan) on the iffier pre 9/11 intelligence, which also in some weird way seemed to become far more 'actionable' the day after Bush took office?

Begbee, without the Independent Counsel Act, there is no tool for the party outside the White House to bludgeon the President with. Combine that with the fact that the Democrats have been in the minority in both houses since Nov. 2002, and prior to that their Senate majority was dependent on Jeffords' caucus, and the Democrats simply haven't had the power to do anything. If they win the Senate back, there will be investigations aplenty, although without the Independent Counsel, Congress really doesn't have the means to put a President through the wringer.

Starr's greatest service to the nation was to drive a stake through the heart of that hideous institution, once and for all.

For Begbee:

Whitewater was not a 'nothing', even if Starr didn't get Clinton, he did put the sitting Governor of Arkansas, Clinton's successor, at the time in the slammer, and noone has said he was railroaded or framed. Enron as far as any govt officials are concerned, is a nothing.

some foreign nedia have claimed that UBL getting hold of leaked transcripts of the DOE/Enron minutes accelerated 911

"Some foreign media" have claimed everything from "Bush orchestrated 9/11 himself" to "soccer is fun to watch, really!"

Next!

Will A you raise a very good point that congressional control had much to do with the lack of a serious congressional investigation into Enron. This was the largest bankruptcy in US history, it robbed thousands of their pensions, where was the so called liberal media? It sure took along time to indict Kenny boy. Btw, I agree that scrapping the independant council was a good thing.

JMCT I didnt call Whitewater 'nothing', I called it 'nickel dime', which referenced the financial size of the two cases. As to 911, nobody suggested attacking Afganistan, only that Bush should have been in DC overseeing the coordination of the various intell agencies. But in the face of the greatest amount of terrorist chatter ever, that had the heads of the various intell agencies 'running around with their hair on fire', Bush went on vacation, without a terrorism policy in place.

It's been said before but I'll say it again: imagine the screaming, handwringing indictments that would have followed the target and arrest of the 19 hijackers, say, on August 23, 2001.

The "Bush Lied" meme has been put to rest. George Tenet and the CIA are blamed for poor intelligence by a bi-partisan commission. I predict the new anti-Bush spin will be something along the lines of: he was President, the CIA worked for him, he should have asked harder questions, he is a moron, incompetent, and thoroughly disqualified to be President of the United States.

Begbee, as these things go, it didn't take that long to indict Lay. He was always going to be the last fish in the pan, and actually, the Justice Dept. has done a pretty good job of gaining convictions in these scandals. Believe me, if Lay has any dirt on prominent Republicans, at this point he'll make sure it gets public. I don't really think it likely that Republicans are any more implicated in Enron's crimes than Democrats; remember it seems as if Rubin was the most prominent D.C. personality to lobby on their behalf. My point about Democrats being in the minority was only that it prevented them from turining it into a three ring circus, which is all that politicians in D.C. seem to be interested in anymore.

The idea that the war and occupation in Iraq has gone badly is simply bullshit when you look at the historical record. By historical standards it has been about the most bloodless (any way you hash the statistics, including civilian casualties, military casualties, casualties as a percent of troops, you name it) and about the quickest (quick assignment for the class: how long before irrepressibly efficient Germans had their first post WWII election or even appointed civil government?) in US history (probably world history, but I'm not enough of a historian to make that call). The "Thunder Run" that took Baghdad will be studied in military academies forever - it was a classic case of indirect warfare.

Read up on Germany, Japan, Korea or Vietnam. Lessons have clearly been learned. Hell, look at Bosnia: six years and still no peace.

When the Soviets tried a similar task in Chechnya in 1995 (see this post over at Belmont Club for details), they lost 1000 men, 120 armored vehicles and 26 tanks in LESS THAN THREE DAYS. They also killed several tens of thousands of civilians by use of conventional munitions. If this were a Democrat's war, the press would be full of these sorts of comparisons, but it's not and Americans don't know any history or any world events, so the media gets away with complete distortion.

If you say something often enough, it will be mistaken for the truth and that's how the "Iraq is a shambles" meme has taken root - even among people who should know better.

Jane, you say you're willing to entertain the notion that the Bush administration was stunningly incompetent. Are you also prepared to accept how brilliantly competent this administration is and has been?

In fact, the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars have been spectacular successes -- as has the Bush doctrine. There's been an unimaginably small loss of life and the course of history has been forever altered (which doesn't mean things might not regress -- especially under a Kerry administration).

You've let the nattering nabobs establish the yardstick. Sure, mistakes have been made. This is always the case. The issues is: how to keep score -- and what's a passing grade.

Remember, Ted Williams -- in his best year -- failed six times out of every ten.

"I feel somewhat vindicated in my repeated insistence that while I was (and remain) willing to entertain the notion that the Bush administration was stunningly incompetent, I am not willing to entertain [...] that Bush & Co. are uniquely venal, dishonest, and manipulative."

At this point it has to be one or the other or both.

So, which is worse?

an unimaginably small loss of life

I don't know about you, but I have a difficult time imagining the impact of 850 dead American soldiers, thousands of dead Iraqis, and 5,000 wounded Americans. These numbers might be "unimaginably small" to Ulysses S. Grant, Douglas Haig, General Zhukov, or Chairman Mao, but not to Americans in 2004.

John I disagree that the early arrest of the 911 hijackers would have resulted in hysterics. I think that in the atmosphere prior to 911 the arrests of 19 possible terrorists that were all foreign nationals would have been no more than a small blurb in the rear pages of newspapers. In any case, politics should never play a role in protecting the country.

Will A I realize that some dems were involved with Enron, but a failure this large demands investigation. I watched the Laye-Larry King interview last night, and I could barely believe my ears. Apparently Enron donated 100 million dollars to Delays redistricting effort in Texas. I think the reps have alot more to fear from a investigation of Enron than the dems.

The idea the war is a success is ridiculous. First, the reason we went in was based entirely on inaccurate intell and deception. It doesnt matter in the least how other occupations compare to Iraq, because we shouldnt be in Iraq in the first place. Iraq is on the verge of civil war, theres car bombs and attacks on Iraqis and US soldiers nearly daily, Falojah and several other cities are entirely controlled by the insurgency, theres hostages being decapitated on video, theres the torture in Abu Grahaib, and this war is a success? The Talaban are back in Afganistan, people are being killed when they try to vote, the hunt for Bin Laden was near completely abandoned in order to attack Iraq, Mullah Omar has slithered under a rock and the narco warlords have tremendous influence, and this is a success?

You seem to think, Megan, that Pres. Bush has bungled the war in Iraq.

Well, what should he have done differently?

The invasion and occupation started about 16 months ago. If I had known 16 months ago what I know now about everything that has happened in my life over the past 16 months, I would have done many things radically different. But I do not berate myself as bumbling or incompetent.

I really do not understand the gist of your criticism of Pres. Bush's war policies. To judge the war, the conduct of the war, we could try to figure out where we are, how we got there, and where we can and should be going. Part of that is looking for and trying to understand mistakes. But other than in a few sensational instances, such as our abuse of prisoners, mistakes are hard to diagnosis and very hard to understand.

And unless Pres. Bush were clearly personally responsible for a particular error, why would any mistakes be held against him in the first place? If I buy a defective product from an outlet of a large corporation, my initial reaction may be a hot feeling of resentment, but that hardly establishes the CEO as incompetent.

Your economic posts, on taxes, deficits, prices, trends, are chock full of nuance and insight. I would love to read a post on the Iraq war where you unleash the full measure of your analytical arsenal.

Count me among those who believe the Afghan and Iraq wars are being measured with a seriously defective yardstick. Before the wars, Bush's critics warned that there would be hundreds of thousands if not millions of casualties. Remember the dreaded Afghan winter that would prevent our taking on the rugged Afghan fighters who had defeated the Red Army? Remember how we were told, before we entered Baghdad, that our troops would face months if not years of house-to-house fighting? None of these predictions came close to being accurate, but these same critics claim Bush is incompetent because he could not plan for in advance every small detail of a war involving millions of people. Planning a war is a lot like forecasting the weather -- except forecasting the weather is far easier and often more accurate.

If we had known in advance what the war would have cost (in lives and money), most Americans would have supported the war. Indeed, most public predictions of such costs were far higher than we actually incurred and most Americans did support the war. Since the war came in "under budget" in this regard, it's only fair to call it a success. Some argue the war was not worth the cost because no war is worth the cost. That may be a fair point of view. But calling Bush incompetent for doing better than was predicted is not fair at all.

America would have never supported the war in Iraq if not for the WMD deception. Bush said Iraq wouldnt be nation building, and it is. Various administration mouth pieces suggested the Iraqi oil would cover the expense of the war in Iraq, its not, the American taxpayer is paying the sealed, no bid reconstruction US contracts in Iraq. The idea that the initial execution of the war plan somehow offsets the failure to find wmd or the disaster that the occupation is, as Mike Tyson would say, ludacwis.

Begbee - I don't agree with your premise that America would not have supported the war absent the WMD deception. First, this American would have supported the war. IIRC, most of us did, according to the polls at the time. It was only AFTER the Congressional vote giving Bush approval to go to war that the Administration started stressing the WMD issue. And it only stressed the WMD issue in a vain attempt to get the UN on board. Before the Congressional vote, several other issues were stressed as reasons for going to war: Iraq failing to live up to its committments under many UN Security Council orders; Iraq funding, training, and supporting terrorists; Iraq's abuse of its own people; etc.

Second, you used the word "deception" in your post. Since the Senate report just concluded that Bush's WMD claims were consistant with the CIA's briefings at the time. (Indeed, Bush's WMD claims were not different than those of his peers in France, Germany, Russia, Britain, etc. You aren't accusing these countries of deception, are you?) Whose deception are you referring to, Iraq's?

D Walser the WMD were the driving force behind this war from the beginning. Consider the State of the Union nuclear material comments, the axis of evil speech, the labeling of Iraq as 'a grave and gathering threat', Powells speech before the UN, the fact that the UN resolutions deal with WMD, the whole terrorist surrogate using WMD argument, despite the fact Saddam had 10 years post Desert Storm to use terrorists in such a way but didnt, or all the tortured language attempting to validate this wars failure to produce WMD.

I use the word deception to describe this administrations use of intell because of the Clintonian parsing of the word lie by this administrations supporters. In not properly vetting the intell from the CIA, by reaching intell conclusions and releasing them to the media prior to reading the CIAs conclusions, by creating a special office for the Iraqi intell headed by Wolfowitz that completely failed to debunk a single wmd claim, by accepting the word of a known liar and Iranian spy in Chalibi, and by only listening to the intell it wanted to hear this administration has established a clear pattern of deception.

David Walser believes that if Bush had gone before Congress in late 2002 and said that the war in Iraq would cost upwards of 800 lives, lead to 5,000 casualties, cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and that as many U.S. troops would be there 15 months later after "victory" as during the heat of the fighting despite an insurrection, Americans would have replied, "whew, that's not nearly as bad as we thought it would be! Bring 'em on!"

Seriously, what event in the last thirty years of U.S. History is going to weigh AGAINST our experience with Kosovo, Gulf War I, Panama, and Grenada, to prove your hypothetical? Why did the Administration rush to overrule the one person who did make a reasonable guess at the financial cost of the operation, Larry Lindsey? Where is the evidence that anyone in the Administration thought we'd have 150,000 troops in Iraq eight, twelve, or fifteen months after the capture of Baghdad?

We are all welcome to whatever suppositions or wishes we need to make it through the day, but not all of them are equal when judged for believability.

Begbee - do you have any proof of what you claim? I firmly believe that you have chosen to despise Bush, and therefore make up "facts" to justify your position.

I'd like you to prove that Bush claimed he didn't know Ken Lay. I think you made it up.

I'd like you to show how America only supported the Iraq war because of the administration's claim of WMD. I think you made it up.

I'd like you to show where the administration said the war would pay for itself with Iraqi oil.
You see, that WOULD have made the war about the oil, which it was not. So I think you made it up.

I'd like you to prove Enron gave Tom Delay a hundred million dollars for Texas redistricting.
Because I think you made it up.

I'd like for you to prove that the hunt for bin Laden was "near completely abandoned" to start the war in Iraq. Because I think you made it up.

I'd like you to drop the nonsense about "Bush went on vacation" while there was terrorist chatter. Do you think he is not President when he is in Crawford? Or are you just making it up?

And I'd like for you to review the 16 words about African uranium in the President's State of the Union speech. Because what he said was that British intelligence connected African uranium to Saddam. Which turned out to be correct. Or are you going to make up something else?

One of the two major contenders for President in the next election said this in November 1997:

"We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation."

John Kerry
November 1997

Gee. I hope he hasn't LIED!!!

Brittain33 - What we have done in Iraq has NEVER been done before. Our military took more territory, faster, with fewer casualties (on both sides), than has ever been done by anyone. In a little over a year since we took that territory, we have established a new government with elections. Never has a conquered land been returned to its people so quickly. Come on! There are lot's of reasons not to like Bush. The conduct of this war is not one of them. You might not like the fact he took us to war, but as wars go, this one has been spectacularly successful. By any historical measure, we had no right to expect things to have gone as well as they did.

First, reason I think your an angry little rep with a nasty, repetitive tone.

The clip in which Bush claimed not to know Ken Laye first appeared at the time the Enron bankruptcy first went public. Im also sure theres a reference to the Bush denial of knowing Ken Laye and actual copies of some of their correspondence at the Smoking Gun.com.

The public would have never supported this war without wmd. Your boy called Iraq 'a grave and gathering threat', are you actually going argue that statement holds up without Iraqi wmd? Oh shit, here comes the Iraqi Navy and Air Force to storm the continental US. He also said if we dont do something now we could have a mushroom cloud over an American city. This argument is pathetic, and so is your ability to reason.

Wolfowitz stated that as soon as the knew oil field equipment was installed, Iraq would be pumping out 50 billion in oil a year. That number was used in estimating the future cost of the occupation. But later we learned that if we took the money from the oil the Iraqis would have the right to determine the contractors, Bush decides to keep his big energy buddies happy and working, so he decided to give Iraq grants at the expense of the US taxpayer.

If you want to hear Ken Laye confirm that Enron gave 100 million to Delays redistricting of Texas watch last nights interview with Larry King. Shocked the hell out of me, but I guarentee that what was said.

The hunt for Bin Laden was nearly completely abandoned because when we had UBL boxed in at Tora Bora we withdrew all but 11,000 troops to attack Iraq. It takes more than 11,000 cops to police Manhatten, it sure wasnt enough to find Bin Laden. We increased the stupidity by using Afgan soldiers that were fighting against us 2 weeks earlier to hunt UBL.

You cant make sure intell on the Hill is being shared if your in Crawford 'working the land'. You sure as hell shouldnt be on vacay without a terrorism policy in place. Im sure the 6 months on the job was very stressful for a person of Bushs limited intelligence, but I think hes been on vacy 43% of his term thus far.

The 16 words are a big fat lie. The Brits saying they have another source for the intell doesnt matter much even if its somehow true. The documents that started the whole thing are known to be forgeries. Thats why the CIA wouldnt be sourced for the SoU. Do you know how stupid it is to argue that while the whole reason the investigation started was indeed a forgery, but by sheer chance the Brits found another intell source that says Iraq was trying to buy Niger Uranium, this source is reliable, but we're not going to say who this source is.

David Walser we took Iraq as quickly as we did because there was little resistance. And dont forget, hardly any of the Iraq military were captured or surrendered. The reason taking Iraq was easy is the lack of resistance. The reason occupying Iraq is so hard is that Iraqi military is a major part of the insurgency.

There isnt even a schedeled election in Iraq yet.

There isnt even a schedeled election in Iraq yet.

Neither has there been a scheduled Presidential election here, yet, even though this is an election year. Therefore, Bush is the dictator of America.

Or, one imagine that scheduled elections haven't occurred...yet, because the schedule doesn't have them occur until later.

Begbee -

So far you've repeated repetitious repetitions.

And you still haven't provided a source for anything.

If you want me to believe you, please don't go with the go-look-up-your-own-source-for-my-claim stuff. If there's a reference at SmokingGun, go find it. It isn't MY duty to provide evidence for your claim.

And I looked through the CNN transcripts of the Larry King Live program with Ken Lay. (If you want to be credible in attacking a man, at least spell his name correctly.) This is what I found:

KING: Today's "Washington Post" reports that Enron, part of investigation of Tom DeLay's corporate fund- raising, that he raised $100,000 from Enron to support the redistricting plan that he had for Texas.

Is that true?

LAY: I honestly don't recall that, Larry. And I wouldn't deny it either, because we were a supporter of Tom DeLay's through the years, but I just don't recall that particular contribution or even that particular campaign. And keep it in mind that a lot of that happened after Enron's collapse. I mean, obviously it was kicked off in 19 -- with election, I guess, in the year 2000, but really didn't get done until -- as you know, until just a few months ago.

KING: So, it may have been -- it may be true?

LAY: It may be true. I just don't know.

KING: You also served, is this true, on the board of Mrs. John Kerry's -- one of her foundations?

LAY: Well, it's The Heinz Center in Washington -- The Heinz Center...

KING: Her late husband...

LAY: ... for Economic Science and the Environment. And I participated in setting that center up. I mean, I was one of the founding directors. I was working with some other good friends, primarily in the environmental community in doing that. And of course, that center was set up, as you know, in honor of... KING: Late senator.

LAY: ... of the late Senator John...

KING: Are you friendly with Mrs. Heinz? Well, the former Mrs. Heinz -- Mrs. Kerry?

LAY: I'm very -- I am friendly with Ms. Heinz. I mean, I'm not against -- been contacting her recently, but I was still on that board up until a year or so ago.

And I think it's a great center and doing some great work and was pleased to serve on that.

KING: You like her?

LAY: I like her very much.

KING: Did you leave the board?

LAY: I left the board. I had offered throughout, ever since Enron's collapse, to step off the board. And I think as -- I kept talking to the chairman of the board, and we finally decided it would be in the center's best interest that I step off the board.

So I guess that not only were you wrong in what you remembered, you ignored the fact that Ken Lay financially supported a foundation with John Kerry's wife. I guess you were so "shocked" to hear Lay supported DeLay's redistricting for a hundred THOUSAND dollars that you conveniently heard a hundred MILLION dollars, and didn't hear the Kerry connection.

And you mention Tora Bora, and troops being withdrawn to attack Iraq. Do you even realize when you make up crap? Tora Bora was in late 2001, and the war in Iraq started in March, 2003.

You mention people wouldn't have supported the war without WMD. Of course, you offer no proof for this claim. There are plenty of people who supported the war simply because they considered it unfinished from 1991 - regardless of WMD. Conversely, there were plenty of people (Ted Kennedy, for example) who believed there were, in fact, WMDs in Iraq, but were against the war. The WMD issue was ONE issue, but certainly not a decisive issue on either side.

Here are the 16 words you call a "big fat lie": "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Turns out those words are still correct, and the British stand by their report. Where, exactly, is the lie - except on the part of Bush's detractors?

SO you've called me a nasty, little rep.

In fact, I'm an independent thinker who refuses to be pigeonholed by a label. I prefer reason, facts, and evidence instead of insults. I appreciate all who do the same.

The idea I intentionally misled as to the Larry King comments is absurd. The show was on national TV yesterday, do you believe I didnt think anyone here saw it? There was no reason for me to mention Layes business with the Heinz center, there is no direct benefit for Enron there, but there is huge potential benefits for Enron with the Texas redistricting.

The search for Bin Laden should have been the primary military goal until Bin Laden was captured. Tora Bora references an area we are still in today. We reduced our troops in Afganistan because of Bushs plan for Iraq. We had to budget resources, and even now we must use soldiers in areas they are untrained in, and extend the service of many who want to leave the service to continue the occupation in Iraq.

You have no problem with out and out lying. This war was sold with the threat of wmd and nothing else. What were the UN violations about? Again, the documents that started the whole Niger Uranium investigation are still forgeries. We have no idea what Intell the Brits have, if its conclusive evidence of a Iraq Uranium connection, why hasnt it been released?

My bad on the personal attack, but your 'I think you made it up is ott.

I disagree with the idea I must prove my point with a source. I think the person who doubts the veracity of the claim can either prove it wrong or ask for a source. If you go to The Smoking Gun and do a search on Enron theres several articles that show the Bush/Lay correspondence.

Where can I find the Larry King transcript?

Jane:

For those playing at home, the score is, what, Anti-war Dems - 6000, Bush Supporters - 1? Remind me again why our credibility (or judgment) should worry about its virtue?

If you can't see how horrible, useless, and incompetent this Admin is by now, you're not going to, so let's not sweat it. Do something on the Lakers/Heat trade, for example. I think the Lakers might have made the right call over the long term.

Begbee-

Of course you have to prove your source - and not just any source. For example, you cannot prove your point with some opinion article from the Nation. Prove it with fact.

To make a claim is easy. To convince anyone but yourself generally takes a reliable, verifiable fact. Mother Jones or High Times won't do.

www.spinsanity.com generally tries to discern truth from spin. A reputable newspaper article - not opinion page - is usually acceptable.

And the Larry King/Ken Lay transcript is available at http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/12/lkl.00.html

Frankly, I refuse to search for sources to prove your points. I have neither the time, nor the willingness to accept your viewpoint if you are unwilling to invest any energy in supporting it.

And I'd guess Tim is using the Florida math to conjure up the totals for the "score." In fact, I find that Anti-war Dems have a score of roughly zero - basically, because we hear a lot of tired, useless claims without factual evidence. Repeating a lie a thousand times still results in a lie.

From London's Financial Times, June 28, 2004
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&cid=1087373567507&p=1012571727102

Illicit sales of uranium from Niger were being negotiated with five states including Iraq at least three years before the US-led invasion, senior European intelligence officials have told the Financial Times.

Intelligence officers learned between 1999 and 2001 that uranium smugglers planned to sell illicitly mined Nigerian uranium ore, or refined ore called yellow cake, to Iran, Libya, China, North Korea and Iraq.

One of the other countries seeking uranium at that time, Libya, was granted renewed diplomatic relations (less than full diplomatic ties) with the US just yesterday, based on Muammar al-Qaddafi's promise last December to dismantle his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, and the opening of his country to inspections.

I think it is obvious to the majority of the American public that if the "anti-war Dems" would have been in power, Saddam Hussein would be also.

Oh, but John Kerry and John Edwards voted FOR the war.

Guess you'll probably be voting your conscience - and voting for Nader.

Yeah, nothing scares me more than the idea that Saddam would still be a tinpot dictator with an army 1/4 as strong as it was 10 years ago and no nukes (or bio or chem weapons as it turns out). And all we'd have back is 800+ American lives, a few thousand soldiers still whole, a couple hundred billion dollars, a stable Iraq, and our credibility with the rest of the world. That would suck.

SomeCallYouTim - Is that going to be Kerry's campaign theme, "Had it been up to us, Saddam would still be in power"? Recall that, not very long ago, Russia said it had had several reliable reports before the war that Iraq was trying to foster terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Recall also that the Senate report just issued concluded that, while Iraq may not have had stockpiles of WMD, Iraq was actively seeking to obtain such weapons. And, finally, recall that before 9/11, France, Germany, and Russia were trying to get the UN sanctions lifted. Do you really want Kerry to run on the notion that we would be safer in a world with an Iraq run by Saddam -- that is, one that is actively sponsoring terrorism and that is (free of sanctions) using its oil wealth to accumulate WMD? Three words: Bring! It! On!

Of course, I'd prefer having all the Coalition lives back. And Iraqi, too, for that matter.

Saddam: Built nuclear reactors while sitting on the second largest oil reserves in the world (bombed by Israelis 1981).
Saddam: Harbored Abu Nidal, known terrorist.
Saddam: Chemical weapons used to kill thousands.
Saddam: Murdered his son-in-law after luring him back from Jordan. The son-in-law had described the biological weapons program, and the United Nations destroyed known quantities.
Saddam: Openly and defiantly actively sponsored Palestinian bombers of Israeli civilians and western tourists.
Saddam: Subject of a 1998 law signed by Bill Clinton declaring regime change in Iraq as policy of the United States.
Saddam: Frustrated UN inspectors. Purpose of UN was to witness destruction of list of wmds, not to play detective and find them.
Saddam: Well, there's more, but if this is the guy you'd still want in power, then prepare to defend this concept to the remainder of the American public. Because the rest of us aren't buying it.

Reason-

I dont care what you accept as proof. Your so partisan you attempt to argue wmd wasnt the cause of this ridiculous misadventure of a war. You deny the US sale of wmd to Iraq when its long accepted fact. Take your oh so intellectual list of an acceptable source and ram them up your...

Enough spin on Niger Uranium. We've gone from Joe Wilson was wrong on current intell, to suddenly some bogus claim on intell thats now over 4 years old, supposedly covertly leaked to the media. Your going to lecture me on acceptable sourcing when you use this bullshit as a source? To justify a huge mistake of a war?

I know you reps are feeling a large surge in compassionate conservatism feeling since there was no wmd, but most of the US now views this war a mistake. Try to demagouge Saddam into Hitler all you want, but with each explosion in Bahgdad, with each assassination in Mosul, with each American soldier returned in a casket, it becomes more clear that Saddam was exactly what Bush sr called him, 'the lesser of two evils in Iraq'.

David:

Let's separate out politics and policy. I want Kerry to say whatever he needs to say to get elected. If it's "I've seen pictures of George Bush having sex with the cadavers of black men," so be it. Politicians lie, Jane has already stated what I take to be the Republican position - all lies are equal -, and I am unwilling to lose to this collection of morons because Dems believe there is a level below which we shouldn't sink.

And once he is elected, Kerry will do exactly what Bush would do - have us prance around for the cameras for a year, declare victory, and leave. And Iraq will end up in the warm embrace of its new strongman leader.

Reason:

Saddam: Built nuclear reactors while sitting on the second largest oil reserves in the world (bombed by Israelis 1981). - great, Israel handled it for us, and we got what we wanted while all the anger was really focused on them. We should have done the same thing here. It's not like any Islamic terrorist group would deploy nukes (the only WMD that matter) against the US before they used them against Israel. (And Israel would respond appropriately).

Saddam: Harbored Abu Nidal, known terrorist. - from what I see, hasn't been active since the 80s, so who cares? And, as far as I can tell, never targeted Americans, so who cares?

Saddam: Chemical weapons used to kill thousands - of Americans, right? Oh, no? Then it's sad, but I don't care enough to go to war over it.

Saddam: Murdered his son-in-law after luring him back from Jordan. The son-in-law had described the biological weapons program, and the United Nations destroyed known quantities. - terrible, terrible. Who cares? (Was the son-in-law a good guy or something? I don't begin to understand this one).

Saddam: Openly and defiantly actively sponsored Palestinian bombers of Israeli civilians and western tourists. - very sad, but Israel is pretty good at taking care of her interests. And the nice thing about it is, they often twin with ours, and Israel deflects a lot of the blame from us. So, ultimately, sad but not our problem.

Saddam: Subject of a 1998 law signed by Bill Clinton declaring regime change in Iraq as policy of the United States. - seriously, are you kidding me? Polititians say things that are untrue or on which they don't act all the time. I don't really care unless they try to act on it. Otherwise, let them pretend they care about kids, dogs, and old people.

Saddam: Frustrated UN inspectors. Purpose of UN was to witness destruction of list of wmds, not to play detective and find them. - oooh, made job more difficult for UN inspectors. I wonder, randomly, whom the UN inspectors would consider more of a pain in the ass, Hussain or the guy that rushed them out of there, George Bush. Hmmmmm.

Saddam: Well, there's more, but if this is the guy you'd still want in power, then prepare to defend this concept to the remainder of the American public. Because the rest of us aren't buying it. -Well "the rest of us" except for Snowcroft and the rest of the Bush pere team, right? And all the other foreign policy experts who wrote editorials to the effect of "please, dear God, no." And, it turns out, an increasing number of Republican senators, IIRC.

Look, I'm an American. Those are the interests I'm looking to protect. I think its nice that you want the world to be a shiny, happy place. But I think it would be cheaper for all of us, and ultimately more useful, if you just sent a check to Sally Struthers.

Tim, that isn't what I said. I said that if you justify telling random lies because politicians from the other side are lying, then you've given everyone else on the other side carte blanche to tell exactly as many random lies as you do, because guess what? All the politicians on your side tell lies too! About major issues! That people really, really care about!

The absurdity of the responses defies understanding. I already told you I wasn't a "rep." Your quest to stereotype me will prove fruitless - and more importantly, is irrelevant. Because the issue certainly isn't me, and I resent it when contrasting viewpoints turn personal. PROVIDE CREDIBLE SOURCES to dispute what I say - that is simply all I ask.

And no, it isn't sufficient to say "enough spin" on the uranium/Africa question. For the past year, Democrats have been pounding the Bush administration on the basis of the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson Niger uranium story, and now that he is shown to be a partisan hack (and yes, in theme with this thread, a liar) you want to drop the story. Well, truth doesn't work that way. The truth is Iraq sought uranium from Africa, and Joe Wilson missed it. The British didn't.

Robert Novak started this story by claiming a Bush administration official said Valerie Plame assigned Joe Wilson (her husband) to do this job in Niger. The media instantly jumped on it as a way to bash Bush, because that, of course, uncovered Plame as a CIA employee.
Wilson denied his wife's connection (lie), and now his lying is a story.

Read Novak's current column: http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak15.html

And Tim, it saddens me that any American would take solace in the concept that a terrorist regime would probably attack another country instead of ours.

The fact is this: terrorists DID attack our country.
Fact: Saddam actively developed WMDs, and did not hesitate to use them.
Fact: Our society prides itself on its openness, and therefore IS a target, whether you think there is another country to get hit first, or not. (Or did planes fly into skyscrapers in Israel before they hit here, and no one noticed?)
Fact: The President of Russia stated he gave multiple warnings to the United States about planned terrorist attacks by Iraq against our country.

Connect the dots my friend. We ARE at war, and burying your head in the sand is not a good defensive posture.

Jane:

" I said that if you justify telling random lies because politicians from the other side are lying, then you've given everyone else on the other side carte blanche to tell exactly as many random lies as you do...."

I'm afraid I don't see the distinction you're drawing. We're agreed that all politicians lie. You are saying if we justify our guy's lies, then we can't complain about the other guy's lies. But this is only true if we don't distinguish between different types of lies. If we can, we can say "My guy lies in acceptable ways, and yours doesn't." Hence the all lies are equal bit. Maybe you're saying all policy-related lies are equal? Then my above lie about Bush is out b/c it's personal (though they've told personal lies about McCain). Is that it?

It doesn't seem crazy to say there is a gradation in lying, just as there is in crime.

Reason:

I don't want Israel to get nuked. I don't want anyone to get nuked. But if a nuke is going off in some country, and the choice is ours or another, I will always choose the other (be it Israel, France, UK, etc). I frankly doubt anyone would nuke Israel, because they would respond forcefully with their own nuclear weapons. I was saying that our risk of getting nuked is substantially less than that of Israel, and the risk of Israel getting nuked is relatively small given the obviousness of their response. So I worry a lot less about a nuke being released in the US. (Though a lot more, now that we've invaded Iraq).

I'm not disputing that terrorists attacked the US. You may have heard that they've been attacking Israel for a while before that. I was arguing that a nuke is probably a special case, b/c you really only get to do it once. After that, either we or Israel start taking entire countries off the map, and thus limiting (a) the terrorists popularity, and (b) their bases. Does anyone really doubt that we would have responded with nukes if 9/11 had involved a nuclear bomb? And we would have heard precious little complaint from the rest of the world about it?

We've developed WMD, and didn't hesitate to use them. Remember the Hiroshima? (I don't think we were wrong to do it, either).

We may well be a better target than most for terrorism, but state-sponsored terrorism means we know where to go to exact revenge. That's a pretty good limiting function on the type of terrorism that states will engage in against the US.

Now we're taking policy directives from the Russians? Well, we did it from Chalibi (and maybe the Iranians), so I guess that's to be expected with this crew.

The point is, the WOT (as opposed to the war on Al Qaeda) must be, primarily, an attempt to communicate a point to everyone else. We can't wipe out terrorism, b/c it's a strategy or an idea. So we say that if you are involved in terrorism attacks like 9/11, we will reduce you to rubble. But the point gets lost when you start attacking countries with no connection to 9/11 because they're bad guys. Now our message seems to be "Hulk angry. Hulk smash." Maybe accurate, but I can't see how it helps us.

reason Ive provided multiple, credible sources for reasons as obvious as the search for wmd being the primary US stated goal of this war, and the previous US sale of wmd to Iraq. You cried for sources on widely accepted fact, you got them, but you still whine. This isnt academic writing, lack of footnotes on widely accepted facts is a silly complaint, especially after I provide sources as solid and varied as CBS news and Scoop.

Joe Wilson missed nothing. He wasnt tasked to directly investigate all aspects of Niger-Uranium-Saddam, but to use his diplomatic connections as a former ambassador to get intell from the Niger Govt on attempted Iraqi Uranium purchases. The diplomatic connections are the entire reason his wife supposedly suggested him for the job. There is still not even an accusation of an actual sale of Uranium to Iraq, so how can Wilson be wrong? The Wilson aspect was never a major factor in criticizing the 16 words, the criticism was over the fact the Iraqi Uranium documents were forgeries, the CIA refused to be sourced, and Bush still used it in the SoU. It is completely meaningless that some unnamed foreign intell source leaked this 4 year old, unsubstantiated, supposed Iraqi attempt to purchase Uranium to the media. I cant believe with how bad the intell has been in Iraq, you expect us to believe an unnamed foreign intelligence leak to the media to be reliable, or even worth talking about.

Trying to parallel the use of atomic weapons by the United States to the actions of a fascist dictator who sponsors terrorism openly is weak.
There is no moral equivalence there.

In addition, your premise that Israel would retaliate for a nuclear explosion, therefore a nuclear explosion is unlikely is weak, too. Suicide bombers don't care if they die.
Tracking an ICBM to its source is no big task; finding an appropriate target to bomb in the case of a nuclear weapon stowed on a cargo container and sailed into a major port is another.

In addition, I never said we were taking "policy directives from the Russians." When you start attacking an argument I didn't make, I take it you are having difficulty addressing my point.

Your point about state-sponsored terrorism giving us a state to attack is far closer to the truth than you realize. For Iraq was undeniably a state sponsor of terrorism, and did, in fact, give the leaders of our country a state to attack.

The 1993 World Trade Center bombers got their passports from Iraqi-occupied Kuwait. Does this mean that Saddam had something to do with the 1993 terrorist attack in New York City? No, but it does suggest a connection between the Iraqi government and the bombers. After all, after the Iraqis invaded Kuwait, who was the country who led the coalition against Saddam? How many passports were issued for travel to the US during that time?

I see no distinction whatsoever between the war on terror and the war against al Qaeda. If a nation harbors terrorists, allows the operation of terrorist training camps, and defies seventeen United Nations resolutions demanding compliance, then changes are in order.

Of course terrorism is a strategy or an idea. And it is best defeated by giving people freedom to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And if that means removing a dictator who cuts the tongues out from people with whom he disagrees, so be it.

Begbee -

You've provided nothing. Not one source. Zip. Saying "go use Google" doesn't do it. Posting words like "CBS News" is inadequate. Give me a credible source, and I'll eagerly change any erroneous view.

Your "widely accepted facts" are repetitious phrases from the Democratic National Committee talking points. They mean nothing without substantiation.

And why do you ask me "how can Wilson be wrong?"
Your asking of that question implies you have NOT read the current Novak column I linked earlier. You should, because it was last summer's Novak column that started the whole discussion about Wilson and his wife and Niger and the uranium and the documents.

Wilson can be wrong because - consistent with this thread topic - WILSON LIED!!!

The fact that a foreign intelligence source got it right while the CIA didn't seems to surprise you. Why?

There is zero proof Iraq has sponsered terrorism. The most convincing claim I heard of such a thing was Iraqs paying of traditional alms to the families of those Muslims who died in a jihad. If that is state sponsered terrorism, Turkey is a terrorist state. The idea that Iraq is responsible for Kuwaiti passports is ridiculous, and beyond that, what evidence is there that any Kuwaiti passports were issued on orders by the Iraqi government? And if you dont think Israel would immediately retaliate with nukes against anyone that nuked them first, your nuts.

Im not trying to prove anything to you reason. Your consistant whining over sources for accepted fact is typical of reps in that you cant attack the facts, so you attack the messenger. Beyond that, you lie about the information provided in the sources I have offered. You claim I used very general labels on sources, while the truth is Ive given detailed sources. For example, I didnt just post 'CBS news' previously, but also the title and date of the article.

For a guy that complains so much about sources, you dont seem to have much of a standard for your own. Novak is a far right op/ed columnist, and as such clearly has a stake in this story. Beyond that, he started this story and unethically revealed the name of a CIA operative. If Wilson lied about anything it was his wifes recommending him for this investigation. But there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Wilson lied about anything reguarding the investigation of Iraq and Niger. The fact is the documents that started this whole investigation remain forgeries.

I dont believe any foreign intelligence source exists. Even if it did happen I dont believe the veracity of some unnamed foreign intelligence leak to the media to be proof. The intell on Iraq has been nearly all wrong if we are to believe the reps, its hilarious you now suggest some unnamed, uncorroberated, foreign intell leak to the media should be accepted as fact.

Begbee - No proof Iraq was supporting terrorists? Only "traditional alms" for the families of suicide bombers. There were terrorist training camps in Iraq, one complete with the fuselage of a jet airliner for training on how to hijack a plane! What were those camps for, if not to support and sponsor terrorism? Unlike the Sudan and Afghanistan, which could make some claim that there were areas of their countries that were beyond government control, those camps could not have existed in Saddam's Iraq without his approval. The same goes for the passports issued by Kuwait when it was under the control of Iraq. Saying Iraq was not responsible for them is the same as saying Germany was not responsible for the actions of the French government in 1943.

As for the payment of sums to the families of suicide bombers, the payment was over $10,000 per family -- more than the typical Palestinian makes in a lifetime -- which is a lot more than "traditional alms"; it's a bribe. This is particularly true since Saddam announced, in advance, that he would pay this bounty to the family of anyone who was a suicide bomber. If my son were to die in an automobile accident, and if my neighbors decided, in his memory, to pay for his sisters' college educations, you might call that a nice gesture. On the other hand, if the local mayor were to announce a city program that would pay for the education of the siblings of anyone killed in a automobile accident, you might call that an incentive for young kids to kill themselves. And you'd be right! Saddam's program was designed to help recruit MORE suicide bombers, NOT help out grieving families.

The Senate Intelligence Committee report that was just released concluded that Iraq did not have a "formal" relationship with al Qaeda. That's true. Saddam most likely did not have a formal relationship with any terrorist group -- just as there was no formal relationship between organized crime and Las Vegas casinos in the 1950s. Only a fool or the willfully ignorant could look at the evidence and conclude there was no relationship, formal or otherwise.

Begbee - You remind me of someone voicing an opinion on a topic he's not bothered to study, for it's clear you have not been paying attention. Novak may be a conservative author, but he was against the Iraq war! His motives are far from clear on this matter. Regardless of his motivation, his version of events has been confirmed by the Butler report and by the Senate report. Both concluded that Wilson lied about his wife's involvement in sending him to Niger AND about what he found there. Far from quieting any concern about Iraq's trying to acquire yellowcake, Wilson's trip increased concern among US analysts. In Wilson's NYT editorial, he claimed he found no evidence Iraq was tying to acquire yellowcake from Niger. He just forgot to mention the fact the former Prime Minister had told him that an Iraqi official had met with him to try and increase commerce between the two countries. The PM told Wilson that he believed the purpose of the meeting was to acquire yellowcake. On this basis Wilson concluded there was no evidence Iraq was seeking yellowcake from Niger? It was a bold faced lie told the world repeatedly in the NYT, CNN, CBS, and anywhere else Wilson could gather an audience.

As for the forged documents, they were not in US or British hands until months AFTER Wilson had made his trip to Niger. The forgeries could not have been the basis of British and American concerns -- indeed, the British were not concerned about Niger but about the Congo. There information was gathered from sources independent from the forged documents.

Pay attention. This stuff is important. What concerns me is that your vote will count just as much as someone who has been paying attention.

Begbee-

It is laughable that you would accuse ME of a disregard for facts - "you can't attack the facts, so you attack the messenger."

I have virtually BEGGED you to provide substance for your claims, and you refuse to do so. I don't attack you as a messenger; I have no reason to do so. In all honesty, I think your core belief is summed up as "Democrats good; Republicans bad", as you continually bash "reps" as if there was no redeeming value there.

And thank-you David, for contributing common sense to this story. Some people refuse to be persuaded by facts, because their minds are already made up.

Begbee - Once again, I'll gladly be persuaded by facts - if you give me any. And claiming "everybody knows" without providing evidence simply isn't good enough.

Reason you become less believable with every post. You now call Wilsons failure to report that some unnamed Iraqi representitive sought Uranium when all he stated 'was increased trade between the two nations', a lie. Didnt you just spend pages in the Faranheit 911 thread talking about the need for proven intent to mislead, in order to lie? The best you can do is to put words in Wilsons mouth from the Niger PM supposed inference, despite the fact that Iraqi never said a thing about Yellowcake.

D Walker I never excused Iraqi payment of alms, what I said was that even Islamic governments that are closely alligned with us, such as Turkey make the same payments. We dont call it state sponsered terrorism when Turkey does it. Iraqs occupation of Kuwait was not nearly as long as the German occupation of France, Iraq had alot more important things to worry about than passports at that time, and I find the linkage to WTC 1 weak. Beyond that, when you consider the zero Iraqi involvement in terrorist acts against US intrests post WTC 1, it seems we are quite stupid to attack Iraq when their are so many more serious, culpable terrorist states. The only supposed terrorist base I have read of in Iraq was in a no mans land near the Iranian border, at the start of the war. That supposed terrorist base turned out to be a Kurdish resistance post.

Now lets see Dave(or is it reason2?). Ive proved that the overwhelming reason for this war was Iraqi wmd. I proved that we sold Iraq wmd. Ive proved you wont accept sources like CBS news, but will write pages about some right wing op/ed columnists accusation that Iraq sought to increase trade with Niger without a single utterance of 'yellow cake', as if it means something. I think its very clear that you have an agenda and arent even much of a liar.

I should also point out the supposed Iraqi possession of centrifuges capable of enriching Uranium was a critical part of the whole Yellowcake Niger conspiracy. Its also been proven that these Iraqi centrifuges couldnt enrich Uranium, and couldnt be converted to do so.

Uh...say what, begbee? I'll let a better writer than myself summarize it for you:

"First, contrary to what Wilson wrote in the New York Times, Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire uranium from Niger. In support of that proposition are a Senate report in Washington, Lord Butler's report in London, MI6, French intelligence, other European agencies -- and, as we now know, the CIA report, based on Joe Wilson's original briefing to them. Against that proposition is Joe Wilson's revised version of events for the Times.

"This isn't difficult. In 1999, a senior Iraqi 'trade' delegation went to Niger. Uranium accounts for 75 percent of Niger's exports. The rest is goats, cowpeas and onions. So who sends senior trade missions to Niger?....

"...Major Wanke's prime minister, among others, told Ambassador Wilson that he believed Iraq wanted yellowcake. And Ambassador Wilson told the CIA. And the CIA's report agreed with the British and the Europeans that 'Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Africa.'

"In his ludicrously vain memoir The Politics Of Truth, Wilson plays up his knowledge of the country. He makes much of his intimacy with Wanke and gives himself the credit for ridding Niger of the Wanke regime. The question then is why a man who knew so much about what was going on chose deliberately to misrepresent it to all his media/ Democrat buddies, not to mention to the American people. For a book called The Politics Of Truth, it's remarkably short of it. On page 2, Wilson says of his trip to Niger: 'I had found nothing to substantiate the rumors.' But he had.

"That's what lying is, by the way: intentional deceit, not unreliable intelligence...."

Mark Steyn
Chicago Sun-Times Editorial
18 July 2004

Anony mouse perhaps you should email Steyn new CIA director Mclaughlins(sp) July 9 2004 comments on Iraqi uranium. Sources as diverse as the NY Times and Fox news report that Mclaughlin stated on July 9 2001 that 'the African Uranium comments should have been removed fron the SoU.' Fox news actually has the clip of this quote. To accuse a man of treason based on the fact that 75% of Nigers exports are Uranium is reprehensible. I have yet to read anyone even claim that the Iraqi representitive ever mentioned Uranium, and your going to accuse a US government spy of lying about something as serious as nuclear weapons? When the CIA still agrees with him? When the Brit intelligence report that made this claim also stated that Saddam could attack the UK with wmd in 45 minutes, in the same report? What did Wilson gain from this supposed lie? Is Steyn an entertainment guy that reviews books for a living, or is he just an angry rep op/ed guy? Because the phrase 'ludicrously vain memoir' certainly suggests incredible bias. I guess what the reps are now saying is we were wrong about all the other Iraqi wmd, but even though we dont have a single report that any Iraqi even enquired about Uranium in Niger, we were right about that claim and Wilson is a traitor.

Begbee,

Your position is ludicrous. What will you say if the WMDs that almost every intelligence agency in the West presumed Iraq had (but haven't been found, because we are not searching Syria, Lebenon and Iran) are used against us or our allies?

Will you be one of the idiots calling for 9/11-like investigations and asking "Who knew and when did they know it."

Geoff G if there were wmd in Iraq, we have made the world much less safe in losing them. For all we know Al Qaeda or some other terrorist group could now already have them, we were alot better off knowing Saddam had them, if they existed at all. I will never understand how they started this war without a plan to secure the wmd. In that context the stupidity of this war is unbelievable.

I already know the incompetance, sloth and stupidity of jr is what allowed 911 to happen. Btw, they already had the investigation, the official report on 911 is out in a couple weeks, and several members of the 911 commission already determined 911 could have been prevented.

You don't get it.

George Bush prevented Saddam launching the terrorist strikes the Russian President confirmed Saddam planned.

So he did, in fact, prevent 911 - just in a different year. You complain because he didn't prevent 9/11/01, and you complain because he prevented 9/11/05.

George Bush altered the course of history - for the better.

Rinse the sand out from your eyes.

Comments are Closed.