Fred Hiatt writes in the Washington Post on Senator Rockefeller’s claims that President Bush “In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent.”
Then he actually looks at the report itself and finds that in no way does it reach that conclusion. In fact, on nearly every point of the report, it concludes that the intelligence at the time substantiated the claims made by the administration. As much as I’ve read of the report myself (which isn’t a lot so far), this reporting matches with the facts.
After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: “There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.”
Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee’s vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report’s preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, “the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers’ statements were substantiated by the intelligence.”
In the run up to the war, the administration repeatedly made the argument that in a post 9/11 world, we couldn’t wait for the intel to be 100% perfect. We couldn’t take the chance with rogue states that we had for so many decades before.
Now, check out the comments to the editorial.
It’s like most of these people never took the time to even read the editorial, or they took the time to read it with their eyes closed, their fingers in their ears, refusing to take in any of it. How else do you explain the partisan attacks? What Hiatt reported was accurate according to the report itself! What he reported, and what so many of these commenters attacked, were pieces of the report from Rockefeller itself! Taken directly from the report, this is what’s being attacked. Hiatt is called a Bush lawn boy basically, for merely reporting the facts as they exist in the report. What I have read of the report and the media’s (and Rockefeller’s own) conclusions doesn’t add up. It seems partisan attacks are everywhere, to hell with the facts.
The media doesn’t want you to know that things have improved in Iraq, that war deaths are down, that British intel says they’re close to defeating terrorist organizations in Iraq, that the US intel agencies are saying that AQ is nearly defeated completely in Iraq, that the intel may have been flawed, but that nobody lied or trumped up any evidence that didn’t exist. The media, along with guys like Rockefeller, will do anything to make you believe that, tho the facts don’t support the assertion, the war is a failure, we’re losing over there, and that George Bush is somehow an evil genius (tho oddly they want to claim he’s an idiot at the same time) who in some manner convinced the free world to agree with his devious (and evil) plot to take out the butcher for no just cause. Sneaky guy, that George Bush. The zombie brain-dead are out in full force. Screw the facts…attack the messenger.
US News & World Report relays the result of an informal survey by the History News Network of 109 “professional historians.” 98% of them say the Bush presidency is a failure, and 61% feel it’s the worst in American history.
Proving that 99% of professional historians polled are out of their mind crazy, and 60% of them are off their rockers lunatics. No serious historian, even if he thought Bush a failure, would ever rank him as the worst president ever.
The reasons given for failure? ” invading Iraq, ‘tax breaks for the rich,’ and alienating many nations around the world”
Shows you the bias we have here. Removing an evil despot known as one of the worst murderers of the last century somehow makes you one of the worst presidents. I assure you, when looking back at Bush’s decision, history will approve (as will the free Iraqi people). And “tax cuts for the rich”? Liberal pornography. EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN WHO PAYS INCOME TAXES GOT A TAX CUT UNDER BOTH BUSH TAX CUTS PASSED INTO LAW. Can 109 historians truly be this stupid? With the Bush tax cuts, even some Americans who paid ZERO income taxes for got money (they got money they never paid to begin with!)
This “tax cuts for the rich” nonsense is a liberal myth. If you paid $100 into a pot and someone else paid 10 cents…wouldn’t you expect more of a return from the investment? Wouldn’t you expect more of YOUR money back? Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is a socialist Robin Hood fantasy and has never worked in the long run. Of course a person who carries a much larger tax burden will get more back as a percentage of the total given back. That’s not rocket science, and if someone doesn’t like it, they need to fight to bring about the arrival of socialism to the United States. Any takers?
The “tax cuts for the rich” meme is just a lie. Even if it’s told by a “professional historian.”
As for alienating nations around the world- come on. Seriously? Which nations? Why are they “alienat[ed]“? Were they ever fans of us to begin with? Are they somehow angry because many of them have no guts anymore, and refuse to stand up to tyrants…and when they do so it’s often in a line behind us? Are these nations UN members who were on the payroll of the Sadam regime in the oil for food scandal?
I guess this all proves one thing. Being a “professional” doesn’t mean you automatically have any clue whatsoever.
BBC America, which is quickly going downhill (they used to air interesting British comedies and dramas…now it’s turned into the sci-fi british channel that, for some reason only God knows, airs Dancing With the Stars (it was utter crap on ABC, why air it on BBC America?!) is now airing the terrible news program, Newsnight. Jeremy Paxman is the host from what I can tell, and he seems to be a British version of the joke that is Krazy Keith Olbermann. He’s out of his mind crazy, makes utterly no sense, and can’t tell a complete truth to save his life.
I found his interview with John Bolton on youtube, and it gives you a great idea of what a wanker this guy is.
I just want to cover a few items from the interview.
He is clearly anti-war when it comes to Iraq. His idea of a better world would be one where Saddam Hussein (the butcher of Baghdad) was still a thriving despotic regime, murdering his own people at will.
No other explanation makes sense, as he complains to Bolton:
Paxman starts out with a short intro/biographical piece on Bolton where he narrates and says “he had no time for mulinational negotiations” in regards to Iraq. This is crap with a capital C. The Gulf War ended in 1991. Forces invaded again in 2003. That’s 12 years. 12 years spent at the UN Security Council passing a dozen resolutions…a dozen resolutions that were almost completely ignored by the Iraqi regime. The no-fly zones were put into place, and they were violated on a nearly daily basis. Anyone who claims there were no mutli-national negotiations on Iraq and the Hussein regime is either crazy, dishonest, or completely ignorant of all truth. I doubt Paxman is either crazy or ignorant of ALL truth, so we’re left with dishonest.
So, there were negotiations, and the US and allied nations agreed that we couldn’t wait for the UN to hold another 12 years of meetings or issue another dozen resolutions on the situation. There had to come a time to stop pussyfooting around and finally act.
Paxman then states his opinion that Iraq is in terrible shape (worse than with Hussein the murderous dictator) and then claims there was an “absence of planning” following the invasion. Now, this is common anti-Bush, anti-war nonsense. No one who has being serious and is sane is going to claim there was no post-invasion planning. You can argue the planning wasn’t very well thought out maybe- that would be a reasonable argument, but to argue there was no planning is just silly and should be embarassing to anyone making such a claim. It would take a fool to think the Bush admin, the US armed forces commander’s, the advisors, etc. said “let’s invade and oust the regime. What comes after that, we’ve no idea, and who cares? No planning is necessary.”
So, there was clearly a lot of planning, and Bolton said the problem with the plan was not to rely more on the Iraqis. You can argue that was a mistake, as Bolton does, but to say there was no planning is BS.
Paxman complains that Bolton says we don’t have an ultimate responsibility to ensure the Iraqi government succeeds. Our national interests lie in making sure it’s not a haven for terrorist groups who take over the entire country in an effort to use the nation and its resources and protections offered as being a soverign nation to launch attacks against the US. Point is- we can’t be in charge of everyone and make sure everyone on earth is happy and in peace. Paxman confuses here, as he’s clearly against the Iraq war, yet he has no problem demanding Bolton support the notion of ensuring a civil, peaceful, happy Iraq. It’s sort of the common liberal idea of late- don’t go into Iraq and remove a murderous despot, but you damned better make sure the Iraqi people live in peace now. What on earth do these people think the original point was? The regime posed a threat not only to the US and her allies, but to the entire world to some degree. Despots tend to pose threats in a broad general sense and cause trouble in a broad manner.
Paxman then complains:
“What do you say to those people who turn to you and say- ‘okay, Saddam Hussein was a dictator, but Iraq was not then a failed state, and it was not a haven for terrorists, and that’s precisely what you’ve created in Iraq.”
This question is absurd. A hypothetical question from a lunatic? I would say, no questions from crazies, next question!
Bolton’s answer is quite reasonable- you’d rather live under a brutal dictator as opposed to a failed state, that’s your choice, but it’s not what I’d want. And really- who would?! We know, we know Iraq was a peaceful heaven under Saddam before the big bad Americans and allies came in and destroyed that peace.
Bolton elaborates that Hussein used WMD against Iran and the war against them, he used them against the Kurds in his own nation, and he kept thousands of top nuclear scientists around to one day try to start up his nuclear program. All fair points- a man who does such a thing surely constitutes a threat to all people.
Paxman interrupts to say there were no WMD. Which is beside the point. The point was- all intel from numerous nations said there were WMD and the idea was, in a global age of terrorism, it’s better to be safe than sorry. By looking at the history of the regime, you knew he had at least twice before used deadly weapons, threatened his neighbors, the US and allies, and others…kept a system of terrorism alive in Iraq itself, trained and harbored terrorists within Iraq, etc. The idea was- put an end to it before he has even a chance to start it all up again…end it before we find out too late that he does, indeed, have deadly stockpiles. No doubt, he spent 12 years refusing to cooperate with hundreds of UN inspectors…refusal to cooperate usually means something, and it’s usually something very bad.
Bolton goes on to attempt to explain that Hussein had the intent, he had the scientists with the knowledge, the raw materials, and more..and that was where the danger lied.
Paxman then claims “But this claim turned out to be a lie, Mr. Bolton, didn’t it?”
This is the most common anti-war bit of nonsense. There is absolutely no evidence anyone, and I mean ANYONE, lied about Iraq and WMD. WMD was NEVER the sole reason for ousting the regime, and ultimately, looking at the big picture, it wasn’t the biggest reason…so, this is complete nonsense to even make such a claim. There was no lie, there is no evidence of a lie, and it’s garbage to make a claim that any such lie ever existed.
In the end Paxman comes off looking not only silly but downright deceptive. One has got to wonder if this is a common British problem (or just one suffered by Paxman only)- looking at the evidence, not looking at the evidence, looking past the evidence and projecting your own anti-Bush, anti-American bias to every issue.
I’d certainly have a hard time taking anything he says seriously after this mess of the facts in his interview with Bolton. I haven’t seen enough of his interviews to say what sort of jounralist he is in full, but with a shoddy performance like this, you can’t help but question anything he says. If I can get the facts straight, yet he can’t with what I assume is a staff of fact-checkers and journalists, then there’s a big problem.
I found this interview with Paxman and George Galloway and Paxman actually looks like the bigger fool here. (amazing, as Galloway is one of the craziest politicians on earth. I honestly believe Galloway actually suffers from some form of mental retardation.) Paxman comes off as Jerry Springer, whose only goal is to try to make others look foolish. I sure hope this isn’t the state of British journalism…
Here’s the scene at Columbia University:
They will not allow military recruiters onto the campus to invite young men and women to join the US military (this is enough evidence for me to suggest that liberals hate the military). But, they will gladly allow a terrorist to come and give a prepared speech.
I was thinking- one of the most common reasons I hear for banning military recruiters on college campuses is the don’t ask, don’t tell policy (signed into law by President Clinton)…I wonder if the liberals in question (Bollinger, for example) care to explain why this policy is so evil, yet they’ll gladly invite a man who leads a nation that takes homosexuals and STONES THEM TO DEATH!! ????
You’ll never get a straight answer on that or any other rational question, because the people that have invited Ahmadinejad are in no way “rational.”
Better yet- a man who calls for the destruction of the Iraeli state and all Jews is fine to come on campus and spread his hate…BUT, would Columbia allow a speaker who calls for the deaths of all blacks?? Even better- fitting their liberal ideology to accept any and all behavior as “normal”- what if the speaker called for the deaths of all gays? I guarantee you that speaker would never be allowed to speak!
Why did Bollinger allow students to rush the stage and attack the Minutemen founder when he came to speak? Why wasn’t he allowed to speak, allowed to finish his statements? Why weren’t the students who rushed the stage suspended or booted from the school altogether? Why the double standards?
These are all good questions. All very rationa queries. I go back to the fact that there is no rationality to be found here. That’s the most reasonable explanation. College campuses gone wild. It’s a sad day when frat parties are actually more rational than the university president himself.
Speaking to experts on the middle east (despite the fact that Ajami kept mentioning the nation “palestine” that has never existed), Alan Colmes gasped when former PLO terrorist, Walid Shoebat, said that Abbas is a terrorist himself.
I just had to sigh at Colmes’ sheer ignorance. The leader of fatah (a TERRORIST organization- the word “terrorist” is a big hint) is called a terrorist, and somehow that shocks Alan Colmes? I guess he doesn’t consider Abbas a terrorist…in that case, you have to wonder when he hit his head and when he’ll be back in the real world with the rest of us.
The lesser of 2 evils one of the men said…the lesser of two terrorist groups we’re choosing. It’s a shame, when we could go in and route out these thugs and take control over these areas once and for all. Israel hasn’t done a very good job with all of this either- they constantly capitulate to absurd international demands in the name of this imaginary state known as “palestine” that wants to take control of the land mass that was given to the Jewish people in 1948 (before the UN, ignorantly, tore it in half and offered only part of it to the Jewish people and part of it to the arabs who already have large nations on all sides of Israel. Israel pulls settlers out- what happens? Rocket attacks from hamas and others…they give a little bit more this time and a bit more next, what do they get? Terrorist explosions killing innocent Israelis.
I’d say we’re all pretty much cowards when it comes to this issue. The world, if it would band together to fight islamic radicalism (I personally think all islam is radical, as the founder of the religion was a mass murderer- you don’t get much more radical than that!), we could go it much more effectively. Unfortunately, very few people have the will to fight this global war, and it’s unfortunate…the unwillingness to fight will eventually lead to the destruction of all of us.
Oh dear. We are all in a heap of trouble now. Is it possible the UN (bastion of hatred for the US and Israel/ waste of time and money) is even more out in left field than ever?
I was watching HDNews and the banner at the bottom said that the new UN secretary general says that global climate change is responsible for the crisis in Darfur. I have posted the link above from Free Republic (in google, it was the first result)- I will read it in a bit, but for now, let me just say I hope this isn’t the insanity I think it is.
For the record- I’m a Christian who thinks man is above all other living things. We are given a place to take care of the planet, and we should do so…that said, I find it hard to believe that suddenly the world is in peril due to our actions. If disasters can strike over billions of years- disasters that take out entire species, then what we do to the planet doesn’t even register. Unless you think man is more powerful than nature. I don’t think so- unless you can cause as much destruction on a personal level than a hurricane. I doubt you can.
The insane hype over global warming (which we can all agree is real- the reason it’s warming, or if it’s warming that much, or if it’s out of the ordinary can be debated…and it is, by people across the globe) is over the top. You’d think we only have a few years left before the planet melts down and we all die a sudden painful death as it all goes down in flames around us. The constant hysteria, I think, makes most people ignore the issue to some extent. When anyone goes insane over an issue, it’s almost a guarantee that they’re either wrong, halfway wrong, or overstating their case by a factor of 10 million.
Blogged with Flock
MORE: Ugh. I see the new secretary general is no more of a bright bulb than the old! Somehow this guy is saying that because there was less rainfall in a certain time range, that is was clearly global warming and clearly caused by man (how he gets this is anyones’ guess!)…and when there was more water for the farmers for their land, they shared it and things were all peace and love. He neglects the main component to the issue- the muslim connection! Global warming is the cause. It has nothing to do with religion. End of story because the UN says so. I guess we shan’t expect any changes in the UN anytime soon. Still a hopeless, helpless, disaster for the world.
This stuff is actually sort of a joke…ten candidates on a stage is absurd. I was sort of torn on this- why allow only the top candidates? I feel the media is partly responsible for the top spots as it is…they push a few candidates all the time, no wonder they have the most support in current polls. All should get a chance to give their opinions and share their views. But, when you see them all together- you see this just doesn’t work.
A few thoughts- Giuliani…don’t much like him. The fact that he’s on his third marriage is upsetting to me personally. The fact that he’s pro-abortion is another aspect of his views I dislike a lot. I don’t think I can vote for a supporter of abortion. I also find his evasion of questions annoying. McCain and Romney are guilty of this as well. Sadly- the most open and honest candidates are those on the bottom of the polls. I’m sick of seeing a question asked and the top 3 guys dancing around with their answers.
Ron Paul- this guy is out of his mind. He doesn’t want us to lead the world basically…that’s the feeling I got from him. He wants an America that doesn’t intervene in international fights? Too bad our actions doing just that in WWII lead us to the spot as super power! I’d never support an anti-war “conservative.”
McCain- he just looks like a zombie to me. He’s constantly got this weird stare on his face- looks as if he’s staring at one spot or something. It’s a bit creepy. That and I forgot he voted against Bush’s tax cuts twice.
Tancredo has good ideas on immigration.
Personally- I think the best bet would be a Fred Thompson candidacy.
The top 3- McCain, Giuliani, and Romney are stepping over each other whining they wall want 30 seconds. Ugh…
I’m not very impressed at all. Out of this group- I’d vote for tough talking Tancredo.
UPDATE: I should mention I find Giuliani’s adoption blathering stupid when asked about abortion. He refuses to be clear and straight on his support for abortion, instead going on a tangent about how adoptions in NYC rose when he was mayor. I see that in the May 3 debate he claimed a 70% increase- I think tonight he said it was a 130% increase. It turns out, he’s full of it either way. FactCheck.Org has more info.
Note to Rudy- when asked about your support of killing soon-to-be-born babies…don’t go on and on about fictional adoption rates! ‘I support mothers killing babies, but hey- I’ll claim adoptions were up when I was mayor!’ Insulting.
I haven’t looked a lot into the global warming issue. I haven’t studied it in detail, that is. I do know for a fact that Al Gore is over the top. His claims are hysterical. Sea levels rising 20 feet in the next 100 years? No. Disaster in the future? No. Global warming is caused by man, that’s a fact, end of story? No.
Anyone can see all of these things…at least I hope all people can see this. I also hope people can see Gore is way over the top.
My thought on this issue, at this very second, is this- I have to laugh when people talk about the “hottest years on record”, except that we have only been measuring global temperatures for what? 200 years maybe? From all I have read- there’s no accurate measure of “global temperature.” Next- the earth is billions of years old, we’ve been measuring temperatures for 200 years, and we’re saying that some hot years in the past few decades equals disaster?
Let’s use some common sense here. Ice ages, massive floods covering entire continents and more, heat waves, more ice ages. The earth has clearly gone through cycles. If we’ve been measuring temps for only .00000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the world’s history, how can we ever claim to know ANYTHING with these facts? It’s like studying 10 people on earth and then claiming that these ten represent all people throughout all time. It’s absurd.
This particular part of this issue is clear common sense. Studying temperatures and screaming disaster due to some hot years in the record is nonsensical, and I’m confused why anyone is even parroting these statistics. They mean absolutely nothing. A simple look at this particular aspect of the issue? Yes. But, it’s a simple aspect of the issue to begin with, so it fits.
I also know that these carbon offsets are nonsense as well. You use all the carbon you want and then buy “credits” where someone else will plant a tree?! Come on. Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. As many have said- these are the same as indulgences.
I’ll pollute all I want myself, but I’ll buy a credit for someone else to PROMISE they will do X, Y, and Z? Comeeeee on…
Senator John Rockefeller is claiming that Bush pulled the wool over the nation’s eyes. After the new report released that said Hussein had no direct operational ties to al qaeda (which was already reported- tho, the wording is deceptive…he did, indeed, have ties, but partisans on the commission twisted the wording to read “operational” ties), he’s claiming that we were all lied to. He voted to go to war himself, but now claims he was mislead.
Worst of all- he claims we’re drained of resources in Iraq and not able to fight the war on terror. Does this guy really think Iraq isn’t part of the war on terror? You have to wonder about the current Democratic party in the US. They claim we need to fight the terrorists, but they claim that being in Iraq is a bad idea. Who do these senators and house members think we’re fighting in Iraq? Common criminals? Have these fools never heard of the throat slashing maniac named al-Zarqawi? I guess when we killed him, we didn’t kill a terrorist, because Iraq isn’t part of the war on terror, duh. If they think we ought not be in Iraq, yet they want to be tough and fight the terrorists overseas- where would they have had us invade? The imaginary nation of terroristan, since when you ask them what their plan is, their answer is consistently “something other than what Bush is doing.” and nothing else!
I wonder why all the celebration when this TERRORIST was killed, ending his reign of TERROR?
Rockefeller said that the world would be better off with Saddam still in power. So sad. This would be considered treason in the early 20th century…he’s lucky he’s not saying this back in the 19th century, else he’d be on trial with execution being the punishment!!
Leave it to the dems to want Saddam in power. Saddam or an elected government that doesn’t want to destroy us? Only the US Democratic party (well, and 70% of Europeans- but who cares what they think?) could wish for the first of those two choices.
I have to wonder why the Democratic leadership has made such a big deal over this new 2 part ABC movie, The Path to 9/11.
I would have almost surely never watched it…but, with all the talk, I have the DVR cable box set to record it Monday and Tuesday night.
I have a feeling all this talk is going to backfire on Reid, Durbin, Clinton, and the others…