The Libby Trial: A Farce and An Outrage

[maineman]

How do you determine that it was intentionally misleading?

Here was the situation. Saddam had ties with known terror groups directly and with al queda loosely (meetings to discuss placement of terror camps within Iraqi borders). Saddam had a stockpile of weapons that the UN had stamped and declared there during the first gulf war. Saddam was reported to be trying to gain nuclear capabilities. Saddam was a sworn enemy of the US.

So in 2002, when America is less than a year from being attacked on 9/11 by Al Queda members, Bush was presented this intelligence. Now he had the decision to make. In the post 9/11 world, any nation that harbored terrorists and specifically had dealings with Al queda members had to be dealt with. Does he attempt to continue negotiations with Saddam to disarm or does he threaten the use of force to make him disarm?

As it turned out he attempted negotiations one last time. He went to the UN to demand that they enforce the sanctions on Iraq that had been in place for at that time 12 years. When Saddam refused, war was inevitable. Bush couldnt take the chance that the intelligence was incomplete. He had the sources from the CIA, Europe, the UN, Russia, all saying the same things. That he had weapons and he had ties with terrorist organizations. So had Bush not acted with this knowledge looking him in the face, it would have been dangerous to national security. He did the exact right thing at the time based on the intelligence he was given.

Now the operation of the war itself has been shoddy at best. Not going in full force and eliminating the enemy to the last man was a mistake. OVerwhelming force is the only way to win a war. Instead they tried to fight it with kid gloves and show the world that we are kinder and gentler while attacking a country. War is not a kids game. You can't do it kindly. You go in, destroy everything vital to the enemy and then once the enemy is thouroughly destroyed, you work on the cleanup. There was too much politics involved trying to make us not be seen as big mean Americans. Ironically it turns out that we are seen as big mean Americans AND we have a mismanaged war.

So to sum up, Bush did not intentionally mislead. That is an opinion by some and is no more provable then you can prove someone's thoughts on the weather. Bush made the decision he had to make based on the intelligence he was presented, the timeframe and the enemy he faced. I don't know how i would have handled it myself and i certainly am glad i wasnt the one having to make the decision.

the fact remains.... Team Bush told us repeatedly that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's...Team Bush told us repeatedly that there were CERTAIN that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's...the intelligence contained no such certainty....no such total absence of doubt...therefore... to convey such certainty, such absence of doubt when none existed was MISLEADING...and clearly...the caveats and qualifiers attached to the intelligence were NOT hidden from Team Bush... so their expressions of CERTAINTY...their expressions of a TOTAL LACK OF DOUBT were knowingly false. or....LIES.

 

[glockmail]

the fact remains.... Team Bush told us repeatedly that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's...Team Bush told us repeatedly that there were CERTAIN that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's.......

Do you have links to document this so-called FACT?

 

[maineman]

Do you have links to document this so-called FACT?

are you actually saying that Rummy, for example did not tell us that, not only was he certain that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's but that he knew where they were? Are you really suggesting that Cheney did not say there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction?

If I say that the sun is going to come up on the eastern seaboard tomorrow, do I really need to give you documentation? Does your computer crash when you type GOOGLE into the address line?

grow up.

 

[glockmail]

are you actually saying that Rummy, for example did not tell us that, not only was he certain that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's but that he knew where they were? Are you really suggesting that Cheney did not say there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction?

If I say that the sun is going to come up on the eastern seaboard tomorrow, do I really need to give you documentation? Does your computer crash when you type GOOGLE into the address line?

grow up.

It appears that you have no such evidence to support your assertion.

 

[maineman]

It appears that you have no such evidence to support your assertion.

it appears that your memory has been destroyed by heavy doses of koolaid.

 

[maineman]

http://www.counterpunch.org/giebel05082004.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,962405,00.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/News/archive/archive?ArchiveId=2480

I could go on for hours...there are literally more than a million links on google to Saddam + no doubt + WMD

 

[insein]

the fact remains.... Team Bush told us repeatedly that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's...Team Bush told us repeatedly that there were CERTAIN that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's...the intelligence contained no such certainty....no such total absence of doubt...therefore... to convey such certainty, such absence of doubt when none existed was MISLEADING...and clearly...the caveats and qualifiers attached to the intelligence were NOT hidden from Team Bush... so their expressions of CERTAINTY...their expressions of a TOTAL LACK OF DOUBT were knowingly false. or....LIES.

Sigh So predictable

American Troops uncovered 2 tons of uranium in Iraq. Guess he was just looking for nuclear power despite his declarations that he wanted a nuclear BOMB and almost had one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124924,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/index.html

Here's the former chief UN weapons inspector stating the same thing in 2003.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/5/114239.shtml

Then of course there were the widespread reports of the weapons being shipped out of Iraq before the war began to Syrai, Turkey and even as far as the Netherlands according to the UNMOVIC.
http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200602\SPE20060202a.html
http://www.nysun.com/article/24480
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=482

Then you add Saddam's numerous terrorist ties to go with these WMD reports...
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132682,00.html

And the reports of Al Queda training camps in northern Iraq...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html

And you can see that these are not opinions but the facts of the situation at hand. If you werent so closeminded, you'd be able to see the reality of the situation. Bush didnt lie. I know that bursts your buble but its reality.

 

[glockmail]

it appears that your memory has been destroyed by heavy doses of koolaid.

Beer, actually. And Martinis.

 

[maineman]

American Troops uncovered 2 tons of uranium in Iraq. Guess he was just looking for nuclear power despite his declarations that he wanted a nuclear BOMB and almost had one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124924,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/index.html

having uranium is not having a nuclear weapon capable of making a mushroom cloud over an american city. sorry.

Here's the former chief UN weapons inspector stating the same thing in 2003.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/5/114239.shtml

ditto

Then of course there were the widespread reports of the weapons being shipped out of Iraq before the war began to Syrai, Turkey and even as far as the Netherlands according to the UNMOVIC.
http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialR...ecialReports\archive\200602\SPE20060202a.html
http://www.nysun.com/article/24480
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=482

none proven...most all disproven.

Then you add Saddam's numerous terrorist ties to go with these WMD reports...
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132682,00.html

no one is saying that Saddam did not have ties with nationalist arab terror organizations. He did NOT have ties with salafist, wahabbist extremist muslim terror organizations - that would have been suicidal

And the reports of Al Queda training camps in northern Iraq...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html
Saddam was not in control of northern Iraq... US Combat Air Patrols made sure of that. AQ in northern Iraq had as much to do with Saddam as AQ in Oklahoma learning to fly jet airliners did

And you can see that these are not opinions but the facts of the situation at hand. If you werent so closeminded, you'd be able to see the reality of the situation. Bush didnt lie. I know that bursts your buble but its reality.
no...bush did indeed LIE...by intentionally misleading Americans as to the CERTAINTY of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's when no such certainty existed.

 

[maineman]

Beer, actually. And Martinis.

what a crass and plebian mix

 

[glockmail]

.....
having uranium is not having a nuclear weapon capable of making a mushroom cloud over an american city. sorry.....

Ever hear of a "dirty bomb"? Could render Manhattan useless for about 10 or 20 centuries.

 

[glockmail]

what a crass and plebian mix

So THAT's your problem. Not enough anti-freeze.

 

[maineman]

So THAT's your problem. Not enough anti-freeze.

just a less crass, less plebian brand, you hick

 

[maineman]

Ever hear of a "dirty bomb"? Could render Manhattan useless for about 10 or 20 centuries.

unprocessed uranium? really?

methinks this is outside your area of expertise.

what IS that, by the way, besides the obvious transsexual adoration?

 

[glockmail]

just a less crass, less plebian brand, you hick

Why would you call me a hick?

 

[insein]

having uranium is not having a nuclear weapon capable of making a mushroom cloud over an american city. sorry.

So when Saddam says to the UN, he has no uranium for making bombs or otherwise in 1995, then it turns out he has 2 tons of uranium in 2003, your just gonna let that slide right? Sounds about what I'd expect from you.

none proven...most all disproven.

I see. Care to share the "most all disproven" or is that just your wish that they were.

no one is saying that Saddam did not have ties with nationalist arab terror organizations. He did NOT have ties with salafist, wahabbist extremist muslim terror organizations - that would have been suicidal

Did you not read the reports? It laid out exactly when and where he met with Al Queda officials to discuss possible training facilities. Even the 9/11 commission report spoke of the same meetings.

Saddam was not in control of northern Iraq... US Combat Air Patrols made sure of that. AQ in northern Iraq had as much to do with Saddam as AQ in Oklahoma learning to fly jet airliners did

I see so Al Queda setting up camps within IRaq borders that intelligence from Russia, Europe, the UN and CIA knew about went unnoticed by Saddam's people. He was just that poor a dictator to allow supposed enemies to his state set up shop within his borders? Who is naive now?


no...bush did indeed LIE...by intentionally misleading Americans as to the CERTAINTY of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's when no such certainty existed.

Explain again how he "mislead" Americans? You just read the information he had before him. I'd say it was pretty much a slam dunk as to what he had t do. Had he done nothing and Saddam made a nuke, he'd have been accused of incompetance for allowing it to happen. See North Korea for the typical response from the left on that one. NK gets a bomb and Bush is accused of dragging his feet on KJI.

All this post of yours does is illustrate to all the exact level of sincerity you possess. You provide no proof of a lie or even evidence of where a lie occurred. You give your opinions and declare them facts. You basically agree with anything that agrees with your point of view and anything that disagrees with it is a lie. You are the definition of a partisan hack.

 

[Annie]

the fact remains.... Team Bush told us repeatedly that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's...Team Bush told us repeatedly that there were CERTAIN that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's...the intelligence contained no such certainty....no such total absence of doubt...therefore... to convey such certainty, such absence of doubt when none existed was MISLEADING...and clearly...the caveats and qualifiers attached to the intelligence were NOT hidden from Team Bush... so their expressions of CERTAINTY...their expressions of a TOTAL LACK OF DOUBT were knowingly false. or....LIES.

So, perhaps he believed what he was told by the directors? I know that is a weird idea, but seems many other leaders from around the world also believed their intelligence reports also. Then there was Clinton, that believed he could 'get' the bad guys with cruise missiles in camps and a milk factory. He believed the same.

 

[Annie]

Interesting how with the trial on and all, that more clarification is coming from testimony of the press. I guess we are learning why they really didn't want this trial:

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWY4ZGZjMmVlMWYyZjY5MjA3MmQ2ZWRkODk2YjAwMDk=

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

MEDIA CULTURE

Contradictions Come to Define Libby Trial

Just off the top of my head, and in no particular order:

* Former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer testified that he told John Dickerson (then with TIME magazine) about Valerie Plame. Dickerson denies this.

* Fleischer also testified that he told NBC’s David Gregory about Valerie Plame. NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert later denied that Gregory ever received the leak.

* Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus testified that Fleischer told him about Valerie Plame. Fleischer denies this.

* Bob Woodward testified that he had discussions with Pincus about Valerie Plame. Pincus denies this.

* Russert first told the FBI that he couldn’t rule out the possibility that he discussed Valerie Plame with Scooter Libby. He later testified that he could.

* NBC’s Andrea Mitchell has yet to testify, but she first said publicly that everyone knew about Valerie Plame prior to Robert Novak’s column. She now denies that she herself knew (and successfully resisted a subpoena).
​

And now, today, this:

On Tuesday, Jill Abramson, now The New York Times' managing editor, was called first by the defense [...]

Abramson was asked about former Times' reporter Judith Miller's testimony (she had claimed this for a long time) that she had asked Abramson in 2003, when the latter was Washington bureau chief, if she could write a story related to WMD and her recent talks with Libby.

Abramson, as she has done in the past, denied it.​

Remind me: Why is Libby the only one on trial for perjury?

 

[maineman]

So, perhaps he believed what he was told by the directors? I know that is a weird idea, but seems many other leaders from around the world also believed their intelligence reports also. Then there was Clinton, that believed he could 'get' the bad guys with cruise missiles in camps and a milk factory. He believed the same.

I do not believe that any intelligence agency director wouldever tell the president that there was NO DOUBT or that the intelligence was so devoid of caveats and qualifiers that there was absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's. I am aware that Tenet said that the "case" was a "slam dunk" but I believe that had more to do with the ability to put on a convincing presentation than a qualitative assessment of the absolute veracity and certainty of the intelligence itself.

 

[maineman]

Why would you call me a hick?

your attitudes would indicate such.... as well as your penchant for mixing beer and martinis.... not very classy.