Wash. Congressman Questions Saddam Timing

[jimnyc]

** Does this man realize just how stupid his accusations look? He would fit in well with a few other of the conspiracy theorists here **

WASHINGTON - The Washington congressman who criticized President Bush while visiting Baghdad last year has questioned the timing of the capture of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., told a Seattle radio station Monday the U.S. military could have found Saddam "a long time ago if they wanted." Asked if he thought the weekend capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and said: "Yeah. Oh, yeah."

The Democratic congressman went on to say, "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing."

When interviewer Dave Ross asked again if he meant to imply the Bush administration timed the capture for political reasons, McDermott said: "I don't know that it was definitely planned on this weekend, but I know they've been in contact with people all along who knew basically where he was. It was just a matter of time till they'd find him.

"It's funny," McDermott added, "when they're having all this trouble, suddenly they have to roll out something."

State Republicans immediately condemned McDermott's remarks, saying the Seattle Democrat again was engaging in "crazy talk" about the Iraq (news - web sites) war.

"Once again McDermott has embarrassed this state with his irresponsible ranting," GOP state Chairman Chris Vance said in a news release. "Calling on him to apologize is useless, but I call on other Democrats to let the public know if they agree with McDermott — and Howard Dean (news - web sites), who recently said he thought it was possible that President Bush had advance knowledge about 9/11. The voters deserve to know if the entire Democratic Party believes in these sorts of bitter, paranoid conspiracy theories."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...u=/ap/20031216/ap_on_go_co/saddam_mcdermott_3

 

[5stringJeff]

OK, a little local info for you.

Jim McDermott represents Seattle and a few outlying areas, and his district has about a 55% Democratic base. So he can represent the Loony Left and not worry about getting his reelection. He was once a hopeful for state governor, but his view are far too left for the entire state of Washington.
In a debate last year, he spouted out all the liberal lines about how the war was immoral, unjust, how Bush didn't know what the hell he was doing, etc. He was heckled and booed repeatedly (the event was hosted by a talk radio station, and the audience was fairly conservative).
This is the same Jim McDermott that went to Baghdad right before the war and denounced the war effort. Basically, he's to the left of Howard Dean, but his district will never vote for a Republican, and the Democrats won't abandon him.

 

[jon_forward]

this guy got elected? maybe a few more statements like this will fix him up good! Im thinking outlimits music.....

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by jimnyc
** Does this man realize just how stupid his accusations look? He would fit in well with a few other of the conspiracy theorists here **

WASHINGTON - The Washington congressman who criticized President Bush while visiting Baghdad last year has questioned the timing of the capture of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., told a Seattle radio station Monday the U.S. military could have found Saddam "a long time ago if they wanted." Asked if he thought the weekend capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and said: "Yeah. Oh, yeah."

The Democratic congressman went on to say, "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing."

When interviewer Dave Ross asked again if he meant to imply the Bush administration timed the capture for political reasons, McDermott said: "I don't know that it was definitely planned on this weekend, but I know they've been in contact with people all along who knew basically where he was. It was just a matter of time till they'd find him.

"It's funny," McDermott added, "when they're having all this trouble, suddenly they have to roll out something."

State Republicans immediately condemned McDermott's remarks, saying the Seattle Democrat again was engaging in "crazy talk" about the Iraq (news - web sites) war.

"Once again McDermott has embarrassed this state with his irresponsible ranting," GOP state Chairman Chris Vance said in a news release. "Calling on him to apologize is useless, but I call on other Democrats to let the public know if they agree with McDermott — and Howard Dean (news - web sites), who recently said he thought it was possible that President Bush had advance knowledge about 9/11. The voters deserve to know if the entire Democratic Party believes in these sorts of bitter, paranoid conspiracy theories."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...u=/ap/20031216/ap_on_go_co/saddam_mcdermott_3

Well, that's actually good news. This way, President Bush will arrange for the capture of Osama on November 1, 2004 and I can be there to shoot the jerk! Call Delta airlines....

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Dear God! how do people like this get elected? Wouldn't it be much better to have Saddam caught in October or November? I think that now Howard Dean, who would never have been elected, wil not get the nomination as the dems see just how extremist he is and an actually presidential contender will get the nom.

So I think the timing of this won't really help the republicans b/c they won't race against the one man they were sure to loose against.

 

[Johnney]

If they arent pissin and moanin about catching someone, they have to piss and moan when they catch them. dammed if ya do, dammed if ya dont

 

[NightTrain]

Yeah, "Baghdad Jim" needs to alienate more people from the Dems... I really think the Libs are off course with all the bullshit that's getting spouted, and they're going to lose heavily next year.

Time will tell, but I think people are about fed up with this sort of wacky behavior.

 

[Adams]

I can't confirm that Saddam's capture was timed or not (but it *was* fortuitous timing as Halliburton story was gaining real traction, James Baker was leaving next day to importune funds, U.S. casualties were at record high, etc.) but you likewise cannot prove it wasn't and anyone who believes that this bunch of mendacious liars didn't do anything for political reasons are truly the "whacky" soles. I can however prove that Dubya knew of the impending 9-11 attacks as it's now public record that on August 6th, 2001 George Tenant hand-delivered a special intel document to Dubya titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.". After all, Dubya's hand-picked Gov. Keane (R) even concluded that 9-11 was preventable as chair of the 9-11 commission! When are we going to hold these clowns (Bush, Clinton, Freeh, Cohen, Rice, Hadley, Cheney, Rummy, et. al.) accountable for their gross incompetence and sedition???

 

[Annie]

posted by Adams

I can however prove that Dubya knew of the impending 9-11 attacks as it's now public record that on August 6th, 2001 George Tenant hand-delivered a special intel document to Dubya titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.". After all, Dubya's hand-picked Gov. Keane (R) even concluded that 9-11 was preventable as chair of the 9-11 commission! When are we going to hold these clowns (Bush, Clinton, Freeh, Cohen, Rice, Hadley, Cheney, Rummy, et. al.) accountable for their gross incompetence and sedition???

Welcome Adams.

Perhaps you would be surprised that most of us do want to hold those responsible for 9/11 accountable. I just don't see where you get Bush et al in this immediate group, other than by 'wishful thinking.' The previous administration not only had the information, they also had actual attacks, they responded to weakly, if at all. (yeah, I know it's a run-on, I have to clean the house and don't have time for corrections.)

I will agree that the Bush administration should have been focusing more on the terror aspects, but they should have been concentrating on foreign affairs in general more than was happening at that time-which in my opinion they failed to do. There is ample evidence that Bush meant his campaign rhetoric of 'compassionate conservative' which translated to 'BC without the extramarital sex, but even more government spending, but at home'. His emphasis right up through 9/10 was Mexico, Canada, and the good ole' USA.

9/11 did change the focus, BIG TIME. However, he is STILL focusing on domestic front, thus the huge deficits, higher than they should be for just war spending.

 

[nbdysfu]

originally posted by Adams
I can't confirm that Saddam's capture was timed or not (but it *was* fortuitous timing as Halliburton story was gaining real traction,
____________________ ____________________
I heard anything and everything about the Halli case, and it would not have been sufficient justification for using such a valuable single-use distraction. Since you can't even confirm that the capture was a distraction, can you confirm otherwise on the seriousness of the Halliburton case?

originally posted by Adams
James Baker was leaving next day to importune funds,
____________________ ____________________
If you're referring to James Baker leaving to negotiate the removal of debt incurred by Saddam's government from the Iraqi people, that has been placed by other nations, and the fact that he has already succeeded with one country, then that would be good news.

originally posted by Adams
U.S. casualties were at record high, etc.)
____________________ ____________________
What do you mean by this? The casualty rate is not at a high, so the only thing I can find that you would be suggesting is that the total number of u.s. servicemen has gone up only about one or two per day in the last two weeks, an improvement in the rate. Certainly not bad news. There were some bombings that killed a lot of Iraqis, but those occurred in the day's after the news of Saddam's capture had been aired. What major casualties have you found in the days before Saddam's capture have you found that would warrant the use of distraction?

originally posted by Adams
but you likewise cannot prove it wasn't and anyone who believes that this bunch of mendacious liars didn't do anything for political reasons are truly the "whacky" soles.
____________________ ____________________
Can we ascertain your mendaciousness from the insincerity of your arguments? You really should be a little more assertive/specific/informative if you're going to go around calling everybody who doesn't side with you a 'whacko'. Politicians do everything for political reasons, as that is the task of a politician. Unless you're referring to the people trying to shovel this 'timing' bs onto the grave of american media, I don't know of any 'mendacious liars' that you could be referring to.

originally posted by Adams
I can however prove that Dubya knew of the impending 9-11 attacks as it's now public record that on August 6th, 2001 George Tenant hand-delivered a special intel document to Dubya titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.". After all, Dubya's hand-picked Gov. Keane (R) even concluded that 9-11 was preventable as chair of the 9-11 commission!
____________________ ____________________
There was no specific information that could have allowed anything to be done about stopping the WTC bombings, without shutting down the airlines within the us for months and profiling every person of middle eastern origins in the US. Even now the US will not resort to such tactics, as they would be self-defeating. There simply wasn't substantial info for them to go on. There was plenty of time before the bush admin for this hole in intelligence to have been filled. The first WTC bombing happened in 1993. Don't you think Clinton had similar evidence that some sort of hijacking might occur in the US? Don't you realize he had an ample six years of presidency afterwards to try to close the intelligence gap?

originally posted by Adams
When are we going to hold these clowns (Bush, Clinton, Freeh, Cohen, Rice, Hadley, Cheney, Rummy, et. al.) accountable for their gross incompetence and sedition???
____________________ _____________________
Well, Clinton's already gone to trial for anything and everything from wagging the dog to lying under oath in court, and has been convicted on several counts.
The rest just aren't accusable of being incompetent or commiting acts of sedition. Care to link something that would show me otherwise?

 

[Adams]

Originally posted by nbdysfu
originally posted by Adams
I can't confirm that Saddam's capture was timed or not (but it *was* fortuitous timing as Halliburton story was gaining real traction,
____________________ ____________________
I heard anything and everything about the Halli case, and it would not have been sufficient justification for using such a valuable single-use distraction. Since you can't even confirm that the capture was a distraction, can you confirm otherwise on the seriousness of the Halliburton case?

originally posted by Adams
James Baker was leaving next day to importune funds,
____________________ ____________________
If you're referring to James Baker leaving to negotiate the removal of debt incurred by Saddam's government from the Iraqi people, that has been placed by other nations, and the fact that he has already succeeded with one country, then that would be good news.

originally posted by Adams
U.S. casualties were at record high, etc.)
____________________ ____________________
What do you mean by this? The casualty rate is not at a high, so the only thing I can find that you would be suggesting is that the total number of u.s. servicemen has gone up only about one or two per day in the last two weeks, an improvement in the rate. Certainly not bad news. There were some bombings that killed a lot of Iraqis, but those occurred in the day's after the news of Saddam's capture had been aired. What major casualties have you found in the days before Saddam's capture have you found that would warrant the use of distraction?

Sorry, the fact is that U.S. military deaths in November were highest since beginning of hostilities

originally posted by Adams
but you likewise cannot prove it wasn't and anyone who believes that this bunch of mendacious liars didn't do anything for political reasons are truly the "whacky" soles.
____________________ ____________________
Can we ascertain your mendaciousness from the insincerity of your arguments? You really should be a little more assertive/specific/informative if you're going to go around calling everybody who doesn't side with you a 'whacko'. Politicians do everything for political reasons, as that is the task of a politician. Unless you're referring to the people trying to shovel this 'timing' bs onto the grave of american media, I don't know of any 'mendacious liars' that you could be referring to.

Menacious means "given to or characterized by deception or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth" per M-W...from which statement did my "mendaciousness" come? As for specifics, how about Condi Rice saying after 9-11, "who'd thought anyone would use airplanes as missles?"; how about Dubya saying, "we know that Saddam has biological weapons and exactly where they are" or "we have incontrivertible evidence that Saddam purchased yellow cake to make nuclear weapons"; or Cheney saying, "Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program" and "Hussein's [possessed] 500 tons of uranium" and "We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization" and "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." and "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons." and "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." and (could go on here for a LONG time!); Rummy's statement that, "We know that U.S. forces will surely be welcomed by the Iraqi citizenry" and "we know as fact that Hussein has 80,000 tons of chemical weapons".

originally posted by Adams
I can however prove that Dubya knew of the impending 9-11 attacks as it's now public record that on August 6th, 2001 George Tenant hand-delivered a special intel document to Dubya titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.". After all, Dubya's hand-picked Gov. Keane (R) even concluded that 9-11 was preventable as chair of the 9-11 commission!
____________________ ____________________
There was no specific information that could have allowed anything to be done about stopping the WTC bombings, without shutting down the airlines within the us for months and profiling every person of middle eastern origins in the US. Even now the US will not resort to such tactics, as they would be self-defeating. There simply wasn't substantial info for them to go on. There was plenty of time before the bush admin for this hole in intelligence to have been filled. The first WTC bombing happened in 1993. Don't you think Clinton had similar evidence that some sort of hijacking might occur in the US? Don't you realize he had an ample six years of presidency afterwards to try to close the intelligence gap?

Let's not fall into their trap...of reducing their blatant neglect to partisan dribble; I don't *CARE* which president you care to blame, the point is that none of them have done shit to protect us from terrorism despite signing budget appropriations for trillions of dollars for "defense" and "intelligence" spending! And I vehemently refute your point that there was no "specific information" to prevent 9-11 (or at least some of the 12 documented previous attacks on U.S. interests). We knew that they had tried to hijack a French airliner to run it into the Eiffel tower, had attacked the WTC in 1993, and were planning an attack on U.S. soil...in fact, the CIA even leaked (in June, 2001) that Al-Qaeda planned to run a commerical airliner into CIA HQ in Langely! Why is it that in August, 2001, I (without any "intelligence") stated that I was surprised that Bin Laden hadn't, "run a 747 loaded with fuel into the WTC or the White House" (after hearing that the Mpls. FBI office here found Moussaoui had taken "747 flight lessons in April")? I can assure you that if I were president I would've taken extraordinary actions to protect our obvious targets...and at least notified local authorities of the dangers.

I'll make another prediction: Some truly whako terrorist will take out a U.S. airliner(s) with a shoulder-held RPG like their attempt on that El-al flight from Cairo a few months ago (and just missed btw). Another near certaintly is that they will eventually smuggle some of Russia's old nukes via container ship and detonate them, or with just a few grenades take out our pathetic power grid. The upshot is that we've done next to nothing to protect ourselves from even the most likely attacks.

originally posted by Adams
When are we going to hold these clowns (Bush, Clinton, Freeh, Cohen, Rice, Hadley, Cheney, Rummy, et. al.) accountable for their gross incompetence and sedition???
____________________ _____________________
Well, Clinton's already gone to trial for anything and everything from wagging the dog to lying under oath in court, and has been convicted on several counts.
The rest just aren't accusable of being incompetent or commiting acts of sedition. Care to link something that would show me otherwise?

First, Clinton wasn't impeached for his anti-terrorism incompetence (an Article to which, if brought, I'd of voted 'aye' based on already known evidence!). Louis Freeh was discredited and Will Cohen was outcast ( he's not even on the Defense Policy Board!). The rest of 'em can be taken care of by just voting 'nay' to Duby next November and making sure whoever replaces him is held accountable to truly fighting terrorism!

 

[eric]

One of the nine clowns, you must be joking.

 

[Adams]

Originally posted by Kathianne
posted by Adams




Welcome Adams.

Perhaps you would be surprised that most of us do want to hold those responsible for 9/11 accountable. I just don't see where you get Bush et al in this immediate group, other than by 'wishful thinking.' The previous administration not only had the information, they also had actual attacks, they responded to weakly, if at all. (yeah, I know it's a run-on, I have to clean the house and don't have time for corrections.)

Hi Kathianne and thanks for the warm welcome )! I simply hold Bush responsible 'cause he was president for 8 months and did (literally) nothing about terrorism despite being informed of the dangers by Richard Clarke and others. I'm neither a Democrat or Republican and in fact truly believe that the two-party system is the root of our problems...this country has never been more divided (at least not since the Civil War) and that diviseness, fueled by the nefarious cable "news" channels could even lead to our demise as a free nation...

I will agree that the Bush administration should have been focusing more on the terror aspects, but they should have been concentrating on foreign affairs in general more than was happening at that time-which in my opinion they failed to do. There is ample evidence that Bush meant his campaign rhetoric of 'compassionate conservative' which translated to 'BC without the extramarital sex, but even more government spending, but at home'. His emphasis right up through 9/10 was Mexico, Canada, and the good ole' USA.

9/11 did change the focus, BIG TIME. However, he is STILL focusing on domestic front, thus the huge deficits, higher than they should be for just war spending.

 

[Adams]

Originally posted by eric
One of the nine clowns, you must be joking.

________________________________________
Hey eric:
Okay, you got me there ...but in a county of like 280 million people is it inconceivable that we could find ONE person that cares enough about what's right to actually do what's right? If not, let's talk about how we need to change this system!!!

 

[eric]

Agreed !

 

[Annie]

Adams, sorry you didn't care for the 'welcome', though it was sincere.:baby:

Hmm, seems we agree more than disagree, though I will say that I stand by my arguement that it was the administration's focus that was wrong.

from Adams

did (literally) nothing about terrorism despite being informed of the dangers by Richard Clarke and others.

Since the previous administration had done nothing effective, my guess they didn't want them 'setting the agenda'. That was a serious misstep, but also one able to understand. As I said, and you quoted, everything changed after 9/11.

 

[Moi]

Blaming Bush for the attacking on 9/11 or claiming that he knew about them is a little disingenuous. The military, CIA, FBI and others have been warning about the terror which can be inflicted on this country for DECADES. Very few citizens listen or care about foreign affairs. They don't elect their leaders, congress, local or presidential on their stance on foreign affairs or security. Most don't want to be bothered with the inconvenience security measures would elicit (paperwork, long lines, restricted access, etc.)...all you have to do is litsten to all those claiming loss of their civil rights at the merest thing to see that.

In NYC everyone who looks for office space asks what security measures Landlord's have put in place- they are so concerned with security and access. Then, when they get into a secure building, they start complaining that they don't want to have a pass, turnstyles, they want their messengers and delivery people unfettered access, etc. It's pretty much the same way most people...you think they really want a secure country???? I don't think so.

If the people themselves aren't behind creating a more secure country, how can you blame their president for the attacks???