President Clinton has been repeatedly blamed for failing to take out Osama bin Laden in a 1998 airstrike on his Afghanistan camp. Now it’s being reported that the Bush team took a pass on a chance to kill al-Qaida leaders, including bin Laden’s top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, in an aborted 2005 mission.
Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld apparently called off the military operation at the last minute, deciding that it was too risky and could upset our “ally” in the region, Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. It’s unclear whether President Bush knew about the opportunity.
Do you hear the Republican outrage? I don’t either.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
248 Comments
Touche, Randy.
Remember when Bush said “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists. We make no distinction between the terrorists and the people who harbor the terrorists.”
Remember that?
Yup. Just another despicable Bush LIE.
If it’s a Bush pal like a Saudi prince or military dictator, he’s got to be protected even if they’re harboring top Al Qaeda terrorists . . .
how convenient.
Sentate votes to DEFUND cheneyGonzalez is on the hot seat againMeiers has to testify DESPITE pissypants claiming EPIraq War failing
but
but
wait for it…
Chertoff has a “gut feeling” some boogie man might attack us this summer…
way to go chimpy … bring out the terror card again, but this time people are on to your corruption
The wheels have fallen off. These guys are running on the rotors.
And yet there are still a few that actually support these clowns. Who the hell are these people?
“And yet there are still a few that actually support these clowns. Who the hell are these people?”
fleettwood, Repliliar, sgt slaugther, Paul Rossell, — the usual suspects – those folks whose prefontal cortices do not work unless The Rush Limbaugh says they should, and how they should work.
Let me predict the rebuttal of this story from our esteemed guests above: “The story is from the New York Times – they are all traitors and cheese eaters” (can’t dispute the story, so attack the source); “Randy, why do you hate America? Maybe you should move to Pakistan” (a variation on the first rebuttal);”Maybe Rumsfeld had good reasons for calling off the attack – how dare you criticize our leaders, are you a traitor?” (another variation of the previous).
There are probably other examples of defending the indefensible that I can’t think of due to the early hour…
The so-called War on Terror was never about anything except the Republicans keeping power anyway. Anybody who is not a total idiot could see that. Terrorism is just a replacement for “communism” that they used to scare Americans before the USSR fell. And BTW, Reagan didn’t “defeat” Communism. A little polish union leader named Leach Walensa did but the cons of course would not want to give labour any credit. If there was a real war on terrorism, we would have went after Saudi Arabia forst and foremost. They are the main financial and material backers of terrorist.
Republican = hypocrite.
Republican = hypocrite.
“Remember when Bush said “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists. We make no distinction between the terrorists and the people who harbor the terrorists.”
Remember that?
Yup. Just another despicable Bush LIE.…Posted by: CapnAmerica | July 11, 2007 at 01:34 AM
Way to go Cap’n. Advocating initiating yet anther front in the war. Yeah!!! Yippie yahoo, lets get Pakistan all rilled up and killing Americans too.
Atta boy Cap’n. Atta boy. You are JUST short of Bush’s pre-emptive strike mentality. Rock on.
The following, from the article, looks like what kyboshed the mission…
But as the operation moved up the military chain of command, officials said, various planners bulked up the force’s size to provide security for the Special Operations forces.
“The whole thing turned into the invasion of Pakistan,” said the former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.
“As much as we all wanted Bin Ladin dead, the use of force by a superpower requires information, discipline, and time,” Mr. Tenet wrote. “We rarely had the information in sufficient quantities or the time to evaluate and act on it.”
“The whole thing turned into the invasion of Pakistan,” said the former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.
“As much as we all wanted Bin Ladin dead, the use of force by a superpower requires information, discipline, and time,” Mr. Tenet wrote. “We rarely had the information in sufficient quantities or the time to evaluate and act on it.”Posted by: SolDevVB | July 11, 2007 at 07:07 AM
LOL – You sure this isn’t a quote from the 1990s?
Isn’t this EXACTLY what the neocons of yesterday (and today) object to most about Clinton’s reaction to the first WTC bombing and the Cole? That he didn’t pull the trigger and was thus weak?
Isn’t this a perfect example of why BOTH Clinton AND Bush couldn’t “do enough to get bin Laden?” (mission force numbers swell up inherently)
LOL
Yeah, whoda thunk ol’ Rumsfeld was such a Clintonian after all?
““As much as we all wanted Bin Laden dead, the use of force by a superpower requires information, discipline, and time”"
But we invaded Iraq, what’s the difference?
Pakistan is getting billions in aid and FREE planes from the US government to fight terrorism, but they can’t let US soldiers into areas, that they have no control over, to capture Bin Laden and they can’t go in and get him.
UPDATED: 07:59, January 19, 2007Pakistan Navy gets first U.S.-made P-3C Orion surveillance aircraftPakistan Navy on Thursday received the first of eight American-made long-range maritime surveillance aircraft P-3C Orion, a TV channel reported.
The aircraft landed at Naval Air base Karachi.
An extremely versatile aircraft, the Orion performs well in a multitude of roles including anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface (ship) warfare, maritime surveillance, naval fleet support, search and survivor supply.
Induction of this all weather aircraft will enhance Pakistan Navy’s reconnaissance, anti submarine and anti-surface vessel operation capabilities, according to Navy officials.
The aircraft has been received under first part of 1.2 billion U.S. dollar arms package deal announced in late 2005.
This was the first major sale of U.S. military hardware to Pakistan. The United States lifted sanctions and named Islamabad a major non-NATO ally in 2004
——————————–
Posted: 3/27/2007Pakistan’s $4.2 Billion ‘Blank Check’ for U.S. Military AidAfter 9/11, funding to country soars with little oversightBy Nathaniel Heller, Sarah Fort and Marina Walker GuevaraData analysis by Ben Welsh
WASHINGTON — In the three years after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, U.S. military aid to Pakistan soared to $4.2 billion, compared to $9.1 million in the three years before the attacks — a 45,000 percent increase — boosting Pakistan to the top tier of countries receiving this type of funding.
More than half of the new money was provided through a post-9/11 Defense Department program — Coalition Support Funds — not closely tracked by Congress.
This is a key finding of an investigative study by the Center for Public Integrity, using data assembled through Freedom of Information Act requests. Pakistan received $2.3 billion of post-9/11 aid from CSF money in fiscal years 2002 through 2004, a total that surpassed $3 billion in 2005. Not only did this earn it the No. 1 rank among nations receiving CSF money, but Pakistan’s take was nearly four times as much as all other countries combined received by 2005.
“With the possible exception of Iraq reconstruction funds, I’ve never seen a larger blank check for any country than for the Pakistan CSF program,” Tim Rieser, the majority clerk on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, told the Center.
CSF money has continued to flow despite growing U.S. concerns over Pakistan’s assistance in the global war on terror, and the Congressional Research Service estimates Pakistan’s total take of CSF through August 2006 at $4.75 billion.
The administration has requested an additional $1 billion in CSF funding for coalition partners as part of the Defense Department’s 2007 emergency budget supplemental request. Congress is currently debating the proposal.
CSF’s official purpose is to reimburse allied countries for costs incurred in supporting the U.S. global war on terror. The Center’s analysis of CSF and other military aid programs since 9/11 will be detailed in an upcoming investigative series, “Collateral Damage.”
Pakistan’s flood of CSF money made it the third largest recipient of all U.S. military aid and assistance in the three years after 9/11; it trailed only Israel and Egypt. Before 9/11, the South Asian nation received less military aid and assistance from the U.S. than Estonia or Panama, largely because of U.S. sanctions imposed as punishment for Pakistan’s covert pursuit of a nuclear weapons program revealed in 1998.
A recent study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates the total value of all American aid, including military, economic, and development assistance, to Pakistan since 9/11 at more than $10 billion.
In return for American largesse, Pakistan has become a key U.S. ally in its global war on terror. Since 2001, the country has allowed the U.S. to use air bases in anti-terrorism operations, provided access to logistics facilities in Pakistan, shared intelligence, helped identify and detain citizens who may have been involved in terrorism, and tightened the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan by deploying up to 80,000 Pakistani troops.
But the border remains porous, and Vice President Dick Cheney recently met with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to complain that Pakistan was not doing enough to halt the flow of insurgents. In January this year, the House of Representatives set out to place conditions on continued U.S. support to Pakistan, calling for greater oversight on Pakistan’s actions against insurgents based in Pakistan and progress on holding free elections. The White House opposes the House restrictions.
Musharraf has been under increasing political pressure at home following his firing of Supreme Court Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry on March 9, a move widely viewed as a crack down on the Pakistani judiciary. Since the dismissal, protests have erupted across the country, although most have been peaceful.
CSF was created in the series of emergency supplemental appropriations bills passed by Congress after the 2001 attacks. Beginning in early 2002, Congress began giving the Defense Department hundreds of millions of dollars a year to reimburse coalition governments for their support in the war on terror and, later, Iraq.
When Center reporters called the defense subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee in 2006 seeking copies of the Pentagon CSF reports, they were told that the reports were not public information. Committee staff told the reporters they would need to ask the Pentagon for the information; the reporters did, through a Freedom of Information Act request, and getting the information took several months.
“Coalition Support Funds” is not an official term but a colloquialism used within the Defense Department. The language used in legislation has been “payments to reimburse Pakistan, Jordan, and other key cooperating nations, for logistical, military, and other support provided, or to be provided, to United States military operations, notwithstanding any other provision of law.”
The legislation appropriating the billions of CSF dollars to Pakistan and other key allies requires reports from the Department of Defense to both the appropriations and armed services committees of the House and Senate describing how the money was spent.
In a written response to the Center’s questions about how the U.S. government vets Pakistan’s CSF bills, the Department of Defense public affairs office responded: “Each claim for reimbursement from Coalition Support Funds is evaluated to ensure the country expended its resources, the support was essential to U.S. military operations, and that the claim is reasonable and credible with documentation that adequately accounts for the support provided.”
But most of the Pentagon’s reports to Congress lack detailed descriptions of costs incurred. For example, for the three-month period from April to June 2003, U.S. taxpayers reimbursed Pakistan $192.7 million. The Pentagon’s report said nothing more than, “This payment is based on the bills submitted from the Government of Pakistan (GOP) for the support it provided to U.S. military operations during April through June related to the global war on terrorism (GWOT).”
Later that same year, the Defense Department approved another $195 million payment to Pakistan and its report suggested that little or no actual costs were known: “This estimate is based on anticipated support that will be provided by Pakistan, and reflects the historical average monthly rate of $65 million.”
There is no formal auditing mechanism to verify costs apart from local U.S. embassies and military officials vouching for the accuracy of the submitted bills, and Rieser, the Senate Appropriations Committee aide, told the Center that the former Republican congress “did next to nothing to track what was done with the money.”
“CSF,” said Rieser, a key advisor to Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., “is a backwater of lax oversight and poor accountability.” Republican Senate Appropriations Committee staff did not return repeated calls requesting comment.
U.S. lawmakers aren’t the only legislators in the dark when it comes to CSF payments to Pakistan. When contacted by the Center, an exiled Pakistani senator, Sana Baloch, said that the Pakistani Ministry of Defense refused to provide Pakistani lawmakers with details of post-9/11 U.S. support to Pakistan.
CSF differs from traditional U.S. military assistance in that it is designed only to reimburse “costs” and is not designed to serve as a grant in the way ordinary U.S. military training and financing programs like the International Military Education and Training program or the Foreign Military Financing program function.
Under CSF, foreign governments generate “bills” for costs incurred in counterterrorism operations and then submit the bills — often for such items as fuel, ammunition, security, and airlift — to the American embassy in their country. The embassy reviews the bills and forwards them to the senior U.S. military officer in the region, who vets them to determine whether they are legitimate and not inflated. Once approved, they go to the Pentagon and the State Department, which must both approve a payment.
Christine Fair, co-author of a recent report on the human rights performance of internal security forces in South Asia for the think tank RAND, and a South Asia expert at the U.S. Institute of Peace, said there is a political dimension to CSF that needs greater scrutiny. Pakistan, she said, “is grossly overcompensated.”
Craig Cohen, one of the authors of the CSIS report on post-9/11 aid to Pakistan, described CSF as “more of a way to reward the government for its cooperation.” When Senator Jack Reed, D-R.I., returned from an October 2006 trip to Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, he noted in a report to fellow lawmakers that officials at the American embassy in Pakistan recommended changing the program “to paying for specific objectives that are planned and executed, rather than simply paying what the country bills.”
Senator Enver Baig, a member of Pakistan’s parliament, told HDNet’s Dan Rather Reports, which collaborated with the Center on this story, that, “[The] people of Pakistan are unaware as to what kind of cooperation the Pakistani Defense Forces are giving to the United States in the war on terror. Because we feel unless and until the people of Pakistan are involved, until and unless the cooperation by the people of Pakistan is there, I don’t think Mr. Musharraf can single handedly make any progress as far as the war on terror is concerned.”
Funding for this report was provided by the JEHT Foundation.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/militaryaid/report.aspx?aid=831
“Isn’t this EXACTLY what the neocons of yesterday (and today) object to most about Clinton’s reaction to the first WTC bombing and the Cole? ”
The Cole? The USS Cole was attack about two months before Clinton left office. The FBI report naming who was responsible the the bombing was released to Bush days after he took office.
How did the Bush administration react after finding out that al Qeada was responsible for the attack on the USS Cole? I remember Cheney had secret meeting on energy policy.
That was his job. To make decisions of that sort. In this case Rumsfeld decided the cost to Pakistani relations and otherwise was too high. Yeah, so what?
What’s your point Randy??
Those of you who say we shouldn’t be in Iraq are now are bitching that we aren’t invading Pakistan.
Hypocrisy at its PRIME.
So y’all have to tell me, are you supporting getting out of Iraq and into Pakistan?
If you read your posts, that is EXACTLY what you are advocating. Does it hurt your necks much to talk out of both sides of your mouth?
Solly, yer nuts on this one. I dont think anyone wanted to invade Pakistan. I think the point is that bin Laden could have been gotten with an “air strike” according to the post.
Since when is an “air strike” an invasion? These guys act like it’s either/or.
And we are also pointing out, once again, the hypocrisy of the republicans and bushco by rending their garments and gnashing their teeth about OBL, and then not getting him when they had the chance.
What about “we will hunt him down and get him dead or alive”?
It didnt say anything about “unless he is in Pakistan”.
Perhaps the cons here could admit, for once, the OBL was a straw man meant to whip up the war frenzy?
I mean, if he was so goddamned important, why does bush “not think much about him anymore”?
Doesnt need anymore campaign videos from OBL? BIG eye roll.
“It is unlikely that the Pakistani president would have approved an operation of that size, officials said.”
The Libs try to have it both ways. Can’s you just hear them crying about this plan if it had gone forward?
Farmie,
The reasons for not going forward with the mission, and the responses stating that we should have invaded Pakistan…
“Since then, the C.I.A. has launched missiles from Predator aircraft in the tribal areas several times, with varying degrees of success.”““The whole thing turned into the invasion of Pakistan,” said the former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.”http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/washington/08intel.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
“Remember when Bush said “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists. We make no distinction between the terrorists and the people who harbor the terrorists.”Remember that?Yup. Just another despicable Bush LIE.”Posted by: CapnAmerica | July 11, 2007 at 01:34 AM
“There are probably other examples of defending the indefensible that I can’t think of due to the early hour…”Posted by: Steven Davis | July 11, 2007 at 05:46 AM
“But we invaded Iraq, what’s the difference?
Pakistan is getting billions in aid and FREE planes from the US government to fight terrorism, but they can’t let US soldiers into areas, that they have no control over, to capture Bin Laden and they can’t go in and get him. “Posted by: ???????????? | July 11, 2007 at 07:42 AM
Pick a side folks. Invade Arab nations or don’t. Don’t bitch about invading one, then whine because we didn’t invade another.
So do y’all feel the same about Iran? What do you folks want? Why don’t we just nuke them all? Is that your mentality now?
Nice job at not reading. What part of “air strike” do you not understand?
Good grief. Not EVERY military action has to turn into a full scale invasion. I think that’s the “discipline” they talk about.
Of course, it’s all the fault of the LIBS that buscho doesnt want to get OBL.
Wingnut logic.
“Pick a side folks. Invade Arab nations or don’t. Don’t bitch about invading one, then whine because we didn’t invade another.”
That’s one of the most astounding generalizations and knee jerk comments seen here for a while.
What part of “one size doesnt fit all” do you NOT understand? Each nation needs to be handled as an individual, not just our usual military “shock and awe” wash rinse and repeat.
And since we did such a splendid job of phucking up iraq, you think we should repeat exactly the same policy EVERYWHERE in the mideast?
There ya have it folks. Bushco in a nutshell. If at first it doesnt work, make excuses and do the same thing over again while expecting different results.
Sol,
The complaint of the responsible people in this country has been that Bush chose to invade the _wrong_ nation for the _wrong_ reasons, and was dishonest with the American people in the process.
How many legitimate complaints do you hear about the invasion of Afghanistan? None. The current criticism about ongoing operations in Afghanistan is that too many resources have been diverted to that other war, Iraq.
If the American people knew bin Laden was just across the Paki border, do you really think there’d be an outcry against going after him? Almost every American wants that sonofabitch _dead_.
Oh, and FYI, Pakistan is _not_ an Arab nation.
If they positively knew where he was, they should have ordered the air strike. But I am a little confused. If it was an air strike, why need additional defenses for SOF? ALthough planners, being their nature, can;t help but pile on more and more bs. No matter the trade, including warfare
Farmie,
If you read the article, you would have read that it was a * “snatch and grab” operation* to snare “members of Al Qaeda.” An airstrike MIGHT have worked, but
“Since then, the C.I.A. has launched missiles from Predator aircraft in the tribal areas several times, with varying degrees of success.”
Were they in a position to make an airstrike effective? Were they in bunkers? Were they in a cave? Were they around civilians? Bet you would wet your pants if they were around a school and the airstrike failed and killed a bunch of kids.
Sounds like they wanted these guys alive for interrogation. But never mind that. Let’s just invade Pakistan and kill em all. Great attitude. Lets shoot some missiles at them and damn the collateral damage. REAL niiiiiiice.
Lib logic – Wait, that is an oxymoron. My bad.
There ya have it folks. Bushco in a nutshell. If at first it doesnt work, make excuses and do the same thing over again while expecting different results.Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | July 11, 2007 at 08:45 AM
OMG Farmie, you are supporting those that say ‘Damn the Pakistanis INVADE INVADE INVADE then you post tripe like this? You’re better than that Farmie.
LJ, for god’s sake, WHERE did I say any of this?
“Let’s just invade Pakistan and kill em all. Great attitude. Lets shoot some missiles at them and damn the collateral damage.”
Uh, that is usually the wingnut gallery saying that stuff. Nice job of putting words in my mouth.
And.. the last I checked, OBL was supposedly hiding in caves in unpopulated territory.
But nice fear tactic talking about schools and all.
I guess OBL is just smarter than the US military and political leadership. Oh well…
Please post where I said INVADE INVADE INVADE?
You wingnuts are already in such a froth you cant read today?
meme city. It’s just damn tough to be a wingnut these days.
I guess it is stilL BILL CLINTON’s fault that rummy and the entire US military cant finish off a buncha rag tag insurgents.
OBL is STILL outsmarting the entire US military? Ok.
“Sounds like they wanted these guys alive for interrogation.”
I thought the preznit said “dead OR alive” about OBL.
Just another bushco lie I guess.
LJ, for god’s sake, WHERE did I say any of this?
“Let’s just invade Pakistan and kill em all. Great attitude. Lets shoot some missiles at them and damn the collateral damage.”
Where did I say you did? What the hell are you talking about?
Read the post Farmie
OMG Farmie, you are supporting those that say ‘Damn the Pakistanis INVADE INVADE INVADE then you post tripe like this? You’re better than that Farmie.
Posted by: SolDevVB | July 11, 2007 at 08:53 AM
Had we not idiotically invaded Iraq we might have been able to work WITH the pakistan government in dealing with OBL in the border areas. Before the oil-induced Iraq invasion we were on fairly good terms with much of the world; there was a recognition of the need to deal with the Taliban and alQuada.
But, BushDaBum pissed that all away with his personal vendetta against Saddam.
Ksfarmgrrl-
Okay I see where you got it.it was SolDevVB, not me
Ben,
yep.
“Do you hear the Republican outrage? I don’t either.”
Pretty funny Randy. The only outrage I hear is from the wingnut side screaming like stuck hogs that bushco and rummy got caught dropping the ball.
Again.
But please feel free to kill the messengers and ignore the DISASTER of war and foreign policy of bushco.
“Look, over there, a bright and shiney object”.
Yeah, it’s the libs who are a problem. Not this corrupt and incompetent republican administration and it’s rubber stamp congress.
Ben. Agreed
But judging by the posts from some that claim a liberal tie, does that give us the right to invade another country? Does that give us the right to go against what a tentative ally wants by ‘invading’ his country?
Solly, please post where I supported anyone saying INVADE INVADE INVADE.
But please feel free to kill the messengers and ignore the DISASTER of war and foreign policy of bushco.”Look, over there, a bright and shiney object”.Yeah, it’s the libs who are a problem. Not this corrupt and incompetent republican administration and it’s rubber stamp congress.Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | July 11, 2007 at 09:01 AM
It is the Libs who are bitching that we didn’t go in with “Guns A Blazin”
Jesus WEPT Farmie.
Sorry LJ.
Solly, you need to observe the first rule of holes here.
It was bush who said OBL was so important. Not the libs. Now bushco and their all star military CANT find, kill or capture the guy.
And they backed off this opportunity to get him. But keep changing the subject and blaming the libs.
So much for the party of personal responsibility.
So… I guess OBL is STILL outsmarting the military?
Sol,
The complaint of the responsible people in this country has been that Bush chose to invade the _wrong_ nation for the _wrong_ reasons, and was dishonest with the American people in the process.
How many legitimate complaints do you hear about the invasion of Afghanistan? None. The current criticism about ongoing operations in Afghanistan is that too many resources have been diverted to that other war, Iraq.
If the American people knew bin Laden was just across the Paki border, do you really think there’d be an outcry against going after him? Almost every American wants that sonofabitch _dead_.
Oh, and FYI, Pakistan is _not_ an Arab nation.
Posted by: Tom | July 11, 2007 at 08:45 AM
sol – I think the grey area we might enter is coevrt cross-border actions in uncontrolled territory. In many cases these are ‘conveniently ignored’ by the neighbor country that is just as happy having the mess dealt with but lacks the ability to do it itself.
It IS a quandry; Bush’s arrogance and incompetance has made it infinitely worse.
FarmieThe subject – an aborted mission. Why was the mission aborted. There is no mention of that. But you ASSUME that the same mission could have been completed with an air strike. Congratulations. You know more than the folks with the intel on the mission.
Finding one man in a mountain chain. You really think that is an easy task Farmie? WTF. Do you have heat sensitive x-ray vision to see through tons of rock? If so, please report for duty.
Bush has messed this war up immensely. And here you folks are bashing Rummy for thinking twice before creating an even bigger mess.
Hypocrisy —
BTW, here’s your link.http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/07/rumsfeld-took-a.html#comment-75537164
Sol,
Once again: Bush messed up by FIGHTING THE WRONG WAR AGAINST THE WRONG PEOPLE.
We all want bin Laden. We all want him dead. That was the point, back in 2001. SOME of us have NOT forgotten that.
“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
It damn well SHOULD be the priority.
“Sol,The complaint of the responsible people in this country has been that Bush chose to invade the _wrong_ nation for the _wrong_ reasons, and was dishonest with the American people in the process.
How many legitimate complaints do you hear about the invasion of Afghanistan? None. The current criticism about ongoing operations in Afghanistan is that too many resources have been diverted to that other war, Iraq.”_________________________________Agreed
“If the American people knew bin Laden was just across the Paki border, do you really think there’d be an outcry against going after him? Almost every American wants that sonofabitch _dead_.”______________________________The problem isn’t the Americans, it is the Pakis.
Oh, and FYI, Pakistan is _not_ an Arab nation.__________________________Whoppee shit. Go get your plaque.
Ben,The article states that we HAVE been crossing for covert ops. The problem with THIS mission is the scale got out of hand. I believe they stated troops in the hundreds. From what the article says, that would further enrage the Pakis that don’t want ANY US involvement in their country.
“Since then, the C.I.A. has launched missiles from Predator aircraft in the tribal areas several times, with varying degrees of success.”
Yes, please click on Solly’s link. I think it supports what I have been saying.
IF OBL is such a threat, and they have had at least mixed success in surgical strikes, wouldnt that chance to get OBL be worth it?
As opposed to the ZERO success the US military and intelligence folks have had?
I guess OBL just isnt that important anymore.
That message brought to you by the CIC.
Dang Farmie. Read the article. The strike wasn’t against OBL. The mission was to CAPTURE senior members of al qaeda.
Hey Farmie, can you explain, in some detail, just how you go about capturing enemies with an air strike?
“just how you go about capturing enemies with an air strike?”
Silly Rabbit, when they are blasted into the air, you catch them in nets. Real big nets.
Whoppee shit. Go get your plaque.Posted by: SolDevVB | July 11, 2007 at 09:18 AM
Was that necessary?
Sol, when you make such a basic error in fact, you don’t help make your case. It shows you don’t understand that Pakistan is on the Indian subcontinent, and that its citizens consider _themselves_ to be Indians, that you don’t understand the history of Pakistan’s colonial subjugation, its independence as part of India, and its partition.
Tom,
I really don’t give a shit about Pakistan. I don’t want them pissed off at us too.
Can you not see that from the post above?
Sol = silly rabit monkey
I really don’t give a shit about Pakistan.Can you not see that from the post above?Posted by: SolDevVB | July 11, 2007 at 09:32 AM
Yep, I see it. I think it’s very sad.
Do you think the Paks really want Arab terrorists running loose in their country? This is where your lack of understanding of the geography of the region gets you.
“Go get your plaque.”
Now, just hold on there for a minute. Who is the official giver outer of plaques?
Lack of understanding.
OK Tom, You again are smarter than the military planners, the Dept of State, and the Paki president. Did you read the article?
fleet – officail plaque giver outer monkey
Tom,Do you really think the Pakis want several hundred US troops tear assing thru their nation blowing crap up and killing folks?
Solly, the article supports OUR position, not yours.
Damn, talk about a dog on a bone.
Sol,
Of course I read the article. :::eyeroll:::
Rumsfeld did a great job of telling his generals to cut by 75% the amount of force they wanted to take into Iraq. Did he lack the authority, or perhaps the balls, to tell them the same thing about the snatch-and-grab?
I don’t think he lacked either. I think he’s just flat incompetent. I’m glad he’s been fired. I’m just sad it took so damned long.
Tom, from your post –
““If the American people knew bin Laden was just across the Paki border, do you really think there’d be an outcry against going after him? Almost every American wants that sonofabitch _dead_.”
You obviously missed the point that it was not the Americans that Rummy was concerned with, but the Pakis.
And with your overflowing knowledge you state that the Pakis would welcome several hundred US troops inside their borders?
Huh…
You completely missed the point of my 9:41 post.
Cheers, pal. I’m off to work.
OK Farmie, the article supports going against the Paki president, against the people of Pakistan, the possibility of losing an ally…
So you support that? You support creating yet another front in the war. Good for you farmie. You’ve become a bushie.
And Tom you missed the point of the article ::eye roll::::shocker::
Could this be the REAL reason bushco wont go into Pakistan to get OBL?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×1281780
Dear DU:
I am not very smart. I don’t know what to think. Please tell me.Signed,farmie
“About a dozen current and former military and intelligence officials were interviewed for this article, all of whom requested anonymity because the planned 2005 mission remained classified.”
This quote from the NYTimes tells me that we have a serious problem with a leak of classified information. I want to know who leaked this and when it was leaked. This is a matter of national security and needs to be addressed immediately. Leaky Leahy needs to put this at the top of his list and find out where it came from before our national security is compromised.
And I guess while we are at it why not just drop a few more bombs – Do we know where Irans crazy leader is? How about North Koreas? Maybe they are vacationing in a neutral country. No problem. Just drop some motars on their heads.
We have a much bigger problem here and it is leaking classified material to the media.
Sol–
Take a breath and think.
When Clinton opted to stand down when intelligence wasn’t “actionable” or would involve unacceptable collateral damage, you REPUBLICANS screamed and howled like little babies–”he’s weak, he’s cowardly, he hates America.”
That propoganda piece that ABC aired “The Path to 9-11″ had Clinton’s people hanging up the phone on agents in the field instead of making a decision . . . which never happened, btw but tied in nicely with the false narrative you CONS had framed this war on terror.
So when Rumsfailed does the same damn thing that YOU PEOPLE screamed about when Clinton did it . . . nothing . . .
Deafening silence.
Why is okay for Rumsfailed to use good judgement to call off an attack but it is not okay for Clinton to do the same thing?
Hypocrite.
fap fap fap
I DARE you tightie righties to read the article.
And as noted fleetie, you ALWAYS dismiss anything that doesnt agree with you.
The problem we face is that Pakistan is largely ungovernable. The military dictatorships we have becked (in the name of democracy of course) have largely alienated the people; both the fundamenalists in the hills and the secularists in the cities. As a result Musharrif is powerless to go after ANYTHING in the hills.
Note the Red Mosque fiasco this week. Many Pakistanis died in that operation; it has likely weakened Musharrif further. Meanwhile the hinterlands of afghanistan are slipping from our grasp as our forces are occupied elsewhere due to BushDaBum’s idiocy.
We had a wondow of opportunity after 9/11; even the Arab and Muslim world were in agreement that Taliban/alQuada/OBL were a threat. Unfortunately Bush deliberately destroyed that when he invaded Iraq.
Capn,
First up, I am not a CON.
Second up, this was one mission. Not the first, not the last. How many missions did Clinton have planned?
“you ALWAYS dismiss anything that doesnt agree with you.”
Not TRUE. Just DU and all the other Libs sites that you people must read to know how to think.
“How many missions did Clinton have planned?”
One. Operation BJ
“Leaky Leahy needs to put this at the top of his list and find out where it came from before our national security is compromised.”
Oh yea, now it is LEAHY’s fault the repukes leak like hell? Oh yeah, I know you will go on with the leaky Leahy meme.
And since bush promised to fire leakers, and then never did, why would anyone waste time on running down leakers?
You bushbots are chasing your tails trying to cover all the contradictions and hypocrisy from your boy shrub.
But you do get style points for gymnastics. We are amused, and we do encourage you to try again.
…and fleetie proves why he is the fap fap fap man.
Ankle biter.
And listen to Ksgrm whining about “leaks.”
For starters, Ksgrm, maybe it wasn’t a good idea for Bush to blame all the failures for 9-11 and Iraq on “bad intelligence.”
These people know how payback works, and payback is a b****.
Oh I get it when it is a leak about national security it is ok but when it is a about ‘outing’ a CIA operative it isn’t. Farmie I know you are somewhat intelligent. Who was Bush supposed to fire? Armitage didn’t work for him.
I’m waiting while you walk on by with your head down and tears are coming from your eyes.
Leaks aren’t really important – unless – they leak something you think needs to be leaked. I see how that works.
Well damn, capn. He has to blame SOMEONE besides his own folks.
Party of personal responsibility and all. I think being part of bushco just means never having to say you’re sorry.
Or wrong.
Nice job of dodging the issue germie. You just throw poo and cant back it up. And then you whine when caught.
Why doesnt BUSHCO go after the leakers?
Too close to home? heheheheheheheh.
…and that’s why we walk on by…
Who should he have fired?
Do you not think that leaking matters of our national security is a serious matter. Not dodging. I have admitted that Bush and Co. have made mistakes. I can’t accept that the NY Times is in the loop when it comes to military decisions.
Let see some intellectual integrity here.
Maybe if they had been gathered in an aspirin factory in Suday we could have dropped a bomb on them.
Suday = Sudan
I don’t see how this leak “damages national security.” It looks like it was classified because it was embarrassing.
heheheeh germie. True to form. Is that your new, covert, way of saying BILL CLINTON! BILL CLINTON!
I swear, you and paulie are the WORST about that.
BTW, how’s that working for you and yours?
“it was classified because it was embarrassing.”
Yeah, it had nothing to do with how we gathered intel, how timely the intel was gathered and organized, what kind of ops we plan based on similar intel. Let’s just parade that information on the nightly news.
There again is the infinite hypocrisy of the reich-wing shown.
Clinton is ridiculed for blowing up an “asprin factory” that the CIA had determined had VX nerve gas in the soil surrounding it.
But when Bush WMD’s fail to materialize, dead silence.
The fact that we knew where the meeting was is important enough.
You’re right, Sollie. It didn’t.
“But when Bush WMD’s fail to materialize, dead silence.”
Yeah all those damn democrats that voted, and believed that there were WMDs were just ever so silent right Cap’n?
Huh…
You’re right, Sollie. It didn’t.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | July 11, 2007 at 10:37 AM
????????????
“You just throw poo and cant back it up.”
You people do have your fixations.
I have never seen such ‘fishtailing’. Lets just let the NYTimes release classified data to the world. After all this won’t put our military in any danger. You people can’t be as stupid as you act. I just refuse to believe that. So it must be Clinton fatigue.
Gotta go. I am doing grandma duty today.
Motor on. The truth is coming out. By the way there were WMD in Iraq. Look it up. There was something in the soil. Wow!!
Those Dems for some bizarre reason chose to believe President Liar.
Actually, I think most of them were cowards who didn’t want to be viciously attacked by the right-wing smear machine as “terrorist-lovers.”
Unlike you people, I don’t defend my party when it makes huge mistakes . . . like siding with Worst. President. Ever.
Ksgrm–
You are why I despair for my country.
There weren’t any WMD’s in Iraq.
The fact that you could still believe that shows the reach of the right-wing media, and the willingness of you people to suspend disbelief of what you can’t bring yourself to face.
Show me a link that says WMD’s were found in Iraq.
I hope every dem who CONTINUES to support this war gets defeated in their next election.
Screw ‘em. I’m not going to defend Pelosi, Rahm or Steny Hoyer. Or any of the rest of their merry band of corporate, DLC lackies.
And sebelius is one of ‘em too.
“Those Dems for some bizarre reason chose to believe President Liar.”
Most of them did their own research. Most prominent was Clinton. She has been posted here several times after HER OWN RESEARCH that she felt that Iraq had WMD AND was a threat to the US.
Go figure.
Oh but that won’t fit into your blame bush meme will it cap’n. Sucks for you.
“Show me a link that says WMD’s were found in Iraq.”
She cant. That’s why she told YOU to look it up.
I bet she also believes saddam had something to do with 9/11. When she drinks the kookaide, I guess she swills the whole pitcher?
Gosh, if she thinks WMD were really found in iraq…
…could it be that our own germie is actually little ricky santorum?
heheheheheheheheh….
This has been stated many times over, but Congress did not get the same intel that Bush did, Bush cherry picked the intel (uranium from Niger) and they voted to authorize force as a last resort.
The rationale for going to war was WMD and the threat to the Untied States.
The inspectors left Iraq on the eve of “shock and awe.”
Had the inspectors been allowed to complete their work, they would have proven what we know now – no WMD and no threat.
Even the most diehard Republicans (except Hannity) have had to admit that Saddam was not a threat and did not possess WMD.
Obviously, the war was unnecessary and a waste of lives and resources.
We should have concentrated our efforts on Afghanistan and al Qaeda.
Damn right, Grrl.
Cindy Sheehan has vowed to challenge Pelosi for her seat.
I doubt that Sheehan can win, but she could sure scare Pelosi good, and that’s not nothing.
“Actually, I think most of them were cowards who didn’t want to be viciously attacked by the right-wing smear machine as “terrorist-lovers.””
What a GREAT party to belong to Cap’n. You must be ever so proud.
“I don’t defend my party when it makes huge mistakes . . .”
capn, Pinochio called. He’d like you to talk to you.
Sorry, there are obviously other diehards besides Hannity that still believe that Iraq had WMD, despite the fact that even Bush has had to admit that Saddam was no threat and did not possess WMD.
Discarded ammo shells from pre- Gulf War I do not count as WMD.
yap yap yap
“Had the inspectors been allowed to complete their work, they would have proven what we know now – no WMD and no threat.”
Then why did the democrats approve of giving the power to go to war? Why didn’t they tell the pres to wait for the inspectors to finish?
Sol–
It fits perfectly into my “blame Bush” argument and my “blame Clinton” argument too.
Nobody was whipping up war frenzy against Iraq like BushCo. Whether Clinton and other Dems did their own research or not, Bush was the prime mover on this.
Also the vote “to go war” was sold to the Dems as a vote to scare Saddam into compliance with weapons inspectors.
Of course, that was also a lie too.
Surprise, surprise.
But the Dems really have no excuse either. How could anyone believe anything Bush says after Florida?
He f***ing stole the election.
The Dems should have opposed everything he did thereafter since his entire pResidency is illegitimate.
But that’s what people with guts would do. And nobody has ever accused the national Dems of having any guts.
I’ll rephrase the last – Why did CONGRESS approve…
Answer: gutless.
If you still think that the vote in FL was the true swinging point, you are lost Cap’n.
Check out Hacking Democracy some time.
Elections are bought and sold each year – to either party/cause.
“Answer: gutless.”Posted by: CapnAmerica | July 11, 2007 at 10:55 AM
agreed
MORE ON CHEMICAL WEAPONS FOUND IN IRAQPolish Information Agency, private TV 24, official information of Polish Ministry of Defence | July 1-st, 2004
Posted on 07/01/2004 1:07:27 PM PDT by se99tp
source: Polish Press Agency
Polish Secretary of Defense Jerzy Szmajdzinski told about it US Secretary Rumsfeld during NATO summit in Istanbul. Sec Rumsfeld quoted him in radio interview late Wednesdaty – Pentagon informed Thursday . Official communique of Polish Ministry expected soon…
The wire dated July 7-th / 20.24 hours (Polish time)
Military Intelligence found chemical weapon in Iraq. There are several missiles containing chemical weapons – said Jerzy Szmajdzinski, Polish Secretary of Defence.
Secretary confirmed information given by Sec. Donald Rumsfeld during his radio interview. When asked why Poles got to know about from American Secretary he answered that “we wanted to wait until US Army will investigate the case and says what type of gas is in”. According to Szmajdzinski there are certainly missiles with chemical weapon. He said that Polsih soldiers found weapons around two weeks ago.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1163879/posts
Never one to duck a challenge.
“The intelligence which the president shared with us was in line with what we saw in the White House…”- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 2003
This is your prez contender.
Can’t duck it cap. You and farmie just motor on. Gotta go.
“Then why did the democrats approve of giving the power to go to war?”
One – The vote was to authorize force as a LAST resort.
Two – They were dumb enough to believe that Bush would only use force as a LAST resort.
Three – They were chicken shit when it came to being frightened to be called pro-terrorist and anti-American.
Four – They had no balls.
Five – They had no balls.
Unlike Lieberman and the Republicans, the Democrats admit that they screwed up big time by believing Bush and authorizing war.
They were wrong. Just look at the fire from the left that Hillary is taking.
They were wrong and they are going to pay for it.
Everyone knows that saddam had chemical weapons he used against our enemies in the 80s. That is not in dispute. The claim by Bush was that he had NEW weapons to replace those expended ones. THAT has never been substantiated.
All that has been found has been the used-up remnants of thos he used on our behalf against our enemies.
Ron Paul wasn’t wrong. One of the few with clean hands.
Iraq was a mistake. I think just about everyone agrees with that. The problem is what to do now.
20/20 hind sight… finish up business in Afghanistan and close down al qaeda amap
Interesting point sol. With some high-profile GOP Senators expressing doubts I wonder how he will fare in their next debate?
“20/20 hind sight”
For some of us that was foresight.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/dont_be_so_sure_there_were_no.html
See, this is exactly what I’m talking about.
This has been discredited many, many times, but the good folks over at FreeRepublic just keep re-posting it.
Why? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BELIEVE IT SO BADLY.
Wishing only makes it so at DISNEYLAND, idiots . . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24403-2004Jul2.html
Chemicals Not Found in Iraq Warheads
By Walter PincusWashington Post Staff WriterSaturday, July 3, 2004; Page A21
Sixteen rocket warheads found last week in south-central Iraq by Polish troops did not contain deadly chemicals, a coalition spokesman said yesterday.
The Coalition Press Information Center in Baghdad said in a statement yesterday that the 122-milimeter rocket rounds, which initially showed traces of sarin, “were all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals.” The statement came just hours after two senior Polish defense officials told reporters in Warsaw, based on preliminary reports, that the rocket rounds contained deadly sarin and that actions by the Polish unit in Iraq kept them from being purchased by militants fighting coalition forces.
Yesterday’s coalition release also said that two other 122-milimeter rounds, found by the Poles on June 16 with help from an Iraqi informer, tested positive for small quantities of sarin but were “so deteriorated” that they would have had “limited to no impact if used by insurgents against coalition forces.”
The Poles’ discoveries generated renewed talk that prewar claims about Hussein’s stock of unconventional weapons might yet prove true. BUT THEY WERE WRONG.
The Poles found 16 – 17 ammo shells from 1988 – pre-Gulf War I. They were no functional and presented no threat. They had been noted by UN Inspectors and marked accordingly.
But wait, there’s more:
When Tenet tapped Kay as the “ideal person” to lead a 1,400-strong WMD search party last June, Kay sounded neither daunted nor doubtful. “I’m confident,” he told NBC, “that we will reach the goal of understanding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program, including where weapons are, where weapons may have been moved and the exact status of that program at the time the war commenced.”
Ideal is about the last word anyone on Team Bush is using to describe what Kay is saying now. After his Iraq Survey Group spent seven months visiting hundreds of sites, interviewing thousands of Iraqis and sifting through millions of documents, Kay announced last week that it had uncovered no WMD in Iraq and was “highly unlikely” to turn up any in the future.
In two separate turns before Senate committees, Kay politely shredded some of the Administration’s most resilient—and repeated—claims of Saddam’s vaunted weapons programs, fingered flawed analysis at the CIA and only halfheartedly encouraged his colleagues to keep looking for the mystery arms. “Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong,” said Kay. “It is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed militarized chemical and biological weapons there.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040209-586175,00.html
The fact that right-wingers like Ksgrm can DELUDE THEMSELVES into believing that Saddam really did have WMD’s many years after it was proven beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt that he DIDN’T have WMD’s shows exactly why this country is in such bad shape led by such a bad leader.
More of the “they were moved to Syria” nonsense, Mr. Price?
Why would Saddam develop WMD and THEN move them to Syria on the eve of his opportunity to use them?
If that were remotely true, Bush would have been announcing it to the world everyday.
Moving them makes zero sense.
It would be like keeping a .45 on your nightstand until the evening before you knew that someone was going to break into your home.
It just doesn’t make sense.
And Saddam and his sons knew that they would be killed or executed if American troops captured them.
They had no reason to hide WMD.
They had many reasons to use them.
“He f***ing stole the election.”
Here we go again. Loser.
“3. Massive amounts of WMD were removed to known locations in Syria just prior to the war.”
Hank – WE CONTROLLED THE SKY. IF that had been happening (a) we would have pictures and (b) we would have “Predatored” them.
One thing you can say about our resident wingnuts. They are consistant in believeing what they believe, regardless of the facts.
They still believe saddam had wmd and that he was somehow connected to 9/11.
And they call us nuts because some libs believe in MIHOP and LIHOP?
hheheheheh. HEHEHEHEHEEH. HEE HEE!!
Ws,Do you know what the US policy is on enemies that employ WMDs? We retaliate with WMDs. Most preferably tactical nukes. So your analogy of
“It would be like keeping a .45 on your nightstand until the evening before you knew that someone was going to break into your home.”
Is like going in with a BB gun against an M1A2 locked and loaded.
LOL
So let me get this straight. Saddam schlepped his WMD on over to Syria just when he needed ‘em in order to keep ‘em for when he needed ‘em most which was just as he was shippin’ ‘em over to Syria…
The 29 percenters: who the heck is on first again?
LOL
Pedant,
If Saddam used chem/bio weapons on us, he would have been nuked. That make sense to you? If he used them on Iran, no nukes. Get it?
The “coalition” forces also failed during the 2003 invasion to secure very dangerous explosives.
‘Al Qa Qaa HMX/RDX/PETN stockpiles’http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/al_qa_qaa-explosives.htm“Aside from the specific nuclear risk posed by HMX, all of the explosives could be used to produce bombs strong enough to collapse buildings or shatter airplanes. Further, if these materials are available to the Iraqi insurgency, they consitute an enormous stock for the road-side bombs and other attacks that have hindred reconstruction and stabilzation efforts, in addition to posing significant danger to coalition troops and Iraqi security forces.”
Sure, I get it.
So he gave ‘em to Syria.
LOL
But do you get that part?!?
I have always been fond of Occam’s Razor.
What makes more sense to you, that1) Saddam never had any WMD
– or –
2) Mr. Dictator just up and gave ‘em to Syria.
If you pick door number 2 then my guess is you’ve got some razor nicks…
Because of Iran, etc, Saddam did NOT want to admit that he did not have any WMD’s. It was like a bluff in a big poker game.
I think it is possible that Saddam may have moved them to Syria, in order to reclaim them later. I think it is highly unlikely however. I think more likely is that, abetted by the French’s assurances. he thought the Invasion would never happen. I believe he thought he could play the bad guy, be coy about WMD, andget by with it. I think he deliberately misled some of his people, because he was paranoid psychotic. it didn;t work.
Maybe everyone forgets how the troops were carrying the chemical warfare suits with them everywhere they went.
There was no other intelligence other than what the misleading George Tenent provided about Iraq’s WMD.
I think the Democrats should call every troop in the field a liar for wearing their chem suits. They certainly thought that WMD’s were there.
Democrats – pathetic finger pointing – history revisionists.
I agree that he most likely did not have WMD. I DO however think he moved SOMETHING to Syria.
GAVE them to Syria? Who said that? More ASSumptions?
Sure, it’s possible. But you’d have to believe that the most controlling dictator on the planet would be able to sock away his biggest baddest weapons somewhere with no clue as to what’s going on within its borders (Syria) despite having for a next-door Mr. Dictator AND the Joos. And even if the Syrians knew they’d just hand ‘em back to Mr. Nutcase once the heat was off.
Sure, it could happen. And monkeys could fly out of Laura Bush’s butt, too…
Or, like you said: extremely low, approaching zero, probability.
LOL, sorry to disparage Mr. Lending Library for WMD, solly.
Syria would NEVER EVER abscond with WMD with the Joos next door and all. Especially if they thought Saddam was about to go bye bye anyway.
LOL
It appears to me that former SecDef Rumsfeld did the correct thing. A force that large isn’t going to go unnoticed. Musharaf’s hold on power in Pakistan is/was tenuous enough without the specter of a perceived, if not actual, acquiescence in an invasion of the country, limited as to time and purpose as it may have been intended. To keep Pakistan as stable as possible was/is of prime importance, given its location and, may I add, its possession of nuclear weapons, regardless of how small a number.
The last thing the U.S. needed was to have Musharaf taken out by some of the radicals in his country, which would have opened the entirety of Pakistan, IMHO, to a basing site for al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other such groups, rather than the limited area on the border with Afghanistan. Additionally, control of the nukes would then likely have fallen to the same radicals who might well have some reason to use them, as a counterstrike by the U.S. would have made them all martyrs. Thus, IMHO, Rumsfeld did the right thing by canceling this particular operation.
Give them to his enemy hoping to get them nack later? Ya gotta be kidding!
Moreover, Syria not only supported Iraq rhetorically, but also when the war actually broke out, Syria continued to turn a blind eye to the smuggling of weapons into Iraq via Syria and allowed Arab (mainly Syrian) volunteers to cross the Syrian border into Iraq.
http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2003/issue2/jv7n2a4.html
AFTER the invasion Syria has acquiesced to seeing its even bigger enemy attacked. That comes as absolutely no surprise. However, it still makes no sense that Saddam would have turned over WMDs to a mortal enemy.
If bush had truly believed Al-Quida was worthy of starting a war for, he would have followed them into Pakistan, and we could have fought them there rather than here, or I mean Iraq.
The difference between the aborted attack by Clinton and Bush are is that the location of Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. For Bush, the location of the Number 2 man was in Pakistan.
It’s understandable and wise that Bush didn’t launch the plan into Pakistan’s territory.
Again, no one answered me about why troops wore chem suits or kept them close at hand at the start of the ground war in Iraq. Were they wearing them for the grins?
Or did the U.S. military really believe there might be WMD’s in Iraq?
Again, are the Dems going to call military troops liars?
The troll is on a roll.
1. Change the subject: “Forget bin Laden, it’s about SADDAM’S CHEMICAL WEAPONS! SADDAM! SADDAM!!”
2. Stuff the strawman: “NO ONE ANSWERED ME! YOU’RE ALL IGNORING ME! WHAAAAAAAAA!!!”
3. Smear: “YOU’RE CALLING AMERICAN SOLDIERS LIARS!!!”
What a freaking hole.
Ron Paul has been saying these things for a long time.
It’s a shame that more people have not been listening to him.
1. Change the subject: “It’s not about the smear jobs I do on other bloggers, IT’S ALL ABOUT TOM!!”
2. Stuff the straw man: “You should attack the Democrats! DEMOCRATS!! DEMOCRATS!! DEMOCRATS!!”
3. Smear: “YOU’RE A HYPOCRITE!”
Heh.
Okay Tom, you’ve convinced me. I used to support Gay issues totally, but with examples of you and KFG leading the way in Kansas, I’ve changed my mind about supporting it with nut jobs like you two leading the way.
You are obviously a bitter person who desperately seeks attention for a cause. Same with KFG.
Brian,
Amen to that.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
LMMFAO
Oh my. THAT was funny. Let’s deconstruct the 1:56pm Three Step Smear:
1. Change the subject: “It’s not about Rumsfeld and Bush, IT’S ABOUT THE GAYS!”
2. Stuff the straw man with a laughably obvious lie: “I LOVE GAY PEOPLE!!!”
3. Smear: “NUT JOBS! BITTER ATTENTION SEEKERS! YOU JUST COST GAY RIGHTS MY SUPPORT!”
LMFGAO!!!
A good friend of mine closes every email with this quote:
“Principles only mean something if you stand by them when they’re inconvenient.”
Tom,
Thank you. You described the troll (Republican) very accurately.
And that “Principles…” is a great quote.
Cosmos,
The troll has a very specific pattern to its smear-jobs. It mixes the order up sometimes, and sometimes leaves Step 3 for a follow-up post, but the pattern is always there. Watch it carefully – you’ll be deconstructing the troll’s posts in no time.
When this page first loads and the picture of Rummy is rendered… at first glance… does anyone else think that – just for a moment – Rummy is flipping the bird?
Are you threatening me, Troll? Are you going to stalk me now? Drive by my house in your “black Escalade?” Follow me to Farmgrrl’s place in 10 days?
And all because you can’t take some criticism for the bullshit you post here – because you can’t stand to see someone peg you for what you are, and say so? My exercise of free speech is now a reason to use your “influence” to somehow harm me?
What a joke. A bad, tasteless joke.
Sol,
He always points with the knuckles on his index finger. I didn’t see a “bird” there.
Evidently Tom, you don’t know tongue-in-cheek humor when you read it and that sir is your major problem in life.
Troll, you’re slipping. You missed Step 1: Change The Subject, on that last post.
2. Straw man LIE: “I’M ONLY KIDDING! HA HA!”
3. Smear: “You have NO SENSE OF HUMOR! YOU SUCK!”
Give it a rest, okay?
Republican = Republikhan = many other nics originating with JM.
JM = ranting kook who melted down one February day and has been hiding under rocks ever since. Pay him no serious mind. Goad him, and he will degenerate into pirate lingo or swinging from the rafters spitting chiclets.
Hey when is the made for TV ABC movie about how Rummy took a pass??
Liberal media. Yeah right.
I am still waiting for the answer to a very serious question I asked this morning. Isn’t anyone here concerned that ‘no name’ sources leaked this story to the NY Times? This is a breach that could threaten national security and our troops in the field.
Who is the mole? Whose job is it to find this info? When will the hearings start? Will heads roll when the culprit is exposed?
I know the personal attacks on this blog are very invigorating but I would like to see some attention paid to this very real problem.
When we went into Iraq Repubs and Demos alike thought there were WMD. The fact that he had moved/hid/destroyed them is immaterial now. You can’t go back and undeclare war. Hillary will do well to learn that now if indeed she wants to be our prez. “Oops changed my mind, doesn’t work in these situations.”
Come on Randy, I love ya but really why should there be any outrage? Clinton passed on Osama at least 6 times and another couple of times none of his advisors could get his attention long enough to get permission for a strike against OBL.
We still have a few more ‘missed’ oportunities before w need to react with anything close to outrage. But is is nice to see a liberal realize that a missed opportunity has happened.
Soon the LA Times will have an editorial and you’ll know what to think about this ‘outrageous’ affair.
Hank
9/11 was supposed to have changed everything, if it had happened on clinton’s watch, you can bet we’d of taken a shot, after the enemy and location had been determined. Clinton would’ve been able to ignore the repubs. crying about violating the integrity of a soverign nation, he had to put up with.
Hank-
While it may be true that Clinton passed on opportunities, Bush was and is President. He has carried out his duties with ineptitude that has cost lives. At the least, he shares an equal blame for the lives lost since his election. He is currently the President. Of course the focus is on his ineptness. He is the current President.
Hey ksgrmm… It’s probably Libby… but, everybody knows he didnt do it… Why dont you just blame it on Clinton like you do everything else!!!
As ever…
Ills of the bush regime and the cry goes up Bill Clinton! Bill Clinton!
I swear, when the history of this adiministration is written, the right wing version will say. “George bush, 43rd President. See also Bill Clinton”
With them it’s always either “Clinton did it too”, or “Clinton didn’t do it either”!
Chas cheap answer but typical of libs. Pass on a real leak. Endanger our troops. Can’t hold the leakers accountable unless it’s something important like a desk jockey being revealed. Oh I know she was covert. It was just that her own husband didn’t know it when he did his magazine piece.
JR that is like saying that current events will not affect the future of our country.
For instance if mid easterners start taking flying lessons and only want to learn to take off but aren’t interested in learning to land – should this present a red flag to someone?
See the past did matter in the future.
I disagree littlejohn,
I think that Bush is taking half steps when boldness is required and I don’t think that he’s showed the leadership required. But he has to drag along a bunch of screaming cut and run democrats that use anything he does, good or bad, for their own political purposes.
When the Republicans condemn Libby, then I will consider condemning the NYTimes.
Not until.
What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
I’m not interested in condeming the NYTimes. They print the news furnished to them by leakers. Those leakers knowingly leaked classified documents. That is a violation of a federal law. And you are content to let that pass because of Libby’s bad memory as verified by Tim Russert. Typical lib response.
The leakers were REPUBLICANS, but the REPUBLICANS want to give a pass to leakers.
Typical REPUBLICAN hypocrisy.
ksgrm, may I respectfully request you read the Pentagon Papers case?
I guess you know who the leakers are since you know they are repubs. Come on let the rest of us know who they are.
We’re waiting.
Actually, KsGrmm I dont have a clue what you are talking about being leaked now… Why dont you fill me in, since I have been gone all day…
VT do I need to read the entire paper? My point is that military strategy should not be leaked to a newspaper. Whether a demo or repub in the prez. We have to get over these labels and look at what is best/right for our country. Entire to much is published/broadcast giving away military planning and decision making strategy.
Eventhough I didn’t agree with the Viet Nam war I also didn’t think it was fair to our military to make these papers a large part of our every day discourse.
We had an entire generation of our military who came home to hostile treatment and many never recovered.
When people other than those who are entrusted with it decide to disclose classified material – who draws the line, where do we stop?
Chas look at my 10:06 post and you will see what I am referring to.
KsGrmm It seems to me that the ones who “leaked” the information to the NYT were the military intelligence officials that gave them their interview… I dont see how you can hold the Times responsible for publishing what appears to have been FREELY GIVEN to them by those officials… Now, since those officials would be from the BUSH administration, it seems like the BUSH administration is the source of your blessed leaks…
Why would you want to try to blame that on the libs, or Dems, or on Lehey…???
I mean, hey, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out who the “leakers” were, since they didnt want to be identified…
Are you making the assumption that all military leaders are republican because Bush is?
That is quiet a stretch even for a lib. My point above was – repub or demo – this wasn’t their decision to make. Classified material is just that – rogue military leaders making that decision could and would be very dangerous for the troops and our country.
And Chas since I take it you are not a rocket scientist – who are the leakers?
Do we use as the acid test – the public deserves to know – who then dicides this the repubs or demo. I am guessing there would be a difference of opinion on this.
Or should we leave it as it and classified material is just that and it is a federal offence to leak it?
http://tinyurl.com/25vd6y is a link, should you or anyone be so inclined, ksgrm. Formal cite: New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). The concurring opinions are where the “meat and potatoes” are.
With all due respect, I don’t think this “leak” threatens national security, given that the article does not disclose methods of obtaining the intelligence or sources of the intelligence. The event disclosed occurred some two years ago, and if it comes as a surprise that at that time the U.S. was tracking al Quaeda officials with a view towards capturing/killing them, then that person is living in a different universe than I.
Bias admission: having been of appropriate age and sensibilities during the Watergate matter, any generalized statement of “this is a matter of national security” results in my need to restrain myself from a knee-jerk reaction that the same likely is not a matter of national security.
To the point of your inquiry as to the identity of the leakers. I’ve no better an idea of their identities than anyone else here on the blog. Wildly speculating, I would guess that they are as described: current and former military and intelligence officials who, for reasons unknown to me, have decided to make this public now. Is there an element of payback, perhaps, in the actions of such present and former intelligence officials given the “faulty intelligence” characterization by the Administration? Yes, I suspect so. Is there an element of dissatisfaction over how the military has been used by the Administration together with a feeling of resentment against Rumsfeld on the part of present and former military officials prompting their going to the Times? Yes, I suspect so. To what political party do they, or any of them, belong? I don’t know; I don’t think it matters, frankly.
Yes, if identified, these individuals face potential prosecution. Do I think this will occur? No. Why? Putting on my thinking cap, perhaps the leak was “authorized” by an Administration official desperately seeking leverage in the (denied) discussions within the Administration as to a new strategy, wanting to embarrass current officials publicly to further shift public opinion against the current policy. Another reason: there wasn’t a real breach of security involved in the leak itself.
Thus, ksgrm, I’ve failed to answer your question. I’ve one of my own, namely, specifically, how does this leak adversely affect national security?
Grmm WAKE UP dear… The quote you posted TELLS you who the leakers were… They were the military intelligence officials themselves… which is why they wanted to remain anonymous… GET IT??? They had to be BushCo officials!!! You cant blame it on the Dems, or the Repubs at large… Just on the Administration!!
“My point is that military strategy should not be leaked to a newspaper.”
But leaking the name of a CIA agent to a right-wing columnist is fine.
BTW, I didnt SAY the military intelligence officials were all republican… I said they were from inside the Bush Administration… PLEASE read it right???
Ben, I do believe you have the essence of the official “spin” on the Libby/Plame/Leak/CIA/Cheney/etc., et al, story…
Just hang on Ben… Soon we shall be once again flooded with the posts that tell us AGAIN that Plame was NOT COVERT, and all that junk all over again…
I keep telling them to check out the CIA itself, who said Plame was COVERT when she was outed… Of course, she wasnt Covert when her husband wrote his article… She had already been Outed to Armitage, who outed her to Novak.. And Libby lied as to who it was that leaked to Armitage… or at least didnt give up who leaked it to Armitage… You know the rest of that spin…
Chas, it has always been my opinion that the violation of the applicable statute occurred upon the “outing” of Ms Plame to Mr. Armitage, and it was the one doing that outing who was (or should have been) the ultimate subject of the inquiry. To the extent Mr. Libby’s untruthful testimony blocked this inquiry (found to be untruthful on three occasions by a jury). Thus, my impatience with “Fitzgerald already knew who leaked to Novak” arguments. That leak didn’t violate the statute; it was the person who passed the name to Armitage that violated the statute.
I agree with you entirely, Tolle… and that is what I have posted repeatedly on this Blog… Thanks!!
Gotta use the preview function. Insert after the closing paren following “jury” the following: “that resulted in the failure of the investigation to so identify that person, which resulted in the obstruction of justice conviction.”
I also believe that Libby obstructed Justice, by not revealing, under questioning, who it was who revealed the name to Armitage…
OK… good… I think thats just what I was trying to say… I just didnt do it with as much legal “grace” as you did… Again, Thanks!!
CapnAmerica–
Thank you for setting me straight on how Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction.
You’re absolutely right–I was deluded into to believing something was true when it wasn’t.
I think it’s always better to know the truth, even when it is painful, than to run from it or rationalize it.
Again, I appreciate the time you took to correct my wrong-headed thinking.
Ksgrm
That’s what Ksgrm would say if she had any integrity.
Which she doesn’t, apparently.
i tend to agree CapN…
Of Course if Al-Quida top leaders fled to Pakistan, he’d send our troops to Iraq, so they could recruit and train there on the job. If the remote areas of Pakistan aren’t under Musharaff’s control, perhaps we should bring it under control, as they are providing a safe haven.
.Al Qaeda entrenched in Pakistan, U.S. officials say By David MorganWed Jul 11, 2:44 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Al Qaeda has become entrenched in a remote corner of Pakistan, and the United States fears a military strike could spawn new militant activity in the country, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENTTop intelligence analysts, appearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, said the militant network led by Osama bin Laden has become increasingly active in ungoverned sections of Pakistan near the Afghanistan border, where bin Laden himself is believed to be protected by local tribal leaders.
“They seem to be fairly well settled into the safe haven in the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan. We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications,” said John Kringen, the CIA’s director of intelligence.
Kringen and two other intelligence officials testified about global security threats facing the United States amid concerns about a potential new al Qaeda threat on U.S. soil following attempted attacks in Britain.
Al Qaeda remains the leading terrorist threat against the United States nearly six years after its members were driven from bases in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan by U.S.-led forces following the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.
American officials warned in January that al Qaeda leaders had regrouped at camps in Pakistan, leading some political leaders to urge U.S. military action against the militant network’s camps if Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf failed to act on his own.
“Sooner or later you have to quit permitting them to have a safe haven there. At the end of the day, when we have had success, it’s when you’ve been able to get them worried about who was informing on them, get them worried about who was coming after them,” Kringen said.
U.S. officials have avoided action that could harm Musharraf, whom officials described as a key U.S. ally who has aided in the capture of many al Qaeda members.
A secret 2005 mission to capture senior al Qaeda members in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last moment when Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to a recent New York Times report.
But Thomas Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence for analysis, warned that U.S. intervention could stir into action Islamist militants currently involved in struggles against India over Kashmir.
“It is not too great an exaggeration to say there is some risk of turning a problem in northwest Pakistan into the problem of all of Pakistan,” he said.
Musharraf government’s weathered eight days of battles against Islamist militants from the Red Mosque in Islamabad where one cleric and 50 militants died in fighting that finally ended on Wednesday.
“The complaint of the responsible people in this country has been that Bush chose to invade the _wrong_ nation for the _wrong_ reasons, and was dishonest with the American people in the process.”
Posted by Tom
And the truth shall set you free
“Al Qaeda remains the leading terrorist threat against the United States nearly six years after its members were driven from bases in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan by U.S.-led forces following the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.”
It’s too bad Bush made the decision to NOT go after them five years ago BEFORE they became ensconced there. Unfortunately, bush considered his personal vendetta more important that our national security.
ks.gramcrackers, a leak of a mission that never took place, doesn’t actually seem to have many, if any ramifications. Other than to expose that certain leaders were not intent on going after top al-quida officials for their political reasons.
This reminds me of the ‘leak’ about the ’secret bombing’ of Laos and cambodia. The only people from whom it was a secret was the American people.
Eek! I personally didn’t read all of these posts, but if it isn’t already in here, I predict a “But Clinton” type response and delusion over the fact that neocons are corrupt and commit treason consistently.
I have to wonder if KSGrm is going to withdraw her post regarding the Poles and WMD. She had to know when she posted it that it had already been debunked over and over again.
Is this going to be another “Clinton and the Cole” situation or is she going to do the right thing and admit that she posted crap knowing that it was false?
My bet is that she will just pull another “KSGrm” and pretend it never happened.
The other possibility is that she’s senile enough to believe what she posts. Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt!
Wichita Eagle – question: Do you or do you Not want to fight Al Queda?
If you want to fight Al Queda, then stop your propoganda campaign for America to surrender in Iraq.
If you do not want to fight Al Queda, then PRAISE the current Administration for its inaction in this case.
You may now go have your cake and eat it too.
There was no al Qaeda in Iraq prewar, Max. Should we PRAISE them for allowing al Qaeda to establish a foothold in Iraq?
Republicans would spin the crash of the Hindenburg as being a good source of heat………
Christ.
“The Return of Al Qaeda – A new National Intelligence Estimate raises concerns that the terrorist group is growing stronger.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19717961/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/
Yep, George is doing a great job. A great job.
Yep, we’re all safer now.
Again Clark, like you did the other day, you refuse to address the present.
You want to talk about was was, what might have been, what could have been, what shoulda been, but you refuse to address WHAT IS today.
Good grief Charlie Brown wasn’t THAT stupid.
Hell, what should be done now is for the US to take out Pakistan and Iran now.
Instead of criticizing Bush for inaction, y’all will criticize Bush for taking too much action.
Can you Libs spell out YOUR plan for the future?
Hell no. All you can do is criticize Bush. It’s easy to be the quarterback on the sidelines, what’s your big game plan libs?
You Dems have control of Congress now, why in heck don’t you just defund the war? Hurry up! What are you waiting for? American troops are being killed every day, and since January 2007 – it’s ALL YOUR FAULT DEMS!
Never heard of a veto, Max?
Clark, if your Democrats do NOT pass a funding bill for the war, there is nothing to veto.
Your guys can simply not vote for more funding. Why did the Dems f*ck-up and vote for another 3 months for the war? The Dems f*cked up!
“You Dems have control of Congress now, why in heck don’t you just defund the war?”
That’s not how it works when you wnat it both ways. The cheese eating surrender monkeys have forgotten that their people authorized this war along with the right thinkers. Pussies.
“Never heard of a veto, Max?”
Then make Bush veto it.You make no sense, ws.
“The complaint of the responsible people in this country has been that Bush chose to invade the _wrong_ nation for the _wrong_ reasons, and was dishonest with the American people in the process.”
Posted by Tom
And the truth shall set you free
Posted by: ProudAmerican | July 11, 2007 at 05:36 PM
Max you a&&, Bush did not go to Iraq after “Al Queda” he open the door for them.
“Al Queda” he open the door for them.”
If that is true, why would you people want to pull out? Wouldn’t you want to stay and fight?Sorry, fight and Libs don’t go together.
WSClark,
Thank you for the informative link. A repost
‘The Return of Al QaedaA new National Intelligence Estimate raises concerns that the terrorist group is growing stronger.’http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19717961/site/newsweek/page/0/
fleettwood, read these pages… and try to NOT be the BDP’r.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/041207.html“A date certain for American withdrawal also would put non-Iraqi al-Qaeda operatives – who number only an estimated five percent of the armed insurgency – in a tighter fix.Without the United States to point to, al-Qaeda would find it tougher to recruit jihadists and would likely face military pressure from Iraqi nationalists fed up with foreign interference.
That is why al-Qaeda leaders view Bush’s open-ended war in Iraq as crucial to their long-range plans for spreading their radical ideology throughout the Muslim world. As “Atiyah,” one of Osama bin Laden’s top lieutenants, explained in a Dec. 11, 2005, letter, “prolonging the war is in our interest.” ”
Read bottom of page 16, top of 17 at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center,http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/CTC-AtiyahLetter.pdf
Why would anyone believe consortium news? It’s as commie as you are.
“Then make Bush veto it.”
Already did. There were tooooooo many chicken shit Republicans that would not vote to override the veto.
Dumbass.
Hell will freeze over before the liberal democrats come up with their plan for the future.
Still waiting….
And waiting……….
And waiting…………….
“If that is true, why would you people want to pull out?”
According to Pentagon intelligence, al Qaeda is less than five percent of the insurgency in Iraq.
Does that sound like good odds to you Fleet?
Already did. There were tooooooo many chicken shit Republicans that would not vote to override the veto.
Dumbass.
Posted by: WSClark | July 11, 2007 at 08:13 PM
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Funny Clark. Blame the Republicans for forcing the Democratic majority to vote for MORE funding for the war in Iraq.
You manufacture excuses for a living?
Does fleettwood think West Point is a “commie” source?
My post:”Read bottom of page 16, top of 17 at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center,http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/CTC-AtiyahLetter.pdf ”
fleettwood = BDP
“Still waiting….”
I offered my plan nearly a year ago – pull back to protected bases, secure the borders of Iraq and protect the oil supply from terrorist organizations.
Any questions?
“Blame the Republicans for forcing the Democratic majority to vote for MORE funding for the war in Iraq.”
Did you expect that we should provide NO funding for the troops?
That is a good one Max – blame the Bush War of Choice on the Democrats.
I can hear it now – Bush will say that the Democrats made him do it.
Suck up to Hannity much, Max?
Loser.
Pull back and do what exactly Clark? Watch the slaughter?
Your Dems are in power Clark boy and they are doing NOTHING to stop the Iraq war. In fact, they voted for more funding. Hypocrites.
Sorry, I didn’t recall seeing your solution published anywhere. Guess I missed it. Guess your Dem buddies in DC missed it too.
Great idea though.
–cough–cough–
“Watch the slaughter?”
Are we supposed to stop the slaughter every where, Max?
What about Darfur?
What about China?
What about Cuba?
What about Tibet?
Any other countries you want to invade?
What about the American people? Should we just forget about them and spend all of our lives and resources in foreign countries?
Dumbass.
“Suck up to Hannity much, Max?”
Who is it who go to websites to be told how to think?Hint: It’s not us. That would be the “you peoples”.
“I offered my plan nearly a year ago…”
Perhaps your never-ending anger should be directed at the Libs in Congress.
Blow it out your fleetwood, Fleettwood.
fap fap fap
Sorry, fight and Libs don’t go together.Posted by: fleettwood | July 11, 2007 at 07:55 PM
Feetooze as you defend the draft dodges in the white house,Sorry, fight and republicans don’t go together. Unless they have someone else do the fighting for them
Does fleettwood want al-Qaeda to get stronger in Iraq, and then spread worldwide?
Please explain YOUR “plan” to us fleettwood.
“That is why al-Qaeda leaders view Bush’s open-ended war in Iraq as crucial to their long-range plans for spreading their radical ideology throughout the Muslim world. As “Atiyah,” one of Osama bin Laden’s top lieutenants, explained in a Dec. 11, 2005, letter, “prolonging the war is in our interest.” ”
Read bottom of page 16, top of 17 at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center,http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/CTC-AtiyahLetter.pdf
I see the queer and his buddies are still here btiching about Iraq and Bush.
Nothing every changes with the complainers. All talk and no action.
When’s Pelosi gonna DO somethin besides flap her lips? The great fearless leader of the Libs is nothin but a hosebag of hot air. Hot air from the mouths of all the Lib talkers.
Say Ridley, ya got any ear plugs for me?
Is it my imagination, but do Max and TT sound vaguely similar in their comments???
Fleetwood have a plan? Come on, cosmos, does basement mold have intelligence? No, I didn’t think so, either.
Does anybody else notice a missing (or hiding) blogger here today?? Hmmmm
Who is hiding?
Apparently Rummy felt he couldn’t afford to sacrifice such an important Republican asset as OBL at a time when the administration is under so much fire from Congress and the voters. He’s counting on Al Qaida to pull Bushllit’s nuts out of the roaster again.
Osama Bin Laden has retired, but it’s Bush who has resurrected al-Qaida as a last ditch effect to scare Americans.
And TT sounds like Fleetwood.
The old “They saw the same reports bush did” is really weak. It should be “They saw the reports bush/cheney had fabricated.”
Is the GAO guilty of being a traitor organization by exposing the incompetence of this administration in securing nuclear materials? Should they too be prosecuted?Fake firm gets nuclear license in U.S. govt sting By JoAnne AllenThu Jul 12, 12:46 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Undercover investigators, working for a fake firm, obtained a license to buy enough radioactive material to build a “dirty bomb,” amid little scrutiny from federal regulators, according to a government report obtained on Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENTThe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the license to the dummy company in just 28 days with only a cursory review, the Government Accountability Office said in a report to be released on Thursday.
The GAO, which set up the sting, said the NRC approved the license after a couple of faxes and phones calls and then mailed it to the phony company’s headquarters — a drop box at a United Parcel Service location.
“From the date of application to the issuance of the license, the entire process lasted 28 days,” the GAO said. “GAO investigators essentially obtained a valid materials license from the NRC without ever leaving their desks.”
The NRC oversees the U.S. nuclear industry and nuclear material safety issues.
The GAO report said its undercover agents made counterfeit copies of the license, changed the wording to remove restrictions on how much they were allowed to buy and then ordered enough radiological materials to build a dirty bomb.
The GAO, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, said its investigators did not take possession of the radiological materials.
U.S. officials have warned that militant groups, including al Qaeda, could use conventional explosives and material from sources as common as hospital X-ray departments to build so-called dirty bombs that could spread radioactive waste across urban centers.
The GAO sting was requested by a Senate panel that has been exploring post-September 11 security gaps in the U.S. government’s regulation of radioactive material.
The senior Republican on the panel, Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, said the panel found the NRC was issuing licenses for “dangerous” level materials before visiting facilities making the applications.
“The NRC’s first visit to the facilities could be up to one year after the license was issued. That’s like handing out a gun license and waiting a year to do the background check,” Coleman said in a statement.
The GAO recommended the NRC improve its process for examining license applications for radioactive materials and explore ways to prevent the counterfeiting of licenses.
A higher energy price is a sacrifice we have to make for cleaner fuels
Live with your lover before getting married
I haven’t been up to much , but I guess it doesn’t bother me. Pfft. I just don’t have much to say lately, but maybe tomorrow. Basically nothing seems worth doing.
I feel like a fog, not that it matters. I’ve pretty much been doing nothing , but eh. Today was a loss. I haven’t gotten much done for a while.
I haven’t been up to much recently, but whatever. I just don’t have much to say lately. Basically nothing happening to speak of. So it goes. My mind is like a complete blank. Such is life.
Blame the parents of a murderer parents for the crime
Sex offenders should be, should not be castrated
Help the homeless down the street and persuade them to look for work
Blame the parents of a murderer parents for the crime
Today was a complete loss, but oh well. I don’t care. So it goes. Nothing going on , but shrug. Not much on my mind these days. Such is life.
Not much on my mind right now. I haven’t been up to anything. Today was a complete loss. That’s how it is. Not much exciting going on these days.