{"id":9106,"date":"2007-05-26T13:58:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-26T20:58:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/?p=9106"},"modified":"2007-05-26T13:58:00","modified_gmt":"2007-05-26T20:58:00","slug":"that-american-cant-do-spirit-dan-collins","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/?p=9106","title":{"rendered":"That American Can’t Do Spirit [Dan Collins]"},"content":{"rendered":"

Celebrated by the LA Times this Memorial Day Weekend: Bush was twice warned of Iraq challenges<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\nHoly shit!  You mean he was warned twice that it mightn’t be easy to bring security, democracy and prosperity to Iraq?\n<\/p>\n

\n

These warnings were distributed to senior officials with daily access to President Bush and others at the very top of the administration, the report states.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nTo officials?!  At the very top?!  Of the administration?!\n<\/p>\n

\nHey, what about Congress?  Story doesn’t say.  Whom to turn to for a quote?\n<\/p>\n

\n

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), said the report demonstrated that “the intelligence community gave the administration plenty of warning about the difficulties we would face if the decision was made to go to war.”\n<\/p>\n

\nHe added: “These dire warnings were widely distributed at the highest levels of government, and it’s clear that the administration didn’t plan for any of them.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nBut could he be the same person referred to in Wikipedia<\/a>?\n<\/p>\n

\n

In 2002, Senator Rockefeller made an official visit to several Middle East countries, during which he discussed his personal views regarding United States military intentions with the leaders of those countries. In October of that year, Senator Rockefellar strongly expressed his concern for Saddam’s alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction program while addressing the U.S. Senate,\n<\/p>\n

\n“There has been some debate over how “imminent” a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nCould he be the same man whose family *GATHP!* made a fortune addicting America to the oil that would, in the future, embroil it in the Middle East<\/i>?\n<\/p>\n

\nThere are many, many self-serving, two-faced assholes (sorry to mix metaphors that way, but at least both components are somatic) in Congress, but Jay makes a strong claim for Premier Senate Asshole.  Tell us, PSA, how you advised the Bush Administration regarding the occupation.\n<\/p>\n

\n

In November 2005 during a TV interview, Rockefeller stated: “I took a trip…in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course that had taken shape shortly after 9\/11.” Rockefeller noted that this was his personal opinion, and that he was not privy to any confidential information indicating that such action was planned. On October 11 of that year, he was one of 77 Senators who voted for the Iraq Resolution authorizing the Iraq invasion.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nOh.  Well, that explains everything.\n<\/p>\n

\n

The Senate committee approved the release of its report by a vote of 10-5. Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska joined the Democratic majority in supporting its publication.\n<\/p>\n

\nSen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the panel, praised the compilation of the cautions circulated by the intelligence community but said the report should have critiqued more thoroughly how the assessments were handled within the administration.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nSo, it was bipartisan.  Thanks, LA Times, for another stellar example of agitprop thinly disguised as reporting!  Unfortunately, you are hemorrhaging readership much faster than you can cause Bush to hemorrhage support.  He’s got a year and a half.  Think you’ll outlast him?\n<\/p>\n

\nUPDATE: Mahablog drops the gauntlet<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\nReal American heroes<\/a>.  Bloggers?  Notsomuch.\n<\/p>\n

\nUPDATE x2: Suddenly my comments are being held for moderation over there.  Here, kitty kitty.\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

“Yeah? What information was Bush privy to that Congress didn\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2t have? What part of advice and consent was missing, if any? Is there any defense for the tendentiousness of the LA Times article? Is there any defense for the Janus-faced mendacity of Jay Rockefeller? Is it or is it not true that the previous administration stated that Saddam had to be brought to heel one way or another? Did or did not Al Gore say so? Did or did not John Kerry say so? Did or did not Senator Clinton say so?\n<\/p>\n

\nBite me.”\n<\/p>\n

\n***\n<\/p>\n

\n“Mr. Collins: You ask, I answer.\n<\/p>\n

\nFor the intelligence Bush had that Congress didn\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2t, see this<\/a>, this<\/a>, and this<\/a>, just for starters. You really need to give up that howler; you\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2re just embarrassing yourself.\n<\/p>\n

\nSince Congress didn\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2t get the truth, they couldn\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2t really give \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cadvice and consent\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d could they? This would also explain the \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cJanus-faced mendacity of Jay Rockefeller.\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d The boy was fool enough to believe the Bushies. At least he\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2s wised up; you\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2ve got a ways to go, I see.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201ctendentiousness of the LA Times article\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d exists only in your head.\n<\/p>\n

\nAs for,\n<\/p>\n

\nIs it or is it not true that the previous administration stated that Saddam had to be brought to heel one way or another? Did or did not Al Gore say so? Did or did not John Kerry say so? Did or did not Senator Clinton say so?\n<\/p>\n

\n\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cOne way or another\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d was through sanctions, flyovers, unmanned drones, and occasional air attacks, among other things. They didn\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2t start a bleeping stupid war. Throughout the 1990s after the Gulf War, Saddam was contained in Iraq. He was still contained in Iraq when the Bush ordered the invasion.\n<\/p>\n

\nNext time you have any questions, use google. I\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2m not a bleeping encyclopedia.”\n<\/p>\n

\n***\n<\/p>\n

\nThanks, Maha!
\n
\nLink 1\n<\/p>\n

\n\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cMuch of the contents of the September 21 PDB were later incorporated, albeit in a slightly different form, into a lengthier CIA analysis examining not only Al Qaeda’s contacts with Iraq, but also Iraq’s support for international terrorism. Although the CIA found scant evidence of collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the agency reported that it had long since established that Iraq had previously supported the notorious Abu Nidal terrorist organization, and had provided tens of millions of dollars and logistical support to Palestinian groups, including payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d\n<\/p>\n

\nWhich of the contents, and to whom disclosed?\n<\/p>\n

\n\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cIn their presentation, the naval reserve briefers excluded the fact that the FBI and CIA had developed evidence that the alleged meeting had never taken place, and that even the Czechs had disavowed it.\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d\n<\/p>\n

\nTo my knowledge, the Czechs have never disavowed this.  I would like chapter and verse.  I have Czech sources with whom I can double check, as it were.\n<\/p>\n

\n\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cThis same antipathy toward the CIA led to the events that are the basis of Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation of the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame’s identity, according to several former and current senior officials.\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d\n<\/p>\n

\nBwahahahaha!  Like Larry Johnson?\n<\/p>\n

\n\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cWithout Cheney’s knowledge, his query led to the CIA-sanctioned trip to Niger by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Plame’s husband, to investigate the allegations. Wilson reported back to the CIA that the allegations were most likely not true.\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d\n<\/p>\n

\nWait.  Wasn\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2t it Cheney\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2s office that requested the info, before Yellowcake Joe was tapped (at the express non-suggestion of his wife)?  And did lying Joe\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2s report debunk the allegation?  His debriefers didn\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2t think so.\n<\/p>\n

\nLink 2\n<\/p>\n

\n\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cPresident Bush called Democratic critics of how he sold the Iraq war to the world “irresponsible” five times Thursday during a brief news conference in South Korea.\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d\n<\/p>\n

\nWell, that opening sentence really bolsters one\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2s sense of the evenhandedness of what\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2s going to follow.  \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cSold\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d is the word that ought to be in quotation marks.  Caveat emptor.\n<\/p>\n

\n\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cThe Senate committee concluded that none of the intelligence analysts it interviewed said they were pressured to change their conclusions on weapons of mass destruction or on Iraq’s links to terrorism.
\n
\nBut the committee’s findings were hardly bipartisan. Committee Democrats said in additional comments to the panel’s July 2004 report that U.S. intelligence agencies produced analyses and the key prewar assessment of Iraq’s illicit weapons in “a highly pressurized climate.”
\n
\nAnd the committee found that after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, analysts were under pressure to avoid missing credible threats, and as a result they were “bold and assertive” in making terrorist links.\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d\n<\/p>\n

\nPoor babies.  There was a climate of stress in the aftermath of 9\/11?  Gosh.\n<\/p>\n

\n\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cYet eight months after the report was published, Bush told the nation that “we’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and gases.”
\n
\nThis has been pretty well corroborated by internal Iraqi documents and the testimony of captured al-Qaeda.
\n
\n\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cMeanwhile, lawmakers didn’t have access to intelligence products that may have been more temperate than what they got, even after they investigated the prewar intelligence assessment. For instance, the Director of Central Intelligence refused to give the Senate committee a copy of a paper drafted by the CIA’s Near East and Southeast Asia Office examining Iraq’s links to terrorism.
\n
\nLawmakers didn’t see the main document concerning Iraq and WMD – the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate – until three days before their vote authorizing war. The White House ordered the NIE compiled only after lawmakers, including the then-chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., demanded it.\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d\n<\/p>\n

\nAnd Bush forced them to vote 3 days after they got the info, how?  Personally, I think that even with only 3 days, I would have forced myself to read it carefully, but perhaps that\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2s too much for Congresscritters.\n<\/p>\n

\n\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cBush is correct in saying that many intelligence agencies, particularly in Europe, believed that Saddam was hiding some weapons of mass destruction capabilities – not necessarily weapons. But they didn’t agree with other U.S. assessments about Saddam. Few, with the exception of Great Britain, argued that Iraq was an imminent threat, or that it had any link to Islamic terrorism, much less the Sept. 11 attacks.
\n
\nFrance, backed by several other nations, argued that much more time and effort should have been given to weapons inspections in Iraq before war was launched.\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d\n<\/p>\n

\nAnd?  Now that Chirac\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2s out of office, perhaps we can find out a bit about his relations with Oil-for-Food?\n<\/p>\n

\n\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cBush is correct in saying that many intelligence agencies, particularly in Europe, believed that Saddam was hiding some weapons of mass destruction capabilities – not necessarily weapons. But they didn’t agree with other U.S. assessments about Saddam. Few, with the exception of Great Britain, argued that Iraq was an imminent threat, or that it had any link to Islamic terrorism, much less the Sept. 11 attacks.
\n
\nFrance, backed by several other nations, argued that much more time and effort should have been given to weapons inspections in Iraq before war was launched.\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d\n<\/p>\n

\n \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cCongress did pass the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which stated U.S. support for regime change in Iraq and provided up to $97 million in overt military and humanitarian aid to opposition groups in Iraq.\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d
\n
\n*****
\n
\n\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cBut it didn’t authorize the use of U.S. force against Iraq.
\n
\nClinton said his bombing order was based on Iraq’s refusal to comply with weapons inspections, a violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf War.\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d\n<\/p>\n

\nOh, well, then.  That\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2s not force.\n<\/p>\n

\nLink 3\n<\/p>\n

\nFormer Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE), ex-Senate Intelligence Committee vice chairman: \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cThe president has much more access to intelligence than members of Congress does. Ask any member of Congress. Ask a Republican member of Congress, do you get the same access to intelligence that the president does? Look at these aluminum tube stories that came out the president delivered to the Congress \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u20ac\u009d \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00cb\u0153We believe these would be used for centrifuges.\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2 \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u20ac\u009d didn\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2t deliver to Congress the full range of objections from the Department of Energy experts, nuclear weapons experts, that said it\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2s unlikely they were for centrifuges, more likely that they were for rockets, which was a pre-existing use. The president has much more access to intelligence than any member of Congress.\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d [10\/7\/04]\n<\/p>\n

\nUm.  Look at the date.\n<\/p>\n

\nRanking minority member on the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay Rockefeller (D-WV): \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201c[P]eople say, \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00cb\u0153Well, you know, you all had the same intelligence that the White House had.\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2 And I\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2m here to tell you that is nowhere near the truth. We not only don\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2t have, nor probably should we have, the Presidential Daily Brief. We don\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2t have the constant people who are working on intelligence who are very close to him. They don\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2t release their \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u20ac\u009d an administration which tends not to release \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u20ac\u009d not just the White House, but the CIA, DOD [Department of Defense], others \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u20ac\u009d they control information. There\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2s a lot of intelligence that we don\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2t get that they have.\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d [11\/04\/05]\n<\/p>\n

\nUm.  Look at the date.  Can we find out what was included in the Daily Briefings that wasn\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2t shared with Congress?\n<\/p>\n

\nWhat did they rely on from Chalabi & other \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201coutside sources\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d?\n<\/p>\n

\nBullshit.  Occam\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2s razor, man.  Bush & company were operating out of the same kind of confirmation bias that the left does when it publishes crap like this<\/a>.  The only difference is they’re not blaming everybody else about it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Celebrated by the LA Times this Memorial Day Weekend: Bush was twice warned of Iraq challenges Holy shit!  You mean he was warned twice that it mightn’t be easy to bring security, democracy and prosperity to Iraq? These warnings were distributed to senior officials with daily access to President Bush and others at the very top of the administration, the report states. To officials?!  At the very top?!  Of the<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":587,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9106","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9106","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/587"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9106"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9106\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9106"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9106"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9106"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}