What a well balanced review.

Good points, but one thing apparently didn't change on 9/11. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz still wanted to go into Iraq, and they did.

This whole 9/11 Commission hearings is a bipartisan finger pointing scam. The rest of the world must be laughing at us, as we proclaim "It was our Fault".

If the Commission's final recommendations, don't conclude that we need to violate other nations sovereignty, and match the level of human rights abuses the terrorist do, then it has missed the whole point, of why we were targeted.

The portions that I have seen, seem to be a partisan witch hunt, to condemn our attempt to bring freedom to the Arab World via our actions in Iraq.

Bannana I thought Rove ran the government, not Rumsfeld, or were all yours and Tony's prior rants just moronic rants?

My Local Liberal TV Newscast, led off yesterday, with the Headline "Administration keeps Rice from Testifying". Tell me, they ain't towing the party line.

"Good points, but one thing apparently didn’t change on 9/11. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz still wanted to go into Iraq, and they did."
=========================================


So what? I realize that there are STILL some people who don't grasp the sort of threat that Iraq was to the entire world, but that's no reason to castigate someone for being more prescient than you.

Yes. The WMD reason is laughable, at least according to Bush. After >500 American deaths, Bush jokes about why they died.

Registration required, so here's an excerpt:
"Bush put on a slide show, calling it the "White House Election-Year Album" at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association 60th annual dinner, showing himself and his staff in some decidedly unflattering poses.
There was Bush looking under furniture in a fruitless, frustrating search. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," he said."

Hilarious.

DOJ Asked FBI Translator To Change Pre 9-11 Intercepts

Something else that 9/11 didn't change. The seperation of powers principle that allows Rice to avoid testifying under oath. Er... actually, that principle has been disregarded before, during the Watergate investigation. So, yeah, 9/11 changed that, too.

banana and x -

if you feel this administration has committed criminal acts(DOJ changing SigInt for political reasons and implication of NSA Rice has something to cover up) then by all means bring your evidence and present it to your Senator or Representative. Let's get it investigated. I have learned the hard way that we can't trust these people. As much as I admire President Bush, if there are credible charges against him then lets investigate them just like we did under Clinton. When the TRUTH came out about Clinton we learned he had sullied the reputation of the Presidency, lied to the Courts, and lied to the American people. I PRAY this President isn't doing the same thing.

BUT...if you don't have EVIDENCE...you are really just making noise.

wayne, the problem is that the doj and the white house are blocking any sorts of attempts to get evidence (via the foia) for "reasons of national security". condi is saying that clarke was never in the meetings, but when asked to produce meeting records, whoops! sorry, can't! national security!

that's bullshit. never before in my life have i seen an administration that is so unbelievably closed off from the public eye. that alone should cause outrage in every single voter.

"never before in my life have i seen an administration that is so unbelievably closed off from the public eye. that alone should cause outrage in every single voter"

x,

I reckon you must be a very talented, three year old typist, to have completely ignored the stonewalling of the Clinton administration.


MG

Wayne

She could be covering up. If she testified under oath, she may find it difficult to state Bush increased counter-terrorism funds several-fold. As it is, she can say what she likes when she likes, even if it contradicts other members of the administration. Whose interests are being served by her not testifying in public, under oath?

Link is 960Kb wmv file.

Banana -

I agree with you 100%. I wish she would testify...it's all gonna come out eventually anyway. In the immediate months after 9/11 Bob Woodward published a book, the title of which escapes me at the moment, dealing with how the Bush Administration dealt with 9/11. Great read. It talks about what was discussed before 9/11 in the Principals meetings. Dr. Rice was obviously involved in those meetings and all of that was told to Mr. Woodward willingly. I'm pretty surprised that she isn't testifying now although it is no big secret that she and Mr. Clarke don't get along. Mr. Ijaz pretty much laid it out for folks...Mr. Clarke can be an arrogant little twit and Dr. Rice strikes me as someone who wouldn't take well to that approach. Obviously, that's not a valid excuse to NOT testify but it's the best I can do!

As a friend said recently about me, perhaps liberals and conservatives CAN get along! ;) We agree on this particular point.

I'm not going to get into the previous administrations activities.

"I'm not going to get into the previous administrations activities."

Don't knock those activities. We all deserve a little fun now and then.

dirk, AKA BananaMunchkin You're talking mushy again...

Whatever makes you think Condi Rice does not testify under oath? That DOES NOT REQUIRE
TV cameras, you know?

Dog2 -

True enough and I believe she has given her testimony out of the range of cameras so I sit corrected but I still believe she could give her testimony in public...at least the parts that are not sensitive. It's a bit hard for me to believe that DCI Tenet could give testimony without exposing sensitive information but NSA Rice cannot....hmmm....

Folks chew on this one for a while. This is a post I sent yst to the Committee of Concerned Journalists at:

www.journalism.org

I guess I'm a little of an idealist. But folks with all the finger pointing and smoke, the real threat we all now face is going uncovered. I don't much think this is a Dem/Rep thing. We need to get our act together now and damn quick!

03-24-04

The Devolution of the American Press

To the Committee of Concerned Journalists:

I just posted a reply to the OPED Section of the WSJ in support of a letter running today by the prime minister of Spain on the subject of world terrorism and appeasement:

http://hspig.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=624

Even though they do seem to get the story, I will be amazed if they do indeed run it.

Our media has collectively let us down on the coverage on the War on Terror. It has failed to connect the dots of a significant story on the very real threat we now face. The trail is clear on the Internet that bioterror weapons may have reached the Middle East from the stocks of the former Soviet Union via an underground railroad in exchange for cash

The media seems collectively obsessed with the issue of not finding any WMDs in Iraq. They collectively paint the picture that President Bush has lied to the American people to win their support for the invasion of Iraq. In so doing they have failed to see the forest for the trees and to see this trail now emerging:

A Story of the Real, the Imagined, and the Wished
http://hspig.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=495

They seem as though they have been cheated in one way or another. They have all but ignored the crimes against humanity that were perpetuated on the people of Iraq by Saddam as if this is of no justification in and of itself for removing him from power. Has the Holocaust faded that far from our collective memories?

Blessed by for the Internet:
http://hspig.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=549

These are the hard questions that our media has failed to seek the answers which has left the American people in the dark.

Our Cold War allies seem to have gotten cold feet. Do you suppose for a moment this is about real conflicts of economic interest? Perhaps playing both sides against the middle while at the same time espousing lofty idealistic principals and diplomatic solutions?

France: A Western Rogue State?
http://hspig.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=622

The UN, the world's mediator, could not reach a decision of enforcing it's own rulings that Saddam was flagrantly violating. Did they suffer from some personality disorder? Perhaps they were conflicted like Robert DeNero was in, "Analyze This." Did this confliction stem from who was on the take from the UN's sanctioned and run, Oil for Food Program? The time had clearly come and gone for Saddam to lay his cards on the table but for reasons only know to him he continued with his schoolyard bully bravado at the expense of the Iraqi people.

Could this all be about the control of oil by the multi-national energy conglomerates plagued by ethical lapses - Enron? Maybe there is more truth than fiction to last season's "24 hrs," with Kiefer Sutherland. Have the chickens come home to roost? Was our government choices in the governments we chose to support in this region, unduly influenced by the conglomerates that needed stability to developed oilfields? Might this have created a disenfranchised underclass ripe for the picking by the Osama bin Ladens of the world?

The threat that Al Qaeda now posses is very real, it's here now, and we need to be ready and prepared. The time for action has arrived!

Come on! There is a Pulitzer here somewhere. Doesn't that have any worth anymore?

Ron Wright
Advisory Board, Security Council Member
Homeland Security Policy Institute Group
www.hspig.org

Outstanding and exceptionally eloquant commentary, Wayne Fielder. You present a concise description of only one tectonic impact of the horrors and the epochal reverberations of 9/11. Literally everything changed for all humanity. All humanity will be altered by the changes forced by the jihadist mass murder operation of 9/11.

It was a psychological shift or rift that resonated deep into the American psyche and reached out to touch almost every element of our society, and our government.

We are all changed forever by the horrors of that dark day. Our children will mature in a post 9/11 world. Future generations will study this moment and conflict as we study Viet Nam. The actions we take today will determine the future our children inherit. We must prevail and soon before the converging vectors meet and there truly are "days of horror like none we have ever known."

The converging vectors of increasing WMD accessibility, and jihadist mass murderers who would use them with no restraint compells our leadership to act proficiently, and with intense determination to defeat and eliminate this enemy. America supports this contest.

The diversion and mismanagment of Iraq concerns us, and we wonder and worry why important and magic resources were misdirected away for hunting, capturing, or killing al Quaida and Taliban and misfocused on Iraq.

Iraq is the only place in the ME with no WMD. Let's moveon and resume hunting, capturing, or killing jihadist mass murderers and those who aid and abet them.

"Iraq is the only place in the ME with no WMD" Tony, you are aware of stockpiles of anthrax in Qatar? Alert CENTCOM! who needs Blix, we have Foresta!

The Bush government took no action against, and had cursory focus on al Quaida prior to 9/11, with tragic consequences.

Al Quaida is America's enemy, - not Iraq.

Shut the fuck up x, your an idiot.
and when someone asked "have you ever kissed a girl, you named answered, but you said you were married. where, in California, to another guy?

see how that works?
The FACT x is Bush is doing the job Clinton didn't.
Plus he had to do it with less than he would have liked to, thanks to Clinton's bungling of the intelligence, and the political backstabbers like Clarke sabotaging as much as he could. Look at Clinton's other bungles that have become a mess, Haiti, bosnia/Kosovo. serious mistakes with serious consequences.
And now, true the leftist form, you idiots are trying to sabotage Iraq. Brilliant. Just where will that get the nation? Morons like you should shot for treason

Response to Wall Street Journal Editorial - March 26, 2004

DITTO - AMEN!

For once a member of the Fourth Estate rises above the din and takes its First Amendment journalistic responsibility seriously to report fairly and provide the in-depth analysis that we, the American people, so desparately need. This when we are at war with a very cunning enemy that may possess doomsday weapons of Armageddon and has no qualms about using them!

Ron Wright
Board of Directors
Homeland Security Policy Institute Group
www.hspig.org

Link:

http://hspig.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=629

*****

WSJ.com OpinionJournal

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004873

REVIEW & OUTLOOK
A President's Job
The 9/11 hearings: We're all Bush Doctrine believers now.

Friday, March 26, 2004 12:01 a.m.

Give President Bush's critics credit for versatility. Having spent months assailing him for doing too much after 9/11--Iraq, the Patriot Act, the "pre-emption" doctrine--they have now turned on a dime to allege that he did too little before it. This contradiction is Mr. Bush's opportunity to rise above the ankle biting and explain to the American public what a President is elected to do.

Any President's most difficult decision is how and when to defend the American people. As the 9/11 hearings reveal, there are always a thousand reasons for a President not to act. The intelligence might be uncertain, civilians might be killed, U.S. soldiers could die, and the "international community" might object. There are risks in any decision. But when Presidents fail to act at all, or act with too little conviction, we get a September 11.

Are we Really all Bush Doctrine believers? Hardly. The WSJ and wingnuts bloggists might claim so, but that's hardly the case.

Simply stated, The Bush Doictrine goes thus:

If you have an Actual Problem with terrorism, it's best to strike somewhere else than where the terrorism actually is. It's even better if you choose a purported "enemy" that you can defeat easily. That way you can claim Victory, and hope it overshadows the lack of actual timely progress where the real Danger resides.

It's convenient, and makes for great television. It's just not terribly useful or effective.

And if you do it entirely on borrowed money, what the hell. A billion dollars a week buys a lot of temporary Loyalty from a people whose past history makes it clear that while they can easily be rented, they cannot easily be bought. Not for any length of time, anyway.

If you check back in the archives to the period just prior to and immediately after the Iraq invasion began, you'll find most of the wingnuts hereon were vigorously parroting the administration and Faux News lines about the existence of CW's, nukes, and an alleged connection of Baghdad with al Qaeda. In fact, not just merely vigorously -- they were doing it in concert with the spin doctors from the administration -- Rice, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Dubya himself.

And now, it can clearly be shown, they were All of them quite incorrect. You'd think they'd have learned from the experience. But no.

The thing that just must stick in their collective craws is that Clarke and other administration critics who had been on the inside are, every time the discussion arises, more credible than the administration spokesdroids. But worse, on the whole, they are and were Correct.

Hence the lame resort to Personal Attacks emanating from the White House. It'd be funny, coming from anywhere else.

The beat goes on.

Re: Don

Not that I don't disagree with you and some of what you say is probably correct, my point was and is, unfortunately we have more to worry about now than just recriminations.

We face a real threat of biblical proportions and I'd rather we are up to that challenge than wait until we are collectively up the creek without a paddle.

It will take all of us working together to get us out of this hole we have gotten outselves into when we are at war with an asymetrical enemy which is not detered by the great oceans which once served as a barrier to the other fanatical idiots, tyrannts, and zealots of the world. This reminds me of the old Oliver and Hardy series.

For the bigger picture please read my post at:

http://hspig.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=624

Also check the link out at the end of this piece. Then come back and we will debate this.

Ron

ron, re-read don's version of the bush doctrine. do you really think he is up for reasoned debate?

Ron -- since I have only a half hour this ayem before I meet with my next client, my time for "debate" hereon is limited. Besides, that isn't what happens here. What happens here is personal characterizations and similar sorts of ham-handed nonsense, most of which is content-free on its face.

But let me put it simply:

Clarke is correct. The attack on Iraq undermined the War on Terrorism. We've wasted billions, lives and most importantly Time on that venture. Of the three, the last is arguably the most important.

When the idea is to get yourself out of a hole, best not to entrust the function with those who got you into it in the first place.

If you want to read a "debate" go back into the archives, and re-read the Utter and Absolute Certainty of those who really did believe that Iraq was the source of ME-ern Terrism.

It wasn't. Still isn't.

They were Wrong then; they remain Wrong now. Adamantly so, but no less Wrong withal.

Just how it was. And is.

The rest is posturing.

Hard lesson to learn. Best to get on about learning it, seems to me.

Ron Wright, meet Don 'Hangin'Chad' Holmuth

Don has vented his own particular brand of Bush-hatred for as long as I've been posting here. There is not one minute of 'Reasoned' Debate in the man. Any sign of such from you will signal a parting shot from Donnie, at which point he will sign off whilst he speaks to a 'Client', or just muses on his Patio next to the WetBar. Oh yah. I forgot. He also lobs his balls over the net on his private TennisCourt occasionally. Such things as reasoned debate are cards that never get to Donnie's hand.

MOF, I was going to compliment you on your post, but could you give me some hint as to the WSJ article you are refering to? I get it hard copy (from my spouse' Boss), so I can't log in to see anything but the day's articles online. I did read yesterdays, but I'm unsure as to which article you are talking about.

If you want to read a “debate” go back into the archives, and re-read the Utter and Absolute Certainty of those who really did believe that Iraq was the source of ME-ern Terrism.

Gosh, that is so not what I thought about Iraq. Oh sorry, did just annoy you by Not Fitting into an Easy Box for you to place all Those People who don't Agree with you, Don? Oops. Guess I'm mocking your writing style again. That isn't Nice. D'oh.

Let me guess: if challenged, you'll either have another appointment you must attend, or you'll post a link to a few comments and use it to broadbrush all who dare ignore your noble wisdom, right?

ron, re-read don’s version of the bush doctrine. do you really think he is up for reasoned debate?

No, I think Don is trying to genocide strawmen in Strawmania again. sigh

HEY! Donnie Chad! - I have to repeat this, although I know you ain't comin' back here for about another 9 months. Prolly just in time to lament how your ChadHat got bent a tad bit. BUT - I can't help myself::::: 'Clarke is correct. The attack on Iraq undermined the War on Terrorism.'


Hahahahaha. Check out the post above this one. Sounds like your 'correct' Mr. Clarke could be LYING.

How deep was that hole you were diggin'? LOL.

Ansar Al-Islam
Al Zawahiri
Kaleid Sheik Muhommad

What do they have in common? They were all harbored by Saddam Hussein! Oh and they are Al Queda!
Now back to the, "Iraq was a misdirection Show."

Jeff You are a PartyPooper...

Gee, thanks for all the words of wisdom and advice. Here's the a link to the ediitorial running in today's WSJ. This is the featured post in today's online WSJ opinion journal which they are running in the open. This link should work until they roll over to the next day. You may have to sign up for their "free" svs:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/

Third link down.

For those a little cautious about signing up for those things, I took the liberty of cut/pasting on our site at:

http://hspig.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=629

Please note the disclaimer and yes I know there is a dead link in there. I stole it from somewhere else and just haven't time to find it at another location :-)

Here's something I just posted to another listserv, the High Technology Crimes Investigation Assn of which I'm a member. I believe my statement here is quite relevant and expresses my true concerns.

*****

To my HTCIA friends and colleagues:

Enough uncle!

Ok, I admit I was a little obtuse on my last post. Some folks were wondering why I posted this on this forum.

Spies, Lies, and Weapons: What Went Wrong
http://hspig.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=613

I can't respond privately to everyone. So here's the gist of what I sent in private.

The HTICA is a forum where a lot of cops hang out that have a techie bent that also have an open mind. [Street cops with street sense and not the "brass" who sometimes venture into the ozone layer]. Also there are private types with high tech interests that do PI work et al with hard drive crunching, system security, and other black hat stuff on the Internet.

The bottom line is AQ is poised to strike again. They will do it under the radar using "low tech" means. That is to say, it is you, the high tech folks, that have the ability to think "low tech" enough, to anticipate or detect a move by AQ that just may disrupt a pending strike.

You might be interested in one of the links on the risk poised by AQ using smallpox as a bioweapon in an across the border attack using migrant workers.

You are the ones in the best position to observe these suspicious "activities" or detect "operation intel" in transit on the Net or elsewhere. ID Theft and other related economic/financial crimes prepetrated on the American public by Al Qaeda and others are a prime fund raising method. This is all of course carte blanche on the marketing units of certain credit issuers in this country who have lax standards and do not exercise their fudiciary responsibilities.
The last I heard was that the NSA has a backlog of several years of intercepts waiting to be analyzed. You can play an important role in the War on Terror by just being alert and keeping your eye's open. The military guys, I think refer to this as a "force multiplier."

Imagine where we would be if only the FBI agents in Phoenix had connected up with their fellow agents in the Great Lakes Area without routing through the HQ Ivory Tower lead mainframe. The field agents in the north realized the sig value of the info on the laptop hard drive they had and were ready and willing to crunch it but were waiting for the "mother may I" which was never given from above. Might have gotten written up for it but damn it anyway!

Do you think we may have had a different outcome with 9/11! I hope we've learned our lesson well. I for one do not want to see a repeat of the carnage. This is one of those stellar string junctures in time.

Our federal comrades have their work cut out for them with all that the dept secretaries and under-secretaries are saying that the three and two letter agencies are doing and will do to protect us (Favorite AKA of our friend and colleague Cliff Stoll, "The Cuckoo's Egg.")

If you believe this then I'm ready to sell you land on the next island now forming under the ocean in the Hawaiian Islands chain which should break the surface in the next million years or so.

We probably out number them 10 to 1. Besides who is it anyway who stumbles, trips, or lands in the middle of it? Yeah, that's right the poor smuck putting their time in driving the "pig barge" (Favorite saying of a good friend of mine who's a burned out motor cop who along the way managed to pick of a Phd in clinical psych from Loma Linda Univ - no degree mill either).

This isn't the exclusive domain of the feds. We must all work together on this very real threat, as the American people and our families are depending on us. We need to build relationships from the ground up and share info with each other both with each other and with the business and civilian sectors. After all it is the business sector which controls over 80% of this nation's critical infrastructure.

The consequences of compromising "operation security" on our part will be far less than if Al Qaeda launches a successful attack using a doomsday weapon of Armageddon. I think our courts will give us considerable leeway under the "exigent circumstances" rule, if we are frank, open, honest, can articulate the imminent danger, and don't mislead them.

There won't be many folks left afterwards anyway who will really much care. This is war folks.

This is the playing field were given. We need to have our minds in the game, our eyes focused on the ball, not distracted by those whiners in the bleachers, and do what we do best!

As my junior partner, a former marine, always says, "Are you fired up yet 'Rocket'?"

LET'S ROLL!

If you've slogged this far please read my post at the following link:

http://hspig.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=624

Ron Wright, Member
So Cal HTCIA

Board of Directors
Homeland Security Policy Institute Group
www.hspig.org

DISLCAIMER: The opinions expressed here are mine and not of any organization or employer I'm affiliated. And, yes this composed on my own time. This email address was only used because of subscriptions to restricted listservs.

History will show bubba was the buffoon,GWB as the one that took the extremist to task and won !
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,BUSH 04,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Outstanding commentary Ron Wright, and ten thousand thanks for your service to the nation. My wavering faith in the US intelligence apparatus is renewed by your articulation of events and circumstances and the hard realities facing all Americans.

The Bush government is more concerned about cloaking their own deceptions, abuses, failures and negligence and their own self preservation, than about being honest with the American people and focusing America's real enemies, who are jihadist mass murderer's, - not Iraqi's.

Thanks for the comment. Not that I think WMD will be eventually found in Iraq, but I think the jury is still out on what roll Saddam and other hiding out there may have had in the overall picture on our War on Terror.

I do think the world is a better place with Saddam out of power. Now it's up to the Iraqi people to make the most of it.

Ron

Don notes: "When the idea is to get yourself out of a hole, best not to entrust the function with those who got you into it in the first place.

If you want to read a “debate” go back into the archives, and re-read the Utter and Absolute Certainty of those who really did believe that Iraq was the source of ME-ern Terrism.

It wasn’t. Still isn’t.

They were Wrong then; they remain Wrong now. Adamantly so, but no less Wrong withal.

Just how it was. And is.

The rest is posturing.

Hard lesson to learn. Best to get on about learning it, seems to me."

Fine Don, here are the archives: here are the posturing fools who were convinced with "Utter and Absolute Certainty" Iraq was a center of ME terrorism - and ready to export it. What I find most insulting is the left's ability to project their OWN stupidity onto anyone who refuses to agree to their ever-changing version of the TRUTH. We all have access to these archives and they are full of democrats firmly convinced that Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with, soon, and by force if necessary. What follows is the truth, what you hear from them today is nothing but TRANSPARENT POLITICAL OPPORTUNISM.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Don, you may know a lot of stupid people with short memories, but that doesn't mean everyone out there is similarly handicapped. I find the present dissembling childish, foolhardy and politically risky. EVERYONE thought Iraq was a threat - EVERYONE - to pretend otherwise now makes you look dumber than a sack of hair (sorry about the 'personal characterization').

Intriguing speak Ron Wright. If the WMD does in fact exist in Iraq, the more alarming questions are where is it, and who has it? I do agree that the world is a better place with Saddam in prison and the Ba'athist regime beheaded, but I must ask you with all sincerity, - is the Bush governments war, occupation, and nationbuilding enterprize, the best, (least costly and bloody) means to achieve that just end? Does this war diminish our capabilities to address the jihadist threats? And, was there any necessity for the Bush government to move against Iraq in March of 2003?

Saddam may have been a threat, if there was WMD. Remove that caveat, and Saddam was just another mass murdering tyrant, like the one currently winning Bush government good graces in Libya.
NK has and Iran is developing nukes. Syria is the Wallmart of jihadist mass murder gangs and illicit weapons trade. Pakistan is one bullet away from jihadist nukes. SA continues funding and nurturing all the jihadist mass murderers including al Quaida. Our Taliban, and al Quaida enemies are reconstituting in the Peshawar and Kashmir and working on the WMD sequel to 9/11 - and the Bush government is misfocused and bogging down American resources, treasure and blood in Iraq.

Did defeating Nazi Germany make us any safer in the Far East? Did hunting down Hitler like a dog make Tojo any less dangerous? Of course not. The threat from Japan was never diminished by the 'distraction' of war on the European front.

In fact, we diverted so much manpower and resources to the European theater that we all but ceeded the Phillipines to the Japs. Our forgotten Army personel joined the Baatan Death March knowing full well Macarthur and the US had abandoned them.

Case in point: sometimes, you have to multi-task. It's not pretty and you can get several million armchair kibbitzers who will tell you the proper way to 'fight terrorism' (who to tackle 1st, who presents a more threatening stance, etc.). Of course, we're all thankful for so much insight, culled from so many years of experience. :)

I don't know where we'd be if these geniuses weren't here to 2nd guess our strategic plan. A great debt of honor is due them and their relentless struggle to set the rest of the morons in charge straight.

Typical reaction to the quotes. Dump of wheelbarrow full of facts on them and they go mute. No comment. And how can they? It doesn't further their agenda.

Or, as their spiritual leader, Richard Daley used to say "Don't confuse me with the facts!"

To all:

Here's another perspective from George Schultz, former secretary of state, re invasion of Iraq which is running in today's OPED Section of the WSJ (I guess Don prefers to call it the home of the "Wingnuts"). Posted on our site at:

http://www.hspig.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=633

Have real work to do so this is short.

Many administrations at fault for a number of reasons leading up to 9/11, starting with Reagan. Problem public apathy, no political support for any meaningful action.

Bush mistakes before 9/11 were those of the other admins that were just carried on. Could decisive action been taken before 9/11? Yes of course, but not politically doable and issues with FBI/CIA/NSA/DIA not sharing info entrenched.

After 9/11, yes, Bush has made mistakes. He hasn't really changed his team. Don has small point that they were responsible. I don't necessary agree but politically and appearence to public not good move.

Since this happend on Tennet's watch, even though not directly his fault, I would have sent him packing. Others could have been shown the door and put the cabinet on a full war footing.

As for Iraq with what was known at the time, had to move. As I said in previous post, WMD here so complex for a number of reasons until really had troops on the ground, everyone was fooled. This includes dem/reps/France/Germany, and Israel as well.

However now since uncovered tons of docs that uncovered much about underground railway of intel/info how to do WMD that flowed from the Soviets and Kahn from Pakistan to the highest bidder.

It's that stuff we now are faced with re strike in the US.

Ron

This just in 03-29-04. No comment. Check it out for yourself. This is on WSJ Online Best of the Web at:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004884

If link expires just go to the site and go to the archives.

Who's Distracted?--I
"Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian linked to al-Qaida and suspected of heading a terrorist network in Iraq, is now believed to have been the brains behind the deadly Madrid railway attacks," the Associated Press reports, citing "a French [!] private investigator."

What was that again about Saddam Hussein having no connection to al Qaeda?

Who's Distracted?--II
"Mullah Mohammad Omar, the fugitive leader of the Taliban, was wounded in a U.S. bombing raid earlier this month that killed four of his bodyguards, Deutsche Presse-Agentur said, citing a newspaper report in Pakistan," Bloomberg News reports.

Ron Wright

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: