Bush sets record-longest vacation in recent history

[bsnyder]

By the same token, if you have any evidence that President Bush lied, please provide it. I've heard the same tired thing for 2 years now, but I've yet to see anyone provide any evidence.

Surely it's been longer than two. It feels more like ten!

 

[Professor Mouse]

By the same token, if you have any evidence that President Bush lied, please provide it. I've heard the same tired thing for 2 years now, but I've yet to see anyone provide any evidence.

Brenda, you got to be kidding. This has been so well documented that it is not funny. I will be glad to bury you with material.

Lets look at the other element or proof offered by Bush for the claim that Iraq had restarted its nuclear weapons program, the claim that Iraq purchased some tubes for use to enrich uranium. This claim was not only false but had been rejected by every key person who looked at it. See How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence and
The Nuclear Bomb That Wasn't

Of all the justifications that President Bush gave for invading Iraq, the most terrifying was that Saddam Hussein was on the brink of developing a nuclear bomb that he might use against the United States or give to terrorists. Ever since we learned that this was not true, the question has been whether Mr. Bush gave a good-faith account of the best available intelligence, or knowingly deceived the public. The more we learn about the way Mr. Bush paved the road to war, the more it becomes disturbingly clear that if he was not aware that he was feeding misinformation to the world, he was about the only one in his circle who had not been clued in.

The foundation for the administration's claim that it acted on an honest assessment of intelligence analysis - and the president's frequent claim that Congress had the same information he had - has been steadily eroded by the reports from the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9/11 commission. A lengthy report in The Times on Sunday removed any lingering doubts.

The only physical evidence the administration offered for an Iraqi nuclear program were the 60,000 aluminum tubes that Baghdad set out to buy in early 2001; some of them were seized in Jordan. Even though Iraq had a history of using the same tubes to make small rockets, the president and his closest advisers told the American people that the overwhelming consensus of government experts was that these new tubes were to be used to make nuclear bomb fuel. Now we know there was no such consensus. Mr. Bush's closest advisers say they didn't know that until after they had made the case for war. But in fact, they had plenty of evidence that the claim was baseless; it was a long-discounted theory that had to be resurrected from the intelligence community's wastebasket when the administration needed justification for invading Iraq.

The tubes-for-bombs theory was the creation of a low-level C.I.A. analyst who got his facts, even the size of the tubes, wrong. It was refuted within 24 hours by the Energy Department, which issued three papers debunking the idea over a four-month period in 2001, and by the International Atomic Energy Agency. A week before Mr. Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, in which he warned of an Iraqi nuclear menace, international experts in Vienna had dismissed the C.I.A.'s theory about the tubes. The day before, the International Atomic Energy Agency said there was no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program and rejected the tubes' tale entirely.

It's shocking that with all this information readily available, Secretary of State Colin Powell still went before the United Nations to repeat the bogus claims, an appearance that gravely damaged his reputation. It's even more disturbing that Vice President Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, had not only failed to keep the president from misleading the American people, but had also become the chief proponents of the "mushroom cloud" rhetoric.

Ms. Rice had access to all the reports debunking the tubes theory when she first talked about it publicly in September 2002. Yet last Sunday, Ms. Rice said that while she had been aware of a "dispute" about the tubes, she had not specifically known what it was about until after she had told the world that Saddam was building the bomb.

Ms. Rice's spokesman, Sean McCormack, said it was not her job to question intelligence reports or "to referee disputes in the intelligence community." But even with that curious job disclaimer, it's no comfort to think that the national security adviser wouldn't have bothered to inform herself about such a major issue before speaking publicly. The national security adviser has no more important responsibility than making sure that the president gets the best advice on life-and-death issues like the war.

If Ms. Rice did her job and told Mr. Bush how ludicrous the case was for an Iraqi nuclear program, then Mr. Bush terribly misled the public. If not, she should have resigned for allowing her boss to start a war on the basis of bad information and an incompetent analysis.

The Iraqi war was based on fixed intelligence and facts.

Brenda, I hope that you have heard of the Downing Street Minutes (not memo). It is clear that Bush lied. Proof Bush Fixed the Facts

Thanks to an unauthorized disclosure by a courageous whistleblower, the evidence now leaps from official documentsthis time authentic, not forged. Whether prompted by the open appeal of the international Truth-Telling Coalition or not, some brave soul has made the most explosive "patriotic leak" of the war by giving London's Sunday Times the official minutes of a briefing by Richard Dearlove, then head of Britain's CIA equivalent, MI-6. Fresh back in London from consultations in Washington, Dearlove briefed Prime Minister Blair and his top national security officials on July 23, 2002, on the Bush administration's plans to make war on Iraq.

Blair does not dispute the authenticity of the document, which immortalizes a discussion that is chillingly amoral. Apparently no one felt free to ask the obvious questions. Or, worse still, the obvious questions did not occur.

Juggernaut Before The Horse

In emotionless English, Dearlove tells Blair and the others that President Bush has decided to remove Saddam Hussein by launching a war that is to be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction." Period. What about the intelligence? Dearlove adds matter-of-factly, "The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

At this point, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw confirms that Bush has decided on war, but notes that stitching together justification would be a challenge, since "the case was thin." Straw noted that Saddam was not threatening his neighbors and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

In the following months, "the case" would be buttressed by a well-honed U.S.-U.K. intelligence-turned-propaganda-machine. The argument would be made "solid" enough to win endorsement from Congress and Parliament by conjuring up:

Aluminum artillery tubes misdiagnosed as nuclear related; Forgeries alleging Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa; Tall tales from a drunken defector about mobile biological weapons laboratories; Bogus warnings that Iraqi forces could fire WMD-tipped missiles within 45 minutes of an order to do so; Dodgy dossiers fabricated in London; and A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate thrown in for good measure. All this, as Dearlove notes dryly, despite the fact that "there was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." Another nugget from Dearlove's briefing is his bloodless comment that one of the U.S. military options under discussion involved "a continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli"the clear implication being that planners of the air campaign would also see to it that an appropriate casus belli was orchestrated.

The discussion at 10 Downing St. on July 23, 2002 calls to mind the first meeting of George W. Bush's National Security Council (NSC) on Jan. 30, 2001, at which the president made it clear that toppling Saddam Hussein sat atop his to-do list, according to then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, who was there. O'Neil was taken aback that there was no discussion of why it was necessary to "take out" Saddam. Rather, after CIA Director George Tenet showed a grainy photo of a building in Iraq that he said might be involved in producing chemical or biological agents, the discussion proceeded immediately to which Iraqi targets might be best to bomb. Again, neither O'Neil nor the other participants asked the obvious questions. Another NSC meeting two days later included planning for dividing up Iraq's oil wealth.

Again, there is overwhelming proof that Bush lied about the WMD program to justify the war in Iraq. Again, to keep is simple, Bush fixed the facts and the intelligence to justify the war.

 

[Beauty]

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah I never understand why people waste so much time and energy arguing over politics. It's so stupid, there isn't an HONEST politician out there, Republican, Democrat or Polka-Dot. Life is way to short to argue over things we have no control over (and if you think you do I've got some Ocean front property in Colorado to sell you!) Go out and enjoy the roses, have fun, spend time with your family and friends. What good is putting each other down doing anyone. No need to respond. I won't be back to this thread, I just saw it and saw all the pages and just rolled my eyes. If I were influential enough to spend 5 weeks with my family you bet your booty I would do it!!!!!!

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah I never understand why people waste so much time and energy arguing over politics. It's so stupid, there isn't an HONEST politician out there, Republican, Democrat or Polka-Dot. Life is way to short to argue over things we have no control over (and if you think you do I've got some Ocean front property in Colorado to sell you!) Go out and enjoy the roses, have fun, spend time with your family and friends. What good is putting each other down doing anyone. No need to respond. I won't be back to this thread, I just saw it and saw all the pages and just rolled my eyes. If I were influential enough to spend 5 weeks with my family you bet your booty I would do it!!!!!!

Thread Killer!!!!! But you know...she's right! Who cares about the state of affairs in America?!? As long as I can watch American Idol, eat corn dogs, drive my Honda Accord to my thankless job, and occasionally get laid, why worry about anything else?!?! C'mon, everyone...from both sides of the aisle...a post that we can all agree to beat up on!!!

 

[Charade]

Thread Killer!!!!! But you know...she's right! Who cares about the state of affairs in America?!? As long as I can watch American Idol, eat corn dogs, drive my Honda Accord to my thankless job, and occasionally get laid, why worry about anything else?!?! C'mon, everyone...from both sides of the aisle...a post that we can all agree to beat up on!!!

 

[bsnyder]

Read this, perhaps ALL OF THIS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED?

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/51648.htm

The Post requires registration, so most people probably can't read your link.

Here's the NY Times version: (edited to add the second page of the article)

9/11 Panel Seeks Inquiry on New Atta Report

By PHILIP SHENON and DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: August 10, 2005
WASHINGTON, Aug. 9 - Members of the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terror attacks called on Congress to determine whether the Pentagon withheld intelligence information showing that a secret American military unit had identified Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers as potential threats more than a year before the attacks.

Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00 (August 9, 2005) The former commission members said the information, if true, could rewrite an important chapter of the history of the intelligence failures before Sept. 11, 2001.

"I think this is a big deal," said John F. Lehman, a Republican member of the commission who was Navy secretary in the Reagan administration. "The issue is whether there was in fact surveillance before 9/11 of Atta and, if so, why weren't we told about it? Who made the decision not to brief the commission's staff or the commissioners?"

Mr. Lehman and other commissioners said that because the panel had been formally disbanded for a year, the investigation would need to be taken up by Congress, possibly by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

"If this is true, somebody should be looking into it," said Thomas H. Kean, the commission chairman and a former Republican governor of New Jersey.

Detailed accounts about the findings of the secret operation, known as Able Danger, were offered this week by Representative Curt Weldon, the Pennsylvania Republican who is vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and by a former defense intelligence official.

Their comments are the first assertion by current or former officials that Mr. Atta, an Egyptian who was the lead hijacker, had been identified as a potential terrorist before the attacks.

Spokesmen for the commission members said this week that although the staff was informed by the Pentagon in late 2003 about the existence of a so-called data-mining operation called Able Danger, the panel was never told that it had identified Mr. Atta and the others as threats.

In a final report released last summer called the authoritative history of the attacks, the commission of five Democrats and five Republicans made no mention of the secret program or the possibility that a government agency had detected Mr. Atta's terrorist activities before Sept. 11.

The Pentagon has had no comment on the credibility of the accounts from Mr. Weldon and the intelligence official.

At a news briefing on Tuesday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said he could not comment on reports about Able Danger and suggested that he knew nothing about such an operation.

"I can't," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "I have no idea. I've never heard of it until this morning. I understand our folks are trying to look into it."

A spokesman for the Pentagon, Lt. Col. Christopher Conway, said later that "there were a number of intelligence operations prior to the attacks of 9/11" but that "it would be irresponsible for us to provide details in a way in which those who wish to do us harm would find beneficial."

An intelligence official said Tuesday that the office of John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, was "working closely with the Department of Defense to learn more" about Mr. Weldon's statements. The official confirmed that the congressman recently met with Mr. Negroponte, but declined to discuss the subject.

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, said in an interview that although he could not comment on classified subjects, he had recently talked with Mr. Weldon and that "I do take seriously any issues that may be brought to light by other members of Congress."

A spokeswoman for Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that "the committee is aware of Congressman Weldon's concerns" and that it "is looking into it."

Mr. Weldon went public with his information after having talked with members of the unit in his research for a new book on terrorism. He said in a telephone interview on Tuesday that he had spoken with three team members, all still working in the government, including two in the military, and that they were consistent in asserting that Mr. Atta's affiliation with a Qaeda terrorism cell in the United States was known in the Defense Department by mid-2000 and was not acted on.

An outspoken member of Congress on military and intelligence questions, Mr. Weldon, a champion of military data mining like Able Danger, has helped arrange interviews for reporters with the former military intelligence official. The official insisted on anonymity, saying he did not want to jeopardize political support for future data mining in the military.

The official said in an interview Monday that the Able Danger team was created in 1999 under a directive signed by Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to assemble information about Al Qaeda networks around the world.

He said that by the middle of 2000 the operation had identified Mr. Atta and three of the other future hijackers as a member of an American-based cell and that the information was presented that summer in a chart to the Pentagon's Special Operations Command headquarters in Tampa, Fla.

The official said that the chart included the names and photographs of Mr. Atta and the others, Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawar al-Hamzi. Mr. Weldon and the intelligence official said Able Danger members had recommended that the information be shared with the F.B.I., an the idea that was rejected.

The official said the information was also not shared with the C.I.A. or other civilian intelligence agencies. "This was a highly compartmented program with very limited distribution," he said.

General Shelton said Tuesday that he did not recall authorizing the creation of the unit but that "we had lots of initiatives to find out where Al Qaeda was."

The former intelligence official said he was among a group that briefed the former staff director of the Sept. 11 panel, Philip D. Zelikow, and at least three other staff members about Able Danger when the staff members visited the Afghanistan-Pakistan region in October 2003. The official said that he had explicitly mentioned Mr. Atta in the briefing as a member of the American terrorist cell.

Mr. Kean, the commission head, said the staff members were confident that Mr. Atta's name was not mentioned in the briefing or subsequent documents from the Pentagon.

"None of them recalls mention of the name Atta," he said. "I think if that had been mentioned, it would have been on the tips of their tongue."

Mr. Kean said he had asked the staff members to retrieve their classified notes from government storage to be certain about not overlooking any reference to Mr. Atta or to an American-based cell in any of the Pentagon material.

A State Department spokesman for Mr. Zelikow, who joined the department this year, had no immediate comment.

 

[lyeag]

thanks, I copied over on the original thread, I forgot about here. Scary isn't it?

 

[BuckNaked]

Just as I've come to expect from Kyle - not a single piece of evidence, just conjecture from those with a political agenda.

 

[Professor Mouse]

Read this, perhaps ALL OF THIS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED?

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/51648.htm

Again, the Conservatives keep with the lie that Iraq and the Iraq war had anything to do with Sept. 11. Iraq and Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack by Bin Laden and Al Qaeda on the United States. As noted herein, Bush was determined to invade Iraq regardless of the facts. Sec. of Treasury Paul O'Neal has recounted that Bush had the invasion of Iraq as a goal well before the Sept. 11 attacks. Conservatives and Bushies keep repeating the lie that Saddam was behind Sept. 11 even though they know that this is false. It is really kind of sad.

 

[BuckNaked]

Conservatives and Bushies keep repeating the lie that Saddam was behind Sept. 11 even though they know that this is false. It is really kind of sad.

Please provide a quote where President Bush or anyone on this thread has said that Iraq was behind 9/11. TIA!

 

[lyeag]

So, it doesn't trouble you that we could have caught these people before 9/11? It doesn't trouble you that lawyers decided the military couldn't turn over the info they had to the FBI?

 

[Professor Mouse]

Brenda, your definition of FACTS is amusing. Wrong, but amusing. The FACTS are clear. Bush lied about the Iraqi nuclear program and used distorted or fixed facts and intelligence to justify the Iraqi war. Read the NYT article on the Bush lies about the tubes. It was clear that no one with half a mind believed that the tubes were part of an Iraqi nuclear program but that was the best fixed fact that the Bushies/Neo Cons could come up with. The threat of a mushroom cloud was not only overstated but stupid given what the true experts in the Bush administration had determined about the Iraqi nuclear program.

Bet, you have yet to come up with anything to show that the UN inspectors were wrong. You implied that Hans Blix and the UN inspectors were corrupt or did not do their job. That was a typical conservative lie just as the silly claim that Saddam had anything to do with Sept. 11. Again, your bluff has been called, please provide some proof of you assertions.

 

[BuckNaked]

As I said, no evidence, just more rhetoric. Typical.

And I'm still waiting for that quote where the President and the rest of us have said that Iraq was behind 9/11...

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

So, it doesn't trouble you that we could have caught these people before 9/11? It doesn't trouble you that lawyers decided the military couldn't turn over the info they had to the FBI?

Pentagon lawyers who also happen to be military officers. And yes, it pisses me off that a culture of secrecy existed between the Department of Defense, the FBI, the CIA, and state/local law enforcement for decades. Piss poor and unfortunate. I think that both conservatives and liberals can agree that we were all astonished by the one upsmanship and old boys club behavior of all of these so-called institutions that we assumed were keeping us safe!

 

[What the Heck]

Again, the Conservatives keep with the lie that Iraq and the Iraq war had anything to do with Sept. 11. Iraq and Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack by Bin Laden and Al Qaeda on the United States. As noted herein, Bush was determined to invade Iraq regardless of the facts. Sec. of Treasury Paul O'Neal has recounted that Bush had the invasion of Iraq as a goal well before the Sept. 11 attacks. Conservatives and Bushies keep repeating the lie that Saddam was behind Sept. 11 even though they know that this is false. It is really kind of sad.

What is sad is your attempt to link one thing with another. This is an extremely serious charge against the Clinton Administration, yet you tie it to the Bush Administration. Funny, but Bush was only a Governor of a state when these allegations happened. This article you quote from another post has nothing whatsoever to do with Bush.

In fact, I dropped the article to word so I could search. I found "Bush" wasn't in the article, nor was the word "Iraq". Clinton isn't mentioned, but the allegation happened on his watch when he "was so concerned" about Al Queda. Yea, right. His concern was so deep, he didn't want the FBI looking into an Al Queda cell on US soil. Wow, what a great president.

 

[Charade]

Again, the Conservatives keep with the lie that Iraq and the Iraq war had anything to do with Sept. 11. Iraq and Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack by Bin Laden and Al Qaeda on the United States. As noted herein, Bush was determined to invade Iraq regardless of the facts. Sec. of Treasury Paul O'Neal has recounted that Bush had the invasion of Iraq as a goal well before the Sept. 11 attacks. Conservatives and Bushies keep repeating the lie that Saddam was behind Sept. 11 even though they know that this is false. It is really kind of sad.

You must be lying Kyle because there isn't even a mention of Iraq in that article you quoted. Or was quoting that article just a mistake?

 

[Charade]

Pentagon lawyers who also happen to be military officers. And yes, it pisses me off that a culture of secrecy existed between the Department of Defense, the FBI, the CIA, and state/local law enforcement for decades. Piss poor and unfortunate. I think that both conservatives and liberals can agree that we were all astonished by the one upsmanship and old boys club behavior of all of these so-called institutions that we assumed were keeping us safe!

I agree!!

 

[Charade]

What is sad is your attempt to link one thing with another. This is an extremely serious charge against the Clinton Administration, yet you tie it to the Bush Administration. Funny, but Bush was only a Governor of a state when these allegations happened. This article you quote from another post has nothing whatsoever to do with Bush.

In fact, I dropped the article to word so I could search. I found "Bush" wasn't in the article, nor was the word "Iraq". Clinton isn't mentioned, but the allegation happened on his watch when he "was so concerned" about Al Queda. Yea, right. His concern was so deep, he didn't want the FBI looking into an Al Queda cell on US soil. Wow, what a great president.

Don't be shocked if he doesn't respond.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

What is sad is your attempt to link one thing with another. This is an extremely serious charge against the Clinton Administration, yet you tie it to the Bush Administration. Funny, but Bush was only a Governor of a state when these allegations happened. This article you quote from another post has nothing whatsoever to do with Bush.

In fact, I dropped the article to word so I could search. I found "Bush" wasn't in the article, nor was the word "Iraq". Clinton isn't mentioned, but the allegation happened on his watch when he "was so concerned" about Al Queda. Yea, right. His concern was so deep, he didn't want the FBI looking into an Al Queda cell on US soil. Wow, what a great president.

As a liberal, I believe President Clinton could have done more and I believe President Bush could have done more. If you think differently, then you are blinded by partisianship to realities of the world we live in. Now, what that has with current US policy and the war on Iraq I have no idea.

 

[Professor Mouse]

Please provide a quote where President Bush or anyone on this thread has said that Iraq was behind 9/11. TIA!

Brenda, you may have slept through Bush's June 28, 2005 speech (the soliders who were forced to listen to this dumb speech clearly fell asleep as evidenced by the lack of applause). However, this speech did contain one of the more recent attempts by the Bushies to imply that Saddam was behind September 11. Bush Says War Is Worth Sacrifice

Bush invoked Sept. 11 five times in his speech and referred to it by implication several more times. Although he has previously agreed with investigators that there is "no evidence" of a link between Saddam Hussein's government and the attacks masterminded by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, he used much of his speech to depict the militants in Iraq as the same breed of Islamic terrorist who struck the United States. The White House titled his remarks a discussion on the "War on Terror," not Iraq.

"This war reached our shores on September 11th, 2001," Bush said. "The terrorists who attacked us -- and the terrorists we face -- murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom." He added that many of the insurgents in Iraq "are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York and Washington and Pennsylvania."

The address continued a shift in the administration's emphasis as it has justified the Iraq war, beginning with the threat posed by Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction, continuing to the need to promote democracy in the Middle East and now suggesting a more seamless link to the attacks on American soil.

"The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11th, if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi, and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like bin Laden," Bush said Tuesday night, referring to Abu Musab Zarqawi, the insurgent leader in Iraq. Bush quoted bin Laden calling the Iraq conflict a "third world war" and added that terrorists "are trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September 11th, 2001."

After the speech, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) issued a biting statement saying that Bush's "numerous references to September 11th did not provide a way forward in Iraq" but instead "served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose."

As for a poster making the claim, look at Lyag's post.

Read this, perhaps ALL OF THIS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED?

The only THIS being discussed on this thread was the war in Iraq. Again, conservatives and Bushies can not defend the war in Iraq except by trying to claim that Saddam was somehow link to the September 11 attacks which is simply a false claim.