Pres. Bush was right

“WASHINGTON (AP, July 9) - A lack of cooperation from the Bush administration could hamper an independent inquiry into the Sept. 11 terror attacks, the commission's leaders say.

``The task in front of us is monumental, and time is slipping by,'' said Thomas H. Kean, the commission's chairman. ``Every day lost complicates our work.''

Kean and the panel's vice chairman, Lee Hamilton, gave a blunt status report Tuesday after arriving in Washington for the commission's third public hearing, to be held Wednesday on Capitol Hill. The hearing focuses on terrorism, al-Qaida and the Muslim world.

Kean, a Republican former governor of New Jersey, and Hamilton, a Democratic former congressman from Indiana, singled out government departments including Defense and Justice that they said were not cooperating fully with the 10-member National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

They said they took the unusual step because the administration's level of cooperation during the next few weeks will determine whether the panel can write a thorough report by its May 2004 deadline.

Kean said Wednesday, however, he wasn't yet ready to accuse the administration of trying to thwart the probe.

``Ask me about this two months later. I may change my mind, but I don't think it's intentional foot-dragging,'' he said on NBC's ``Today'' program.

``I think, really, nobody anticipated the breadth of the commission's work,'' Kean added. ``We're looking at seven or eight different areas, everything from border security to money laundering to investigating the airlines.''

``It's just a huge task,'' Kean said, adding that ``the White House, by the way, has tried to be helpful, and we appreciate that.''

The White House and Congress formed the commission last year following a congressional inquiry into intelligence failures. The panel is investigating the government's actions before the attacks on such issues as aviation security, immigration and diplomacy.

Kean said Bush and his aides have tried to help, but ``it is also clear that the administration underestimated the scale of the commission's work.'' The commission has requested 26 briefings and made 44 requests for documents, which cover millions of pages, from 16 government agencies.

In their interim report, Kean and Hamilton said the degree of cooperation has varied by office and agency:

The commission is receiving access to ``a wide range of sensitive documents'' from Bush's office and from the National Security Council, but ``conditions have been imposed, in some cases, with respect to our access to and usage of materials.''

The CIA assembled a team of analysts to review events leading up to Sept. 11, 2001, and their work has been invaluable. But the CIA has not responded as quickly to the commission's requests for internal documents on management and resources.

Records requested from the Justice Department are overdue, and the department has yet to resolve how to help the commission review the case of Sept. 11 conspiracy suspect Zacarias Moussaoui, who is awaiting trial.

Problems with the Defense Department ``are becoming particularly serious.'' The commission has received no responses to requests related to national air defenses among other topics.

Within the Homeland Security Department , elements of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service ``have been slow in providing briefings, although there are recent signs of improvement.''

The FBI, State Department and Transportation Department received generally positive reviews.

Kean said he has been particularly troubled by the Bush administration's insistence on having a Justice Department official present when commission representatives interview federal officials.

``The commission feels unanimous that it's some intimidation to have somebody sitting behind you all the time who works for your agency,'' he said.

Mark Corallo, a Justice Department spokesman, said having a department representative present at interviews is standard procedure and designed to help, not intimidate, the person being questioned.

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said Bush is committed to helping the commission. ``We have already provided thousands of pages of documents, as well as numerous individuals for interviews, and we intend to continue to do so,'' she said.

07/09/03 08:50 EDT”

“Q: Can you give us the White House account of Ambassador Wilson's account of what happened when he went to Niger and investigated the suggestions that Niger was passing yellow cake to Iraq? I'm sure you saw the piece yesterday in The New York Times.
FLEISCHER: Well, there is zero, nada, nothing new here. Ambassador Wilson, other than the fact that now people know his name, has said all this before. But the fact of the matter is in his statements about the Vice President -- the Vice President's office did not request the mission to Niger. The Vice President's office was not informed of his mission and he was not aware of Mr. Wilson's mission until recent press accounts -- press reports accounted for it.

So this was something that the CIA undertook as part of their regular review of events, where they sent him. But they sent him on their own volition, and the Vice President's office did not request it. Now, we've long acknowledged -- and this is old news, we've said this repeatedly -- that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect.

[Here there were questions unrelated to the Niger-uranium issue - tpm ed. note]

Q: I just want to take you back to your answer before, when you said you have long acknowledged that the information on yellow cake turned out to be incorrect. If I remember right, you only acknowledged the Niger part of it as being incorrect -- I think what the --

FLEISCHER: That's correct.

Q: I think what the President said during his State of the Union was he --

FLEISCHER: When I refer to yellow cake I refer to Niger. The question was on the context of Ambassador Wilson's mission.

Q: So are you saying the President's broader reference to Africa, which included other countries that were named in the NIE, were those also incorrect?

FLEISCHER: Well, I think the President's statement in the State of the Union was much broader than the Niger question.

Q: Is the President's statement correct?

FLEISCHER: I'm referring specifically to the Niger piece when I say that.

Q: Do you hold that the President -- when you look at the totality of the sentence that the President uttered that day on the subject, are you confident that he was correct?

FLEISCHER: Yes, I see nothing that goes broader that would indicate that there was no basis to the President's broader statement. But specifically on the yellow cake, the yellow cake for Niger, we've acknowledged that that information did turn out to be a forgery.

Q: The President's statement was accurate?

FLEISCHER: We see nothing that would dissuade us from the President's broader statement.

Q: Ari, that means that, indeed, you all believe that Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain uranium from an African nation; is that correct?

FLEISCHER: What the President said in his statement was that according to a British report they were trying to obtain uranium. When I answered the question it was, again, specifically about the Niger piece involving yellow cake.

Q: So you believe the British report that he was trying to obtain uranium from an African nation is true?

FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?

Q: If you're hanging on the British report, you believe that that British report was true, you have no reason to believe --

FLEISCHER: I'm sorry, I see what David is asking. Let me back up on that and explain the President's statement again, or the answer to it.

The President's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake from Niger. The President made a broad statement. So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the President's broader statement, David. So, yes, the President' broader statement was based and predicated on the yellow cake from Niger.

Q: So it was wrong?

FLEISCHER: That's what we've acknowledged with the information on --

Q: The President's statement at the State of the Union was incorrect?

FLEISCHER: Because it was based on the yellow cake from Niger.

Q: Well, wait a minute, but the explanation we've gotten before was it was based on Niger and the other African nations that have been named in the national intelligence --

FLEISCHER: But, again, the information on -- the President did not have that information prior to his giving the State of the Union.

Q: Which gets to the crux of what Ambassador Wilson is now alleging -- that he provided this information to the State Department and the CIA 11 months before the State of the Union and he is amazed that it, nonetheless, made it into the State of the Union address. He believes that that information was deliberately ignored by the White House. Your response to that?

FLEISCHER: And that's way, again, he's making the statement that -- he is saying that surely the Vice President must have known, or the White House must have known. And that's not the case, prior to the State of the Union.

Q: He's saying that surely people at the decision-making level within the NSC would have known the information which he -- passed on to both the State Department and the CIA.

FLEISCHER: And the information about the yellow cake and Niger was not specifically known prior to the State of the Union by the White House.

Q: What does that say about communications?

FLEISCHER: We've acknowledged that the information turned out to be bogus involving the report on the yellow cake. That is not new. You can go back. You can look it up. Dr. Rice has said it repeatedly. I've said it repeatedly. It's been said from this podium on the record, in several instances. It's been said to many of you in this room, specifically.

Q: But, Ari, even if you said that the Niger thing was wrong, the next line has usually been that the President's statement was deliberately broader than Niger, it referred to all of Africa. The national intelligence estimate discusses other countries in Africa that there were attempts to purchase yellow cake from, or other sources of uranium --

FLEISCHER: Let me do this, David. On your specific question I'm going to come back and post the specific answer on the broader statement on the speech.”

“Ari is damned good! It makes me dizzy just reading how he gave that guy the run around!”

“I'll bet he's holding his breath waiting for the answer to be posted.”

“dizzy?

Spinning will do that.”

“"...(T)he war in Iraq is a large problem. There's a lot of what Jimmy Carter called 'malaise' around."

- Recent remarks by former President George H.W. Bush”

“Wuh-oh. 'ma-Lezz'... that's wunna- them FRAINCH words, ain't it?


I surely wish he'd done a better job with Dubya.... but Jeb was the one being groomed for high office.”

“must have been all of the angry spankings from Babbs.”

“I would far prefer Jeb in the oval office than George the II.

I've got a few complaints but he's been a good governer thus far.”

“Can you imagine the President of the United States having flashbacks about getting the crap beaten out of him by a George Washington look-alike? LMAO

tooo weird!”

“?”

“Tilt's saying Barbara Bush looks like George Washington, Dear.”

“Nnnkay”

“ ”

“Such rosey cheeks!”

“The one on the right is obviously a woman.


By the way fiddler, did you pull the one on the left off your family room wall?”

“The 'Before' and 'After' rhinoplasty pics were transposed....

(I think the Bosley Hair Clinic people were involved also)”

“lmoa at those pics. that is classic.”

“LMAO!

why WONT this WIG come OFF?!?!”

“"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.... And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war... And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
- Dick "Dick" Cheney, 1992 speech to the Discovery Institute in Seattle”

“Oh no, ... the Dickster's a flip-flopper.”

“It's hard to read that speech, if you're a GW fan.”

“The comparative threat for nuclear weapons possession by North Korea and Iraq under Saddam Hussain were never equal.

North Korea can do little with their weapons other than threaten US west coast cities such as Seattle or Los Angeles, devastating for those locations but assured annihilation for North Korea with the US response.

The Iraqi threat was a conventional attack to secure the Saudi oilfields temporarily and mine them with nukes then threaten to detonate the nukes and permanently destroy 25% to 35% of the Worlds total oil supply. Iraq probably had the conventional military capacity to carry out raids on Saudi and Kuwait simultaneously. This would have given Saddam 45% of the total World oil supply held hostage to a few nuclear mines. (Saudi 24.9%, Iraqi 10.7%, Kuwait 9.2%) and probably no way to prevent the UAE from falling with their 9.2% to give him control of 54% of the worlds oil and 20% of daily production.

"Table 1. Leading Oil States, 2001"
This table groups the 10 leading states in each category.

Share of World Total (percent)

Reserves Production
(percent) (percent
Saudi Arabia 24.9 11.8
Iraq 10.7 3.3
UAE 9.3 3.2
Kuwait 9.2 2.9
Iran 8.5 5.1
Venezuela 7.4 4.9
Russia 4.6 9.7
United States 2.9 9.8
Libya 2.8 1.9
Mexico 2.6 4.9
China 2.3 4.6
Nigeria 2.3 2.9
Norway 0.9 4.5
Algeria 0.9 1.8
Canada 0.6 3.6
United Kingdom 0.5 3.3


Iraq does not have to defeat those countries, only hold the oilfield long enough to plant a nuke at the bottom of a well then threaten to detonate for any resistance.

This is a completely different threat to that posed by North Korea.

At the time of the US unilateral invasion most intelligence though that Iraq was extremely close to having ‘some’ nuclear weapons. Less than 18 months was the best estimate. Iraq has already displayed their willingness to destroy oilfields with their retreat from Kuwait where they blew up everything they could.
The UN inspections were completely ineffective as attested to by the 18 resolutions condemning Iraq’s lack of cooperation and lack of compliance.

Assume that something would go wrong and Saddam pushes the button.
There would be no oil for household heating, Electricity generation, Industry. The motor vehicle industry would collapse, because almost no private individuals could afford gas. Expect deaths from cold in winter, and starvation due to disruption of the transportation and distribution industries.

A major threat, you bet.
Did GW do the right thing? With the information available and possibility of Iraq having nukes you bet.

In hindsight, Saddam was bluffing, but the stakes were too high and his bluff got called.

(Oil reserve and production link) ”

“Thats the first itme I've seen any analysis like that mnauuka. Almost makes me think that Bush isn't quitse so clueless as I thought.”

“But, yawn, Sad Sack did not have nukes and his army was not capable of taking on Saudi Arabia, moreso since invading Saudi Arabia would have assured a US response.”

“Howerve, to build from Manuka's anylansis, merely planting one or two nukes in the Sauidi oilfields, withouit actulaly launching an attack, would have also bveen suffiecient.”

“If you could read, you would have seen from my post the silly little thing that Sad Sack did not have nukes. He couldn't have planted what he didn't have.”

“A war on the Korean Pennisnsula would be armageddon. Every President knows this. North Korea will not be attacked by the United States unless they attack one of our allies or U.S. forces directly.”

“Geo, sad sack easily had the capability of taking oil fields for a couple of days.

A US response would cause the detonation and immediate loss of 11.8% of the worlds daily oil supply.”

“Nukes in Iraq were a complete myth (if not an outright lie).”

“And from my post - all intelligence available at the time indicated that sad sack DID have a nuclear program and WAS in the process of developing nuclear weapons.

Hey Geo - I will bet you know who will win the super bowl in 1995 also - you are so knowledgable.

Hell with hindsight I can beat the bookies at the race track, unfortunately they will not take a bet after the race is over.”

“Given the fact that we attacked him before he tried anything, any movement at all toward the Saudi oilfields would have been instantaneous.

Sad Sack may have wanted to do a lot of things, but that does not mean he could do them.

Remember, the border with Saudi Arabia was in the southern no-fly zone, which we overflew quite regularly.”

“For an editoar Geobeet you're reading comprehension is pretty poor. I think the pont of Manuka's anlaysis was that if Saddam had nukes they might not have direclty trhreatened the so-called homeland, but would have been bthreatening nonetheless if used against the Saudi oil fields. Saddam was not forthcoming or cooperative about what he was doing ("bluffing") regarding nukes and Bush decided to attck.

Or maybe the Iranians through Chalabi tricked him into it. jWho knows?”

“I remember when Bush made a statement at Camp David in December of 2001 saying that according to the IAEA, Saddam could have Nukes within six months. IAEA spokespersons refuted the story within hours.

I posted the story here, if you recall (and nothing was ever found.... surprise, surprise).”

“Bales, what the hell are you trying to say? I can't read that gibberish.”

“It was only the first of a raft of similar WMD fairytales.”

“Geobeet you know as well as I do that you can read what I typed. You also know as well as I do that I'm right. Rather than admit that in your haste to post something that appeared smart, witty, and clever, you completely missed the point of Manuka's post (and I pointed THAT fact out to you) you rely instead on the crutch of not understanding gibberish.

Or your reading comprehension really is that poor. Are you on meds for your staph infection?”

“While we're on the general subject, this is from a dude on a polico website I frequent (no, I'm not linking, as I don't want you yahoos stinking up the place):

So, the U.S. coalition in Iraq is insignificant? Well, let's compare it to the U.S.-led U.N. coalition during the peak of the Korean War.

Korean War (peak troop numbers, by country, excluding Republic of Korea forces):
United States: 348,000
Great Britain: 14,198
Canada: 6,146
Turkey: 5,455
Australia: 2,282
Philippines: 1,496
New Zealand: 1,389
Thailand: 1,294
Ethiopia: 1,271
Greece: 1,263
France: 1,119
Colombia: 1,068
Belgium/Luxembourg: 944
South Africa: 826
Netherlands: 819

Total: 16 nations; 387,570 combat troops


Iraq War (troop numbers, by country, as of July 2004, excluding Iraqi forces):

United States: 126,500
Great Britain: 8,300
Italy: 3,120
Poland: 2,400
Ukraine: 1,650
Netherlands: 1,400
Australia: 850
Romania: 800
Japan: 600
South Korea: 600
Denmark: 520
Bulgaria: 485
Thailand: 450
El Salvador: 380
Hungary: 300
Singapore: 200
Norway: 155
Azerbaijan: 150
Georgia: 150
Mongolia: 140
Latvia: 120
Portugal: 110
Czech Republic: 110
Lithuania: 105
Slovakia: 105
Albania: 70
New Zealand: 60
Tonga: 45
Estonia: 40
Kazakhstan: 30
Macedonia: 30
Moldova: 10

Total: 32 nations; 149,985 combat troops


In terms of overall troop level, the Iraq war is a much smaller war than the Korean War. Yet the number of nations in the Iraq war coalition currently doubles the Korean War coalition. Moreover, the United States was by far the largest contributor of military personnel in the Korean War, even though that was a U.N.-led coalition. And Poland, the Ukraine, and the Netherlands each contribute more military personnel to the Iraq War coalition than France contributed to the Korean War.

The Korean War was fought with minimal support from France, no support from the then-Federal Republic of Germany, and against the Russian-backed Communist regime in North Korea.

The U.S. provided 89.7% of the troops in the Korean War and 84.3% of the troops in Iraq.”

“Hey! We'll have no discussions about Geo's staff here. Stay on topic here. LOL!”

“"And from my post - all intelligence available at the time indicated that sad sack DID have a nuclear program and WAS in the process of developing nuclear weapons.



That's just the point Manuka, there was no intelligence to that effect at that time.

Don't try to explain the invasion of Iraq away with the faulty intelligence argument. That invasion was being planned even before 9/11. All 9/11 did was postpone it a year or two.

And before the invasion began, the weapons inspectors categorically denied finding any evidence of WMD. Shrub invaded before they completed their work.

God, that is the weakest argument and people keep trying to dredge it up. Hindsight my ass. It's not hindsight. It's a total lack of evidence, unless you want to parade Chalabi the discredited as your prime witness. If they were getting any kind of intell at all, Chalabi should have been obvious.

No, what the administration did was just ignore any real intelligence in favor of some lying sack of $hit who was playing his own end-game, or basically using a sham excuse.

It doesn't take hindsight to listen to the intelligence pros and ignore the shils. It doesn't take hindsight to wait until the weapons inspectors completed their work. It's only hindsight if you believed that bullcrap.”

“Perhaps you have a memory problem Geo. but never fear Google can still find those references for you.

This was a topic discussed in my household at the time because my son is registered under selective service and is elegible to be called up.

We did discuss the impending war and the question was fight now? or after he has nukes?

Not just US but news articles from other countries all thought at that time it was only a matter of time before Saddam did have the capability.

And the UN inspectors left Iraq because they said it was a sham, they were repeatedly denied access to facilities, then a few weeks later allowed to inspect. Then denied again. Heck Clinton bombed them to get them back to the table.

I guess your pervading hatred of GW leaves little room in the memory cells for such things a historical fact.”

“You can rant on all you want Manuka, or call me anything you want. The fact remains that the intell did not support Shrub's contention. There was a good reason for that. It wasn't there.

Shrub based that assumption on the erroneous report from Africa. Joseph Wilson was sent there to ascertain whether the report was credible and reported back that it was not credible. The CIA pointedly denied that Sad Sack had nukes.

But Shrub kept referring to the African report as though it was true. That is when Wilson gave his version of the affair in the New York Times. And that is why somebody in the administration outed Wilson's wife, an undercover CIA operative named Valerie Plame Wilson, endangering her life and the lives of any contacts she may have had.

That was the exact same piece of non-intelligence Shrub cited in his state of the union message, and in other venues. By that time, he knew, or should have known, the facts.

And if Sad Sack had tried to obtain nukes, intelligence would have found out.

This was not a pre-emptive strike. A pre-emptive strike is when your enemy is about to attack you (for real and not in your dreams) and you strike him while he's mobilizing his forces to attack. They keep mis-using that term. Sad Sack may have been a lot of things, but he was not a blubbering idiot.

In the week before the attack, the inspectors returned to Iraq. But at no time did they report anything that would have supported Shrub.

Hatred of Bush? No. It's not hatred. It's condemnation for invading a country on false pretenses, without a plan to deal with the aftermath. Getting people killed is serious business. If it's absolutely necessary, that's one thing. But this was totally unnecessary at the time it happened. There was plenty of time to let things run their course. If Sad Sack had kept stalling (and he probably would have), there still would have been time for world opinion to catch up to affairs.

Shrub keeps acting like we needed to do this. He's flat out wrong. His actions were flat out wrong. And this action was in the planning stages from the moment the White House door closed behind him on inauguration day.”

“"In hindsight, Saddam was bluffing, but the stakes were too high and his bluff got called."
Manuka
12:11:46 PM
10/01/04

Gee, too bad nobody thought of pursuing intensive inspections under the threat of war to find out where the truth lay.

The inspection team was doing its work and citing Saddam's compliance as good when Bush launched the invasion.”

“Well actually Pedx, there was a cycle.

Saddam would tell the inspectors to get lost.
The UN would condemn Iraq and pass a resolution authorizing force.
There would be a military build up to enforce the resolution.

Just before the military would act, Saddam would tell the UN that Iraq would comply and invite the inspectors back.

The military would stand down and disperse back to their different countries.

As soon as the military was gone, Saddam would deny the inspectors access and boot their asses back out.

On a couple of those occasions on Pres Clintons watch the US shot down aircraft in the no fly zones, a couple of times Iraq used SAMs against US aircraft. Not a spirit of compliance there.

Repeat 17 times.

This was seen as a delaying tactic.
Wow, really, why are they doing that, why do they need time ??

It takes a lot of money and resources to build up a military presence in the desert on the other side of the world.

Saddam was playing with the UN forces, they incur all the costs of a build up, and then nothing.
He did this for years.

This time the US and a number of allies thought (wrongly) that the delay was to buy time to develop nuclear weapons and decided to use the military buildup.

And DUH, of course Saddam asked the inspectors back as he had on all 17 prior occasions after the military was deployed. No news there.”

“Saddam had it coming....played with, and dissed off the sleeping giant once too much. The giant finally woke up.....”

“"Terrorism is a side issue in this war

b.s. this war is a direct action on terrorism. It's WMD, links to AQ, oil, liberation - those are the side issues."
Mutt
02:52:00 PM”

“The thing is #1: inspections were working when the US invaded. Saddam was cooperating, invading then violated the terms of the agreement the US reached with the other UN nations.

And Stanlee - Saddam definitely had it coming to him. The 1,000 US soldiers who died, the 10s of thousands with serious and often permanent injuries didn't. Neither did those in Iraq who didn't support Saddam.

The Shiites were ready to take on and topple Saddam at the end of the Gulf war, the US let them be slaughtered because they were afraid it would piss off the Saudi's and strengthen Iran. Saddam had it coming to him then, too. The 100s of thousands of Shiites who responded to Bush Sr.'s call to rise up and were slaughtered for it, didn't.”

“if Bush Sr had finished the Gulf war there might not have been a
9-11. This President says there is a tie between Saddam and the terrorist who committed 9-11. So if that is the case and Bush Sr took out Saddam that would have equaled no 9-11.”

“Complex problems do not always respond to simplistic solutions.”