Illuminating the untempered soul and the blunt mind by hammering out sparks of Clarity and Truth on the Anvil of Debate.
"Sometimes, you go to war with the media you have, not the media you wish you had"
-Wordsmith
Labels: 60 Minutes, PlameGate, political cartoons
posted by The WordSmith from Nantucket at 10/21/2007 08:54:00 PM
Deputized Blogger at Flopping Aces
Blog Contributor at The Bos'un Locker
Proud Activist of The Vegetable Rights Militant Movement
20 Comments:
I was watching the debate.
I thought Plame told everyone she wanted to be left out of the limelight?
She's back again like Cindy Sheehan.
Both are publicity whores.
Oh, come now Mike: That was then, this is now. Don't you know that her cover's blown? It's not like she hasn't been shunning the limelight. Oh...waita60minutes...
Well, she does have a book to push-peddle, after all now. Before that....I don't remember the excuse.
60 Minutes has learned its lesson, and mentioned that her book's published by Simon & Schuster, owned by CBS.
I'm watching the repeat of the debate. I'll expect your post covering it in thorough detail up by early dawn tomorrow.
Ok, you're fast
I'll take credit, anyway, for lighting a fire under you.
I only have my first impressions post up on the debate. Still waiting for a full transcript.
I thought when the Plame/Wilson moved to New Mexico it was to establish a private life out of the spotlight.
Well, I guess I can be wrong sometimes.
I was watching the debate too. It's the only thing on tv that I watched yesterday. I'm not posting on it. I'm too busy attacking Hillary, and I know that people like you and Mike are going to cover it thoroughly.
I'm sure the debate I was watching was far more interesting than Valerie Plame. I didn't tortue myself with her nonsense.
Just the fact that she married Joe Wilson tells me all I need to know about her!
Valerie who?
What Jenn said lol
Nice plug for her book at the HuffPo. Now, finally, she can tell us her story! It's not like we haven't been hearing it from her husband for the last four years...
Indeed, I thought all they wanted was to be out of the spotlight.
You can denigrate Joe and Valerie as much as you want, but the fact remains that Bush deliberately lied in the SOTU address. There is no substantiated proof that Iraq sought Uranium from Niger. His allegations did not merit inclusion in the SOTU address. He used it because he needed to justify invading Iraq and taking control of the oil. Now thousands are dead or wounded, but Bush and his henchmen are sitting atop a sea of oil worth Nineteen Trillion dollars! Follow the money, friends.
Hey rockybutte. Thanks for your comment.
You can denigrate Joe and Valerie as much as you want,
I may poke jabs at them, but I try not to be malicious about it. I don't think of them as "bad" people; but their version of events is just that: their version. I think they have a few legitimate points, mixed in with spin and partisan beliefs.
but the fact remains that Bush deliberately lied in the SOTU address.
"Lied" or "erred"? Do you have 2nd sight, that allows you to see into the mind of people and know what they are thinking?
Factcheck.org is far from being a conservative watchdog. I suggest you begin there.
On Sept 24, 2002, Tony Blair said in a speech to Parliament, "We know Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
On the same day, a bipartisan Senate report stated that the CIA instructed the White House that they could include the "16 words" in the SotU. George Tenet has accepted responsibility for the inclusion.
There is no substantiated proof that Iraq sought Uranium from Niger. His allegations did not merit inclusion in the SOTU address.
It may not have merited inclusion in an SotU; but it's far from a "lie".
Here's what he actually said in his address: “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”
Notice he said "Africa", and did not specify "Niger"; notice he said "sought" and not "obtained" (one of Wilson's lie in his NYTimes op-ed); notice he cited "British government"; he did not reference Joe Wilson's non-findings.
According to the Butler Report, credible intelligence claims Iraq had attempted to acquire 500 tons of uranium oxide from Niger in 1999. The British stand by this report, and have never backed off from it.
It is a fact that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. Even Joe Wilson uncovered Iraqi attempts to discuss the subject of ‘trade’ with Niger - a one commodity nation...unless you want to delude yourself into the belief that Iraq was really there seeking to acquire Nigerien livestock, cowpeas, and onions; beyond that, Niger has nothing of value to offer.
Last year, translated documents captured in Iraq show that the intell that suggests Saddam sought uranium from Africa was indeed accurate.
He used it because he needed to justify invading Iraq and taking control of the oil.
Yes, because we kept control of Iraqi oil and are reaping riches from it even as I type [/sarcasm].
Now thousands are dead or wounded,
Many slaughtered by al-Qaeda in Iraq, and others the victim of sectarian violence that has been largely fomented by al-Qaeda in Iraq.
As far as our soldiers, each loss is painful to us; but from a historical perspective, our losses hardly compare to the 10's of thousands lost in Vietnam and Korea; or the hundreds of thousand lost in the first two WW's.
The way the media reports it, you'd think our soldiers were sitting ducks, dropping like flies. Thousands of "bad guys" are included in the body count. And for the most part, that's a good thing.
but Bush and his henchmen are sitting atop a sea of oil worth Nineteen Trillion dollars! Follow the money, friends.
When you look at France, Germany, Russia, and China's motives for not supporting the war in Iraq, um...yeah: follow the money trail, buddy.
Also, in highlighting the word "Africa" in the SotU instead of specifying "Niger", I bring your attention to intell that pointed toward other places in Africa where uranium may have been sought after.
Wordsmith:
Nice job responding to my comments. BTW, I believe that you were not personally disrespectful to Wilson/Plame. My observation was directed at some, like Mike's America, who referred to Valerie as a "whore". This is not the way to refer to women.
Bush took office intending to invade Iraq and control the oil (reference Paul O'Neill's comments about the first NSC meeting he attended). France and Russia controlled 69% of Iraqi oil prior to 2003, and China was waiting for its chance to spread influence in the Gulf.
Bush tried to scare us into invading Iraq and 9/11 gave him the perfect opportunity. Practically the only justifications he and right-wing rabble-rousers could invent were that Saddam had tons and tons of WMDs, and that he had a close relationship with Al-Quaida (he denied later that he ever suggested Saddam and Osama were in league, but practically every speech leading up to the invasion of Iraq included multiple references to 9/11.) Thanks to Bush's convincing tone (with or without a bullhorn), the American public truly believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. As recently as a year ago practically 50% of Americans polled believed that Saddam was involved with 9/11. You can credit Bush's bellicose rhetoric and people's tendency to stereotype (some friends of mine actually believe that all Arabs and Moslems are anti-America, and wish our demise.)
Our invasion, of course, found no WMDs even though Rumsfeld "knew where they were". The right-wing noise machine then pulled a 1984ish twist and said that the invasion was never about WMDs. It was about bringing democracy to the Iraqi people.
We have built the world's largest embassy in Baghdad's green zone, and constructed 14 massive air bases inside Iraq. We're in it for the long haul, as long as that NINETEEN TRILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF OIL holds out, all the while casting covetous glances at the TWENTY-FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF OIL across the border in Iran.
We and our partners in crime, the fat-cats of Saudia Arabia (who supplied the seed $ to build Wahabi oriented madrassas in Pakistan which gave rise to the Taliban) will be able to greatly influence the supply and price of oil world-wide. And let's not forget that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis; none was Iraqi.
Every day we spend in Iraq inflames and radicalizes additional Jihadists. We are ensuring that generations of angry Moslems will continue to regard the USA as the "Great Satan". We need statesmen and stateswomen who will utilize diplomatic skills to achieve a measure of peace for our kids and succeeding generations. We owe it to them.
I understand that adherents of the "realpolitik" point of view believe that only death and destruction, or the threat of same, will keep us safe. We're all going to die some day. Why do we need to live out our days in fear while others rage in misery? Why do we plant the seeds of our own destruction as we destroy invisible civilians whose only crime is living on a sea of oil?
I caught it. Rush is right; liberals lie, lie, lie. She sat that, as she did before the Senate committee earlier in the year, and lied through her teeth.
I have a link to the 2004 Senate Committee Hearing on Prewar Intelligence. It's over 530 pages. In it, Joe Wilson testifies that he met with the PM of Niger who said while he turned away an Iraqi envoy, Iraq did indeed try to meet with him about buying urnanium from Niger. I thought Wilson said BUSH LIED about Iraq trying to procure uranium?
I'll tell you who the liars are; Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. It's just what liberals do.
You're right Amy. Liberals lie, and so do conservatives, Democrats, Reublicans, Christians, Moslems, Jews and Jains. But they don't all lie all of the time.
George Washington never told a lie; LBJ never told the truth; Dick Nixon never knew the difference.
Aside form the bald-faced lies ("I never had sex with that woman"), there are the lies behind the scenes, or lies of omission: refusal to make public the presidential papers of Ronald Reagan; placing Travel Office papers where they could be "accidentally" found in the White House; refusal to make public the composition of Cheney's Energy Task Force; the Iran-Contra affair; supplying Saddam with chemicals to make weapons; sending Rumsfeld to broker a pipeline deal with Saddam even after it was known that Saddam had used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds; facilitating Pakistan's efforts to create nuclear weaponry and supplying them with the planes to deliver those weapons.
The list goes on: Bush's howler that he only knew Ken Lay ("Kenny Boy"; what was Bush trying to hide?) because Ann Richards appointed Lay to a Task Force; Bush's insistence during an interview that "Mission Accomplished" referred to the aircraft carrier's successful return to port; Bush, on world-wide TV, in the company of Kofi Annan, insisting that Saddam had not allowed the inspectors back into Iraq before the invasion.
Yes, I know that there are many more Clinton lies to list. Bush's are worse because many of them led to the death and dismemberment of so many.
Bush took office intending to invade Iraq and control the oil (reference Paul O'Neill's comments about the first NSC meeting he attended).
Hmmm...so does that assertion imply that Richard Clarke is wrong or lying when he says "Cheney talked him into it"?
An administration official told Newsweek: "We didn't pay attention to the crazy things he said while he was here, so why would we start now after he's gone?" (O'Neill has told friends he regrets his comment but will have to "live with it.")
I remember watching 60 Minutes interview O'Neill in an election year, when the Suskind book was released. At the time, John Hinderaker had this to say on the matter:
Laurie Mylroie sent out an email about Paul O'Neill's appearance on 60 Minutes last night; she notes what appears to be a major error in Ron Suskind's book, which casts doubt on the credibility of both Suskind and O'Neill. Here is the key portion of Mylroie's email:
"In his appearance this evening on '60 Minutes,' Ron Suskind, author of The Price of Loyalty, based to a large extent on information from former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, made an astonishing, very serious misstatement.
"Suskind claimed he has documents showing that preparations for the Iraq war were well underway before 9-11. He cited--and even showed--what he said was a Pentagon document, entitled, 'Foreign Suitors for Iraq Oilfield Contracts.' He claimed the document was about planning for post-war Iraq oil (CBS's promotional news story also contained that claim).
"But that is not a Pentagon document. It's from the Vice-President's Office. It was part of the Energy Project that was the focus of Dick Cheney's attention before the 9/11 strikes.
"And the document has nothing to do with post-war Iraq. It was part of a study of global oil supplies. Judicial Watch obtained it in a law suit and posted it, along with related documents, on its website at: http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml Indeed, when this story first broke yesterday, the Drudge Report had the Judicial Watch document linked (no one at CBS News saw that, so they could correct the error, when the show aired?)"
What Mylroie says about the "Foreign Suitors" document is correct. The Judicial Watch link still works as of this morning, and as you can easily see, the document, dated March 5, 2001, has nothing to do with post-war planning. It is merely a list of existing and proposed "Iraqi Oil & Gas Projects" as of that date. And it includes projects in Iraq by countries that obviously would not have been part of any "post-war" plans of the Bush administration, such as, for example, Vietnam.
So Suskind (and apparently O'Neill) misrepresented this document, which appears to be a significant part of their case, given that Suskind displayed in on 60 Minutes. It would not be possible for anyone operating in good faith to represent the document as Suskind did.
But the truth is even worse than Mylroie pointed out in her email. The CBS promo linked to above says that this document "includes a map of potential areas for exploration. 'It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,' says Suskind. 'On oil in Iraq.'"
True enough; there is a "map of potential areas for exploration" in Iraq here. But what Paul O'Neill and Ron Suskind don't tell you is that the very same set of documents that contain the Iraq map and the list of Iraqi oil projects contain the same maps and similar lists of projects for the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia! When documents are produced in litigation (in this case, the Judicial Watch lawsuit relating to Cheney's energy task force), they are numbered sequentially. The two-page "Iraqi Oil Suitors" document that Suskind breathlessly touts is numbered DOC044-0006 through DOC044-0007. The Iraq oil map comes right before the list of Iraqi projects; it is numbered DOC044-0005.
DOC044-0001 is a map of oil fields in the United Arab Emirates. DOC044-0002 is a list of oil and gas development projects then going on in the United Arab Emirates. DOC044-0003 is a map of oil fields in Saudi Arabia. DOC044-0004 is a list of oil and gas projects in Saudi Arabia. So the "smoking gun" documents that Suskind and O'Neill claim prove that the administration was planning to invade Iraq in March 2001 are part of a package that includes identical documents relating to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Does Paul O'Neill claim the administration was planning on invading them, too? Or, as Mylroie says, was this merely part of the administration's analysis of sources of energy in the 21st century?
There is only one possible conclusion: Paul O'Neill and Ron Suskind are attempting to perpetrate a massive hoax on the American people.
UPDATE: Paul Krugman is ecstatic about O'Neill's allegations, and views them as vindicating his three years of over-the-top Bush hatred. Needless to say, Krugman has nothing to say about O'Neill's and Suskind's fraudulent misrepresentation of the documents on which their claims are based. The battle is joined: the New York Times propagates lies, the blogosphere points out undeniable facts that are inconvenient for the left. Spread the word.
FURTHER UPDATE: Judicial Watch notes that these documents originated in the Commerce Department, not Vice-President Cheney's office, but were turned over to Judicial Watch in connection with that organization's lawsuit against Cheney relating to the Vice-President's energy task force. This, of course, has no bearing on the point we make about Suskind and O'Neill's fraudulent use of these documents, which relate generically to world energy supplies and had nothing to do with a purported plan to invade (or reconstruct) Iraq. Indeed, the documents' origin in the Commerce Department underlines the absurdity of Suskind's and CBS's claim that they demonstrate the existence of a scheme to invade Iraq.
Bush tried to scare us into invading Iraq and 9/11 gave him the perfect opportunity.
I don't recall President Bush mentioning much about Iraq in his first 9 months in office. I do not believe he was "obsessed" with Iraq, before 9/11 hit us.
Based upon everything I've read that comes independent of the Bush Administration, I do believe that Saddam did pose a grave threat to the world.
Practically the only justifications he and right-wing rabble-rousers could invent were that Saddam had tons and tons of WMDs,
When you say "invent".....I think that is highly partisan and inaccurate. To say the Administration came to a point where they bolstered the case for war, I can concede, and find more believable.
Our CIA intell was woefully lacking, thanks in part to funding cuts through the 90's.
Based upon the available intelligence gathered from around the world, based upon Saddam's past actions, his public statements and making no secrets about his hatred of America and desire to acquire weapons, the irresponsible course of action would have been to perpetuate the status quo. That meant the original cease-fire agreements could continue to be violated, 17 UN Resolutions rendered meaningless, the Food-for-Oil scam still filling Saddam's coffers, UN officials working secretly behind our backs to have sanctions lifted...and according to the Duelfer report, Saddam's weapons programs at the ready to be reconstituted, as soon as that happened.
and that he had a close relationship with Al-Quaida (he denied later that he ever suggested Saddam and Osama were in league, but practically every speech leading up to the invasion of Iraq included multiple references to 9/11.)
rockybutte, there is a big difference between saying there were connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq, and saying that Saddam had any involvement in the events of 9/11.
Please find me all the quotes you can that has President Bush directly saying that Saddam had a hand in 9/11.
The connection, is about the greater war on terror- which is bigger than simply going after those solely responsible for planning and carrying out 9/11. President Bush made it clear that we would be going after terrorists and those who harbored, trained, funded them, including state-sponsors, of which Iraq was one who publically acknowledged it's involvement in terrorist activity.
Thanks to Bush's convincing tone (with or without a bullhorn), the American public truly believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. As recently as a year ago practically 50% of Americans polled believed that Saddam was involved with 9/11.
Please find me all the quotes you can. I, for one, never felt "misled" into Iraq. I understood this war from the beginning.
I think the media has been a culprit in how it's misrepresented and misunderstood so much. I see it happening all the time, where they get the story wrong, and cite each other.
You can credit Bush's bellicose rhetoric and people's tendency to stereotype (some friends of mine actually believe that all Arabs and Moslems are anti-America, and wish our demise.)
Ok, please find me the speeches in which you believe President Bush has "stereotype". A lot of my hard-right conservative friends in the blogosphere roll their eyes each time President Bush stresses that Islam is a religion of peace, each time he hosts a Ramadan event at the White House, meets with Muslim leaders and visits mosques.
Not only that, he has, in a very real sense, liberated 50 million Muslims from oppressive regimes.
Right or wrong, he truly does believe that "freedom" is a God-given right of every human being; and that it is the basis for peace and prosperity.
Our invasion, of course, found no WMDs even though Rumsfeld "knew where they were".
Flawed intelligence, which historically, has often underestimated the enemy's capabilities.
What we didn't find, btw, were stockpiles. There have been wmd finds, and weapons that Saddam had hidden from inspectors, and which he was in clear violation of having in his possession.
The right-wing noise machine then pulled a 1984ish twist and said that the invasion was never about WMDs. It was about bringing democracy to the Iraqi people.
But that was always part and parcel to the case made for war. Wmds was the easiest one to "sell" to the American public. But there were about 7 or 8 cases put forth.
Re-read the "Mission Accomplished" speech. It still stands strong to this day.
Planting the seeds of democracy in the heart of the Middle East was ever a gamble; it was a bold move, that, if it works out, 50 years from now, President Bush will be remembered far better as a "visionary" and a "mover-and-shaker" then, than he is today, with low approval ratings, much as Truman endured during his presidency.
We have built the world's largest embassy in Baghdad's green zone, and constructed 14 massive air bases inside Iraq. We're in it for the long haul,
For the life of me, I knew this from the "get-go". We're in a war of generations. And it wasn't started by this President. It did not begin on his watch. But I thank God that he was in office, to answer the challenge, and not "the global warming guy".
as long as that NINETEEN TRILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF OIL holds out, all the while casting covetous glances at the TWENTY-FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF OIL across the border in Iran.
We are not "stealing" Iraqi oil; but yes, it is important to secure the oil from a terrorist state-sponsor.
We and our partners in crime, the fat-cats of Saudia Arabia (who supplied the seed $ to build Wahabi oriented madrassas in Pakistan which gave rise to the Taliban) will be able to greatly influence the supply and price of oil world-wide. And let's not forget that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis; none was Iraqi.
No, but Ramzi Yousef was involved in the first WTC bombing. Their country of origin is irrelevant, in a way. We have Islamic terrorists from many countries.
Every day we spend in Iraq inflames and radicalizes additional Jihadists.
Why? Because we are the ones protecting innocent Iraqis from insurgency violence and foreign fighters, including Iranians sowing chaos, and al-Qaeda in Iraq fomenting sectarian strife and slaughtering innocents who do not align themselves with them?
Media misperception and distortion is what has inflamed the Arab world.
Who has been trying to make life better for Iraqis? Who has been there rebuilding the infrastructure, building mosques and hospitals and schools? And who has offered Iraqis nothing but violence and chaos and destruction?
Why aren't you doing everything you can to recognize that President Bush is not the enemy; and regardless of how we got in, we are there now, and we should all be doing what we can to achieve "victory"?
Some on your side are rooting more for a President Bush defeat than they are for an American victory.
We are ensuring that generations of angry Moslems will continue to regard the USA as the "Great Satan".
I disagree. Even those who are critics of American foreign policy often express admiration for the American people. And of course, there are those who regard Americans as fat, arrogant pigs.
I find that criticism of American policy is often slanted, unfair, and driven by anti-Americanism that is as much rooted in propaganda and false perceptions as much as anything grounded in reality.
We need statesmen and stateswomen who will utilize diplomatic skills to achieve a measure of peace for our kids and succeeding generations. We owe it to them.
Agreed. And for anyone to fail to understand that this Administration has exercised diplomacy, and continues to do so- almost to a fault-, that person needs to relieve his eyesight of the thorn-rimmed glasses that has him believing in a myth of "cowboy diplomacy".
What this Administration attempted to do post 9/11 and pre 11/06, is not turn diplomacy into appeasement and 17 more meaningless UN Resolution-style talk, talk, talk.
Should we elect a Neville Chamberlain, next year?
I understand that adherents of the "realpolitik" point of view believe that only death and destruction, or the threat of same, will keep us safe.
No. Absolutely untrue. Do not mistake the willingness to engage in armed conflict for "warmongering".
Sometimes, war is the answer.
We're all going to die some day. Why do we need to live out our days in fear while others rage in misery? Why do we plant the seeds of our own destruction as we destroy invisible civilians whose only crime is living on a sea of oil?
Obviously, we have differing worldviews and perceptions of events.
50 or 100 years from now....we will see.
What would the price to the world have been, had Saddam and his murderous sons remained in power for the next generation? Do you intervene to remove a cancer upon the world early? Or do you wait until the threat becomes imminent, and allow the cancer to metasticize, because you fear the pain of early-on treatment?
Bush's insistence during an interview that "Mission Accomplished" referred to the aircraft carrier's successful return to port
rockybutte, I have about 2 or 3 posts on the Mission Accomplished speech. You'd do yourself a service, and sleep better at night if you look them up. Try the archives, in the anniversary month of the speech. I'd link you up myself, but I have other people's blogs to hit, where I am also embroiled in long, drawn-out debates that rarely go anywhere.
Wordsmith:
Thanks for your hard work. You've given me the opportunity to look into some areas I've overlooked.
I don't mean to get into a tennis match with anyone, but I'll try to free up some time to briefly make a couple of corrections.
Thanks for your civility. And thanks for giving me a pass on any points where I have come across as rude or condescending.
I have to keep checking myself, and do a better job of moderating my tone. I'm so used to arguing and trying to "win", that it's a nice change of pace to carry on a dialogue.
I am open to learning and being challenged, to arrive closer to "the truth", wherever that may lead, and whatever that may be.
Post a Comment
<< Home