WH responds to Cheney

[Rinata]

More of CIA Director Tenet's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee

Let me be clear. Saddam remains a threat. He is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War. Today he maintains his vice grip on the levers of power through a pervasive intelligence and security apparatus, and even his reduced military force, which is less than half of its pre-war size, remains capable of defeating more poorly armed internal opposition and threatening Iraq's neighbors.

As I said earlier, we continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorist activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It has also had contacts with al Qaeda. Their ties may be limited by diverging ideologies, but the two sides mutual antipathy towards the United States and the Saudi royal family suggest that tactical cooperation between them is possible, even though Saddam is well aware that such activity would carry serious consequences.

...Iraq continues to build and expand an infrastructure capable of producing weapons of mass destruction. Baghdad is expanding its civilian chemical industries in ways that could be diverted quickly into CW production. We believe Baghdad continues to pursue ballistic missile capabilities that exceed the restrictions imposed by U .N. resolutions. With substantial foreign assistance, it could flight- test a longer-range ballistic missile within the next five years.

We believe that Saddam never abandoned his nuclear weapons program. Iraq maintains a significant number of nuclear scientists, program documentation, and probably some dual-use manufacturing infrastructure that could support a reinvigorated nuclear weapons program. Baghdad's access to foreign expertise could support a rejuvenated program. But our major near-term concern is the possibility that Saddam might gain access to fissile material.

What is this supposed to prove and where did you ge it????

 

[SFC Ollie]

in response to a question on September 17, 2003, Bush stated: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th [attacks]."

Oh, really??? That is such crap!!

In a March 21 USA Today article, staff writer David Jackson reported uncritically President Bush's denial during a March 20 appearance in Cleveland, Ohio that his administration had ever claimed a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9-11 terrorist attacks in making the case for war with Iraq. In addition, the article neglected to report that, in his response to an audience member's question, Bush created a straw-man argument by misrepresenting the substance of the question, saying, "I was careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack on America." In contrast, National Public Radio (NPR) White House correspondent Don Gonyea reported during the March 20 broadcast of All Things Considered that Bush had "reframed" the question, making it "more narrow" in order to avoid addressing the charge that the administration claimed a broad link between Hussein and the 9-11 attacks. As other news outlets -- including The Washington Post and Knight Ridder -- have noted, Bush claimed such a connection existed, often generally and specifically in a letter to Congress at the start of the war. In addition, Vice President Dick Cheney claimed that Iraqi intelligence officers met with 9-11 hijacker Mohamed Atta prior to the attacks, despite no confirmed reports of such a meeting, and also asserted that war in Iraq would constitute "a major blow" against the 9-11 terrorists.

Jackson reported that an audience member asked Bush to address three of his administration's pre-war claims -- in Jackson's words, "that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, sponsored the 9/11 terrorists, and had purchased nuclear-bomb materials." Jackson then simply and uncritically reported only part of Bush's reply: "I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say -- that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say he was a state sponsor of terror."

Vice President Cheney has also repeatedly linked Iraq and the 9-11 attacks. On the December 9, 2001, edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asked Cheney if he "still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?" The vice president responded falsely that it was "pretty well confirmed" that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta shortly before the attacks. On the September 14, 2003, edition of Meet the Press, Cheney repeated his claim that Iraq and 9-11 are linked, saying: "If we're successful in Iraq ... we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

USA Today uncritically reported Bush's denial that he linked Iraq with 9-11 attacks | Media Matters for America

You people really need to be challenged every single time you don't tell the truth. How many times on tv did Bush link Iraq to 9/11??? All the time. Where were you?? With your head in the sand, sick, in Europe, what???

I'm sorry, maybe I'm a bit of a stickler for facts, But Bush specifically said that Saddam had "Nothing" to do with the attacks. What you may want to believe is up to you.

 

[The T]

Did you not get that they backed off when the criticism started?? What is wrong with you?? And you criticize people that like Obama and say that we just worship him?? I've never understood that, but I think I'm beginning to.

That is how you people feel about Bush and Cheney, and you project that onto libs. You're all nuts, I swear to God you are. Go put fresh flowers next to the pictures you undoubtedly have on a table in your living room of Bush and Cheney. You give me the creeps.

In other words? Folks like you hammered away at Bush/Cheney for the better part of eight (8) years, and NOW you deny it ever happened, as Obama has had to adhere (by default) to those same principles all, or in part?

And in light of that has you in a tizzy and also extolling Obama's virtue for being forced to admit that he has no other recourse but to follow the same path? And therefore you give Obama credit for the same? (Forced, but the same)?

I would dare say that as another poster applied unto you cuckoo is quite appropo.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Gee, that's a big freakin' surprise. However, I'm sure that's intentional.

In any case, I am denying nothing. Bush and Cheney are liars. The worst duo ever in charge of this countrty, including Nixon and Agnew. They had a personal agenda for going to Iraq. That was their first priority, above what was good for this country.

Is that good enough for you???

Translation: "I see the words but they do not mean anything to me so therefore I must retain my partisan prowess by dredging up even more meaningless tripe that still doesn't address the issue..."

Is English your second language?

 

[CMike]

More of CIA Director Tenet's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee

Let me be clear. Saddam remains a threat. He is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War. Today he maintains his vice grip on the levers of power through a pervasive intelligence and security apparatus, and even his reduced military force, which is less than half of its pre-war size, remains capable of defeating more poorly armed internal opposition and threatening Iraq's neighbors.

As I said earlier, we continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorist activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It has also had contacts with al Qaeda. Their ties may be limited by diverging ideologies, but the two sides mutual antipathy towards the United States and the Saudi royal family suggest that tactical cooperation between them is possible, even though Saddam is well aware that such activity would carry serious consequences.

...Iraq continues to build and expand an infrastructure capable of producing weapons of mass destruction. Baghdad is expanding its civilian chemical industries in ways that could be diverted quickly into CW production. We believe Baghdad continues to pursue ballistic missile capabilities that exceed the restrictions imposed by U .N. resolutions. With substantial foreign assistance, it could flight- test a longer-range ballistic missile within the next five years.

We believe that Saddam never abandoned his nuclear weapons program. Iraq maintains a significant number of nuclear scientists, program documentation, and probably some dual-use manufacturing infrastructure that could support a reinvigorated nuclear weapons program. Baghdad's access to foreign expertise could support a rejuvenated program. But our major near-term concern is the possibility that Saddam might gain access to fissile material.

What is this supposed to prove and where did you ge it????

It explains some of the reasons for the war in Iraq. It's a transcript that was in the NYT of the hearing.

Here is the link.

Full Text - Tenet's Testimony Before Senate Committee - NYTimes.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now the NYT is an acceptable source?

 

[Dr.House]

Now the NYT is an acceptable source?

No, but it's only a hearing transcript - probably available elsewhere on Algore's interweb...

Stop whining, e-thug....

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's better, Dr. House. Thanks.

 

[Dr.House]

That's better, Dr. House. Thanks.

Does this mean you'll stop whining, e-thug?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I told you folks that I respond in kind. It's up to you.

 

[CMike]

Now the NYT is an acceptable source?

You are confused grasshopper.

The source isn't the NYT. The source is CIA Director Tenets testimony before the hearing.

A transcript happened to be in the NYT.

 

[JakeStarkey]

See how easy that is.

 

[Dr.House]

So you're not mad that your lame comeback about the NYT failed miserably?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not a lame come back at all. I filed your response, and should you smack somebody for using the NYT as a source for merely carry a "transcript" of something. I will remind you.

 

[Dr.House]

Not a lame come back at all. I filed your response, and should you smack somebody for using the NYT as a source for merely carry a "transcript" of something. I will remind you.

Wow... I didn't know you cared about me so much...

I can honestly say that I don't care enough about you to ever save any of the stupid things you say, but that's just me...

Bottom line is that a major portion of what is written for the NYSlimes is decidedly liberally slanted... To deny that is just being intellectually dishonest... In fact, even their posting of a transcript should be double sourced to verify accuracy...

If you want to credit them for getting the date correct, that's your call...

 

[CMike]

Not a lame come back at all. I filed your response, and should you smack somebody for using the NYT as a source for merely carry a "transcript" of something. I will remind you.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Now the NYT is an acceptable source?

If the source is quoting a source, which is the true source? If it is a transcript of a congressional hearing does it matter who prints the transcript?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is what critical thinking skills involves, Ollie: the tracing of sources and the creditibility of sources. Dr. House knows that, I am sure, and he knows that Fox News is slanted quite to the right as the NYT is to the left.

So we take the sources' biases into account. We also take our own biases into account (some of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim whackos far far to the right just can't do that). Then we follow the evidence.

Intellectual maturity (which involves honesty and integrity) is the ability to accept the most reasonable man/woman standadard, whether our bias agrees with it or not. Can we change our minds when the evidence demands it?

Such is the crux of an informed democracy that works well for its citizens.

 

[Dr.House]

Now the NYT is an acceptable source?

What did you mean by this comment?

I mean, we see what you're trying to spin it as, but this comment stands alone...

It was a reply in the vain of "So now you righties believe the NYT?"

You were shown why and now you're spinning it every which way, but your attempts are uber-transparent...

 

[The T]

Now the NYT is an acceptable source?

What did you mean by this comment?

I mean, we see what you're trying to spin it as, but this comment stands alone...

It was a reply in the vain of "So now you righties believe the NYT?"

You were shown why and now you're spinning it every which way, but your attempts are uber-transparent...

It is known in many circles as deflection, with a smidge of projection thrown in for good measure.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now the NYT is an acceptable source?

What did you mean by this comment?

I mean, we see what you're trying to spin it as, but this comment stands alone...

It was a reply in the vain of "So now you righties believe the NYT?"

You were shown why and now you're spinning it every which way, but your attempts are uber-transparent...

I already answered this, Dr. House. I find it amusing that you would use it when the reactionaries here slam it all the time as slanted. I would find it amusing if the lefties used Fox News for a sources.

Keep looking under the bed if you wish, but you won't find any bogeymen at all.