David Swanson misses the obvious answer
11 October 2007I just read an interesting article over at OpEd News where David Swanson laments the fact that Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller hasn’t followed through on his pre-election bluster concerning his plan to investigate the Bush Administration’s supposed missrepresentation of intelligence on pre-war Iraq. He finishes his diatribe as follows:
Why would Rockefeller refrain from even reporting on what he already knows? Perhaps I’ve answered that question already. The Democrats want to avoid impeachment at all costs. But they must have known last year, and the year before, and the year before that, that lying a nation into war is an impeachable offense. This was widely discussed in the 1780s. It’s hardly news.
It’s almost as if all Rockefeller’s talk prior to the 2006 elections about wanting to uncover the facts had more to do with the elections than any actual interest in accountability. It’s almost as if the Senator assumes we’ve all forgotten. Maybe we have. Has a single reporter asked him where in the world, these nine months later, Phase II is, or why in the world it has been phased out?
Wow! Here’s an idea, David: What if Senator Rockafeller knew from the begining that multiple investigations into this issue have already determined that there was no missrepresentation of the intelligence on Iraq and that the bad information came from the intelligence organizations and not the Bush Administration? What if he was just talking shit because he knew you left-wing Bush haters would gobble it up and support Democrats all the more in the 2006 election as you sharpened your pitchforks and stoked your bonfires?
What if the good Senator knew that there was no evidence that the Bush Administration had been “lying a nation into war”, as you say, but he knew you, his potential supporters, were all too blinded by your own Bush Derangement Syndrome to admit that fact to yourself? Feel like a sucker yet? You should…
12 Responses to “David Swanson misses the obvious answer”
October 11th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
And what if the “good Senator” is just another Beltway war whore, driven not by any genuine sense of opposing party ideology, but by the same lust for power, control and blood money that fuels the war whore Bushies?
No evidence that they lied us into war? Please.
I suppose there’s also no evidence of torture, rendition, illegal warrantless spying, elimination of habeas corpus, or undermining the Constitutional separation of powers.
What if it’s actually YOU that feels like the sucker, because somewhere beneath your impenetrable partisan surface you KNOW you’ve been had by the Bush administration and you just can’t force yourself to admit it, so you try to project your misery on people who want real accountability and justice for the Pretender-in-Chief’s mountain of crimes?
Bush Derangement Syndrome indeed.
October 11th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
So let me get this right, John.. Not only did President Bush “lie us into a war”, but Senator Jay Rockefeller was in on the scam as well? The Republicans and Democrats are all in on it together? Wow.
Why don’t you show us one real lie that the President told us? Show me one place where the President told us something that you have evidence to show he knew at the time was false. Something that wasn’t supported by every major intelligence agency reporting to him. Or are they all in on it as well, John?
Just one..
October 11th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Oh, and thanks for not mentioning anything about the fact that none of the independent investigations found any manipulation of the intelligence by the Bush Administration. Or how about the repeated calls for any intelligence analysts who felt pressured to come forward and tell their stories..
I guess you, John, like so many others, want to just forget those little “inconvenient truths”.
How do you explain the results of the investigations, John? How do you explain Senator Robert’s statements that “I don’t think there should be any doubt that we have now heard it all regarding prewar intelligence. I think that it would be a monumental waste of time to replow this ground any further.”
Is he in on the great scam as well? I’m just wondering, are you a member of the 9-11 “Truth” Movement as well?
October 12th, 2007 at 7:00 am
Actually, I said “what IF,” just like you did, indicating a question. Which was brought about not by me, but a politician who, regardless of why, made a promise and didn’t deliver.
It’s quite a stretch to call “investigations” of a republican administration by committees controlled by republicans “independent”. Same goes for democrats (I’m a registered independent – always have been, always will be).
I’m not going to argue with you about Bush’s lies that led us into war. They are extensively documented. Anybody who cares enough to do some honest homework can see this for themsleves. Why don’t you give it a try sometime?
Speaking of forgetting “inconvenient truths,” are you also claiming that there’s no evidence of torture, rendition, illegal warrantless spying, elimination of habeas corpus, or undermining the Constitutional separation of powers by the Bush administration?
Regarding 9/11:
I’d like to know why three thousand people died and nobody in the government that was supposed to be protecting them got so much as a slap on the wrist.
I’d like to see the truly independent criminal investigation of the events of that day that has yet to happen.
And I’d like to see justice for the victims and their families, which has yet to be delivered.
October 12th, 2007 at 7:46 am
You said “I’m not going to argue with you about Bush’s lies that led us into war. They are extensively documented. Anybody who cares enough to do some honest homework can see this for themsleves. Why don’t you give it a try sometime?”
I have tried, John, and I have not found a single instance. If it is so extensively documented you shouldn’t have any problems giving us all one solid example. Please do so. I consider your continued refusal to do so to be pretty solid evidence that you have no idea what you’re talking about and are speaking on emotional basis only. So prove me wrong, John. Please…
Blah, Blah, Blah… The rest of your comment is just more emotional blather. All of the “slap on the wrist” comments make me think that maybe you believe the police should be disciplined everytime a crime is committed. It’s emotional rhetoric with no real thought behind it.
I’ll be ignoring your further comments until you step up to the plate with some real facts about the supposed lies that President Bush told. Until then, everyone here can see that you’re just speaking based on your emotional feelings and are not really interested in facts.
So let’s hear it, or don’t bother..
October 12th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Where are you looking? Fox News Channel? Sean Hannity’s website? Ann Coulter’s underwear drawer?
I stand by my previous comment regarding Bush’s lies.
“Blah, Blah, Blah”? “Emotional blather”? I say that asking you if you’re claiming there’s no evidence of torture, rendition, illegal warrantless spying, elimination of habeas corpus or undermining the Constitutional separation of powers is a perfectly legitimate question. By ignoring it, you actually speak volumes.
Great job trying to distract with the intellectually dishonest police comment.
You’re just another partisan Bush hack, Del. Good luck with that.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Uhm, this might be a little too much for you to comprehend, John, but in case you missed it, this thread is about investigations into whether President Bush “lied us into a war in Iraq” or not, as stated by David Swanson, and whether Democrats in the Senate will be willing to back up their rhetoric with the investigations they promised. It has nothing to do with all of your other issues you seem to despise President Bush for. (i.e., rendition, etc…)
Your continued refusal to link to one single instance of ANY evidence that President Bush lied about anything says all I need to know. Thanks for participating.
And for the record, for all those others reading this silly thread, I made the exact same challenge to many others on this site before and so far not one single person has ever been able to perform the simple task of pointing out a single lie that President Bush has told. John Perry is obviously anxious to continue this pathetic trend.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
OK, Del, I guess it’s too much to ask you to recall from your own memory what Bush was saying in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, so here’s a link. It took me about 10 seconds to find.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34930
October 16th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Oh, please.. One op-ed from WorldNetDaily in 2003? Before any of these other investigations were even conducted? Based on second-hand info regarding the NIE before it was even released?
Did you know Mr. Perry is also the author of “Crude Politics: How Bush’s Oil Cronies Hijacked the War on Terrorism”? No bias there!!
A link to an opinion piece at a far right wing editorial website is hardly what I’m talking about..
Did you know that in this same NIE, it was later revealed the agency reported that it had long since established that Iraq had previously supported the notorious Abu Nidal terrorist organization, and had provided tens of millions of dollars and logistical support to Palestinian groups, including payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers?
Don’t you think that covers President Bush’s comments that “Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists”?
It certainly seems like it to me. Hell, they could have decided to do so on any given day. That was a risk he was not willing to accept, and I applaud him for it.
And we haven’t even discussed how completely inaccurate the NIE was on so many WMD related topics either. The whole intelligence community got so much wrong at that time, I can’t believe you’re going to stand her and try to say that President Bush should have been able to tell what they were wrong about and what they were not wrong about. He saw a threat he didn’t believe he should be willing to risk and he explained it to the nation again and again in a very truthful way.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Sigh. OK, Del, here’s more than one link.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/21146
http://refuseandresist.org/war/art.php?aid=873
http://refuseandresist.org/war/art.php?aid=925
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/071103A.shtml
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j070903.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17407-003Jul19?language=printer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A43429-2003Jul24¬Found=true
http://www.bushwatch.com/iraqevidence.htm
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html
http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/iraqlies.html
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040329/scheer
http://terrasol.home.igc.org/IraqLies.htm
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/iraq_lies.html
http://www.stopwaroniran.org/lieslieslies.pdf
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1884879,00.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1120-25.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192069,00.html
http://slate.com/id/2107914/
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003640616
Is that enough for you, Del?
UPDATED BY DEL: (10/21/2007) Sorry about that, Mr. Dukehart. This comment originally got caught by the comment spam filter because it had so many links in it. I’ll leave it to our good readers to follow these links and decide for themselves how legit they are. I’ll try to make some time to review at some point.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Del,
I tried to post more than one link, about 20, actually, but it was removed (probably for having too many links) if you would like to see them, I’d be happy to e-mail them to you.
So, according to you, the Mr. Perry is ‘biased’ because he has written extensively on the subject. The Truth is not bias, Del.
Once again you have attempted attempted to link the struggle of the Palestinians to the ‘war on terror’. I have already responded to this inane claim in another post.
Oh, please.. One op-ed from WorldNetDaily in 2003? Before any of these other investigations were even conducted? Based on second-hand info regarding the NIE before it was even released?
Bush said: “Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists�
This is a lie. There have been no WMD’s located in Iraq, despited Bush’s constant assertion that he knew they were there. He knew this because there weapons came from US when we wanted Iraq to use them against Iran.
You said that the “The whole intelligence community got so much wrong at that time…”
Another total lie. The vast majority or the intelligence community said that the American WMD’s Iraq once possessed were long-since destroyed.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Sure, you can always email me!
And no, I’m not saying he’s biased because he’s written extensively on anything. Just look at the title of his book! It’s quite clear what I was referring to. Quit playing dumb..
So I guess you’re one of these people that thinks blowing up innocent civilians in a pizzeria or the Dolphinarium is a perfectly legitimate act of struggle, huh? As long as it’s against the big bad ZIONISTS!! If you don’t like the way the UN divided up the region at the end of WW2 or the fact that you and your Arab allies lost your attempt at pushing the Jews into the Sea, suddenly it’s OK to slaughter innocent civilians? I see where you’re coming from. Do you where Che t-shirts to? Good God!!
And now you’re going to deny that in 2002 every major intelligence agency in the Western world believe that Saddam had WMD programs, and maybe more? You’re not even making sense now! The UN inspector reports state quite clearly themselves that there were large numbers of weapons unaccounted for. That’s why we had UNSCOM. Remember?
Another book you should read is “The Greatest Threat”, by the former head of UNSCOM.
The historical documentation is all out there to support what I say. I’m not going to stand here and let you pretend that it isn’t.
Here is a link for you:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31/intel.report/index.html
“An October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate warned that Iraq was pursuing weapons of mass destruction, had reconstituted its nuclear weapon program and had biological and chemical weapons.”
In light of this content in the NIE, how can you say President Bush was lying. He clearly was not.
Here is some of the declassified portions on the NIE from October 2002:
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html
And a few choice quotes from the declassified portions:
“We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. “
And another good one:
“Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.”
So President Bush’s comment that Iraq could at any time share some of these weapons if he so chose to was clearly NOT a LIE!!
This is from the SAME NIE that this jackass at WorldNetDaily is talking about!!
You just said in your last post, “The vast majority or the intelligence community said that the American WMD’s Iraq once possessed were long-since destroyed.” You, Sir, are a fool. There were no “American WMDs” in Iraq, dumbass! You have made a fool of yourself and I’m not interested in continuing this time consuming dialog with an ignorant fool. My time is more valuable than that.
I’m sick of having to respond to your obviously ignorant and deceptive statements.. I don’t have time for it. I’m turning comments off on this thread. I just don’t have time to keep coming back in here and correcting your blatantly false and deceptively ignorant statements. Feel free to comment on other threads, however. Maybe we can find one you can work on where you actually know what the fuck you’re talking about..
THE NIE SAYS IT PLAINLY!! Just because some intelligence officials thought it might be “unlikely” that Saddam would share WMD’s with terrorists doesn’t mean that was a risk President Bush was willing to take. Especially when Saddam was, by far, the largest supporter of Palestinian suicide bombers in the WORLD!
When you’re talking about these types of weapons, “unlikely” just doesn’t cut it, my friend.
The bottom line is that you have clearly failed to show any evidence at all that President Bush lied about anything. In fact, you have proven my point by giving me a good chance to remind everyone about exactly what the October 2002 NIE really said!
Enough is enough. I’m tired of wasting my time with your ignorance!