Fuckin' aye. That's the spirit.

This has been Bush's stump speech about the war for the last couple of months-- this one is similar to his National Endowment for Democracy speech earlier this month, the one the media also ignored. Whoever he's got writing this stuff is doing outstanding work-- we're getting clarity, for once.

Too bad it's probably too late to matter to anyone but the choir.

I still can't believe so many people are eager to lose a war we *must* fight, and after so few (albeit tragic) sacrifices in relation to other, far more desperate yet no less important, struggles in our history.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Here is an EXCELLENT related piece:

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton102605.html

Bush gives a great speech.

You know who also gave good speeches????

BUSH = HITLER

Uh, Hitler got mentioned in this thread. Where's Cedarford when we need his wisdom the most?

Awww, hell. I'll just settle for the rational perspective of Tubino.

"Oh, but you don't understand, it wasn't his fault, he's really a great guy, really, I shouldn't have egged him on, it's my fault, I made him do it, no, don't arrest him, please, it's all my fault..."

More than a little of the abused spouse about the Left on this issue. Haven't they wed themselves to the little honorary sansculottes?

Nice reply you immature dipshit. Now run on back to your little hippie friends and tell them what a big boy you were for posting such brave words on the big, bad, neocon, jesusland, bushchimphitler of a blog. You're as original, thoughtful, and intelligent as a flatulating baboon's red ass.

If Bean-O contaminates this thread with more of his million-word non sequiturs, I'm blaming you, Dave. You have summoned him by speaking his name. You will then be responsible for browbeating him, belittling him, and otherwise insulting him to a sufficient degree that he storms off while wiping away hot bitter tears of anger and shame.

Awww, c'mon, just saying his name once can't get him in here, can it? Even Beetlejuice takes three times.

It's not appeasement the left offers, it's surrender. There is no appeasing a psycho-cult of death fetishists like Al-Qaeda; you either kill them, or bunker down and prepare to count body parts. We maintained a policy of ignoring them during the 90s and it bought us 9/11. We can cut and run in Iraq now, and we only buy ourselves another terrorist basket case state and a world of heartache in the future. The left and the media have chosen their side, the rest of America has got to get over it's ADD and choose the other.

That speech was full of misinformation. Nobody, be they on the left or right, denies
that
islamic extremism must be dealt with - and harshly. Iraq was not a main
source of that extremism, and frankly this in not the reasons we were
spoon
fed about why we were invading. Its insulting to my intelligence to be
told
a completely different justification for the invasion after the initial
ones turned out to be lies. Afghanistan _was_ a source of extremism, and
almost everyone on both the left and right supported that military
action.

Saudi Arabia was, and continues to be the #1 funder of Global Terrorism.
The #1 inciter of Western hatred. The #1 country of origin for
terrorists.
Unfortunately, the Bush family is in bed with the Saudis.

So talk to me when your boys decide to address the REAL problem.

BTW, I love Freudian Slips, especially when the person doing the
slipping
is noneother than Kommander Codpiece himself:

"The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it
will
exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. "

Bush is right. You know why? Because invading and occupying Iraq will do
nothing absolutely nothing - to weaken, dishearten or otherwise halt the
spread of islamic extremism. Thanks for clearing that up for us, Chimpy.
Let us know when you find those WMD's, aight?

So is John in Chicago related to Bean-O?

The enemy is never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday's brutality. This enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation

Is he talking about the terrorists or the Dems?

Dave:

I'm just saying: if Bean-O shows up, you're dealing with him. You have invoked the name of the Evil One, and you must face the consequences.

John in Chicago obviously was indulging in some cut-n-paste action here -- you can tell by the wonky line breaks. Which probably means he's posted this very same screed to many other blogs. Lazy, dumb, and pointless. The quality of trolls has gone way down lately.

Plus, he's a worthless little cockroach.

"And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor [Americans] is that they become killers and [unquestioning sheep]. He assures them that this is the road to [freedom] -- though he never offers to go along for the ride. " (Laughter.)

Sound like someone you know?

Then what do you propose be done to weaken, dishearten or otherwise halt the
spread of islamic extremism?

Ahh, to hear the wisdom of a true Right Wingtard like Monty. According to him, the contentions I raised in my post are null and void because of the line breaks.

And how exactly can line breaks be "wonky"?

Too bad you cannot address the real issues. All you are apparantly capable of is lame attacks on the messenger.

Which means your already a model Republican.

I can never really tell, whether it's willful stupidity from the mind-numbing hatred, or genuine stupidity. The really clever ones can hide it so well, and they both repeat the same crap.

Occasionally I have to tell an associate "well, either you're incompetent, or you don't care, and I know you care". It's a similar problem.

"Then what do you propose be done to weaken, dishearten or otherwise halt the
spread of islamic extremism?" -compos mentis

You can start by not being so cozy with Saudi Arabia. You know, that country where 15 of the 19 hijackers were born and raised in?

You might also consider doing something more than paying lip service to the problem of our heavy dependence on foreign oil.

Then you might consider shutting down the Madrassas schols run by Saudi Arabia, where children are taught from the ripe age of 3 that American and the West are agents of Satan.

Or, you can just bomb the f__k out of an unrelated country to appease the warmongering right wingnuts and your friends in the military industrial complex.

What the recent trolls fail to understand is that after crafting responses to 500 cut'n'paste rants, people are unsurprisingly not ready to deal with the 501st as a legitimate set of questions. Raise some new points that haven't been addressed before you expect people to "address the real issues".

At least Demosthenes was clever in his trolling, though Thersites would be more a more accurate nom de plume.

Which means your already a model Republican.

At least I know the difference between "you're" (a contraction of "you are") and "your" (a possessive pronoun).

And how exactly can line breaks be "wonky"?

When you have long rambling sentences that run on and on and on and dont really follow any grammatical rules
and then you break without ending the previous sentence with a period. See? Wonky.

All you are apparantly capable of is lame attacks on the messenger.

I'm also capable of farting on your pointy little head. C'mere and pull my finger.

All of which makes me both your moral and intellectual superior. To me, that's like smelling cookies baking in the oven: it makes me feel cozy and warm.

John,
Are you saying we need to march into Saudi Arabia?
If so, I'm all for it. In it's time and as needed.
Syria and Iran should be next, not necessarily in that order.
Pakistan is up there with the Sauds.

Cool! Now we have John's permission to bomb the "f__k" out of Saudi Arabia!

Can we steal their oil afterwards? Because it would be a truly hollow victory if we repeated our mistakes in Iraq and Kuwait by blowing the shit out of them and then offer to pay good money for their oil, like we were a bunch of pansies or something.

If we're going to be called an imperial power, then let's start acting like a real empire damn it!

Cool! Now we have John's permission to bomb the "f__k" out of Saudi Arabia!

Can we steal their oil afterwards? Because it would be a truly hollow victory if we repeated our mistakes in Iraq and Kuwait by blowing the shit out of them and then offer to pay good money for their oil, like we were a bunch of pansies or something.

Monty, I'm not going to waste my time getting into a pointless name calling fight with you. It simply doesn't interest me. You've already proven everything I suspected about your mentality and intelligence (or lack thereof). So unless you want to start debating actual _issues_, as opposed to grammatical and punctual errors (on a blog, no less); don't waste my time.

Otherwise, continue on living in your oblivious little world where everything Dear Leader tells you is the truth.

"All you are apparantly capable of is lame attacks on the messenger."

I've noticed a lot of Donk trolls on various blogs try this "messenger" bullshit. It ain't the messenger, buddy, the MESSAGE is crap. All clear?

"John,
Are you saying we need to march into Saudi Arabia?"

"Cool! Now we have John's permission to bomb the "f__k" out of Saudi Arabia!"

Glad to see that logic is finally seeping through to some of you here. It's high time you look past the Republican talking point which dictates that "anyone who is against the Iraq war is anti-war and a tree hugging peacenik and hates our troops".

There is still a price to be paid for what happened here on 9/11, only the current (mis)Administration is more interested in doing business with the Saudi's then they are with actually dealing with Global Terrorism.

Don't count on it happening anytime soon though, regardless of whether its a Democrat or Republican in the WH.

Thanks for the discussion, those of you who actually are interested in an honest discussion, at least.

Time to go home and get ready for the ChiSox to finish off the lowly Astros.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled "2 minutes hate".

Okay, so we should bomb the f_k out of Saudi Arabia instead?

Because if we're already in bed with the Saudi's and, as you say, 15 of the 19 were born and raised there, lord knows how many would come out of the woodwork if we weren't already in cahoots with them. Take out the regime. Take out the schools of which you speak. How would we justify doing so?

Did you believe there weren't WMD's in Iraq or at least the possibility of Saddam acquiring them prior to the war?

And what about Saddam? Are the vast majority of Iraqi's not better off with him out of the picture? Is the world not better? I know I will feel better when he's six feet under with bits of his stoned skull scattered around his decaying corpse.

Do we not have friends in Israel? What of the $25K checks the Butcher gave to the families of the murderers who blew themselves and innocent women and children up?

We had to start somewhere. That is my opinion. Iraq seems a logical place to me. Because until you show the oppressed people of the Middle East what their lives can be like when they have a say, they will remain ignorant, easily fooled, and incapable of change.

John in Chicago:

John, dear boy, your fulsome praise is getting embarassing. Really. I mean, I appreciate it and all, but I prefer the ladies.

But to resume: your fatuous, content-free screeds are fit only to be mocked and held up to derision; to actually read them for content is to act in vain, for there is no content to be found. Your arguments (such as they are) are stale, misspelled, and misarticulated retreads of arguments that have been disproved long ago.

If this is what goes careening around your echoing empty Superdome of a skull all day long, then I don't find it notable at all that you spend your time masturbating to Richard Simmons in Sweatin' To The Oldies. I mean, for a person such as yourself, what other joys are there in life?

I find you a pathetic little homonculus and I pronounce you unfit to receive any more of my wisdom.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Nobody, be they on the left or right, denies that
islamic extremism must be dealt with - and harshly.

MORON ALERT!

Someone evidently is too busy burying his head in his colon to recall that folks like Michael Moore call Islamic extremists FREEDOM FIGHTERS and MINUTEMEN.

Cripes, the moonbats get dumber by the post.

"Nobody, be they on the left or right, denies that islamic extremism must be dealt with - and harshly."

Horsecrap. CAIR certainly has never suggested such a thing. Andrew Sullivan seems to think Islamic extremism must be dealt with in the least harsh way possible. The ACLU opposes harshness in all shapes and sizes at Guantanamo Bay, even when it's only imagined harshness. Ward Churchill blamed 9/11 on America and certainly does not advocate dealing with the perpetrators harshly (it makes no sense to punish them if we deserved it, right?).

Those are some prominent examples of why you're wrong. I also know from private conversations with non-famous types that many liberals do not favor dealing harshly with Islamic extremism.

"Iraq was not a main source of that extremism..."

That's an interesting standard. We can only take measures against what you, contrary to all evidence, assert is the "main" source of the problem? So in 1920s Chicago, it would have been utterly inappropriate to prosecute all gangsters except Al Capone? After all, the O'Banionites were not the main source of killings, were they.

Also, it was clearly a mistake to attack the Italian fascists/anti-Semites during WWII, as they were not the main source of Jew-killing, right?

"Iraq was not a main source of that extremism, and frankly this in not the reasons we were spoon fed about why we were invading."

Wrong-o, dude. Do you remember Bush saying anything to the effect of going after governments that support terrorism? If so, do you remember anything about Saddam paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers? Or Abu Nidal living comfortably in Baghdad? Or Saddam offering protection to Osama bin Laden? The list is so long, the only way you can be unaware of it is wilful ignorance.

"Its insulting to my intelligence to be told a completely different justification for the invasion after the initial ones turned out to be lies."

Lies, huh? You're aware that your boy Joe Wilson lied repeatedly about his Niger trip, right? You know, in order to hurt the Commander-in-Chief during a time of war? And you're aware that the Bush administration's case for Iraqi contacts with Niger were a) repeatedly vetted and approved by CIA, b) not at all based on the Italian embassy forgeries, and c) not at all based on Joe Wilson's report?

Were you aware that France, Britain, Russia and Germany also believed Saddam was producing or attempting to produce WMDs? Were you aware that Bill Clinton and Al Gore said it, too?

"Saudi Arabia was, and continues to be the #1 funder of Global Terrorism. The #1 inciter of Western hatred. The #1 country of origin for terrorists. Unfortunately, the Bush family is in bed with the Saudis."

Here we're back to your bizarre "main source" standard. Are you suggesting we should invade Saudi Arabia? I thought not.

"So talk to me when your boys decide to address the REAL problem."

I assume you're referring to douchebag terrorist sympathizers like yourself? Oh, you mean the terrorists! Like the terrorists that Saudi forces keep killing in gun battles in Riyadh. Or the terrorists that American soldiers are killing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Because invading and occupying Iraq will do nothing absolutely nothing - to weaken, dishearten or otherwise halt the spread of islamic extremism."

I've heard that dismal prediction before, from the same people who said the invasion would costs tens or hundreds of thousands of American lives, from the same people who said Iraq was a quagmire when supply lines got bogged down half way up the river valley, from the same who said Iraq couldn't elect a prime minister, or that Iraqis couldn't ratify a Constitution. Or open schools. Or restore electricity. Or purify the water. Or find Saddam, Uday and Qusay.

It's not happening fast enough for my tastes, but it is happening.

And I note that, while you are 100% positive that toppling a genocidal maniac and the Taliban and letting fifty million people participate in free elections (25 each in Iraq and Afghanistan) won't do a bit of good, you haven't said anything about what you would do to prevent it. This is especially rich, given that you start your post by mentioning that "islamic extremism must be dealt with - and harshly." So how would you deal with it? And be careful how you answer -- if it involves the potential deaths of 2000 or more Americans, I might have to think you're a hypocrite or something.

Time to go home and get ready for the ChiSox to finish off the lowly Astros.

Did we make John-John run away crying?

I hope so. Yes I do.

"You can start by not being so cozy with Saudi Arabia. You know, that country where 15 of the 19 hijackers were born and raised in?"

I'd like to see this in the form of a Senate resolution. "RESOLVED, the United States shall henceforth not be "cozy" with Saudi Arabia." I can only assume that's technical language.

I hope the Astros win, just to piss off John.

Harrison, dude, buddy, please-- don't go there.

Let's keep the White Sox out of these petty political scuffles. Shoeless Joe would have wanted it that way.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Right. We, the loyal base, go and ROYALLY piss off Bush by making a nasty stink when he tries to put his second-rater of a personal lawyer on the Supreme Court, and we still get slimed with this "Dear Leader" Bushbot shit. Don't we get any credit at all for breaking so dramatically on that issue? And if we break on that one, can't there be a teensy bit of consideration that we don't break with him on other issues because we've thought it over for ourselves and, on the whole, agree with him?

Ace,
The battered wife analogy doesn't work on the anti-American left, because they don't see the US as the battered wife and the Islamists as the abusive husband. They see the US as the abusive husband and the rest of the world as the battered wife. To them, the Islamists bombing us is like the wife finally striking back. Chickens coming home to roost and all that, you know.

Dave,
Just one game, so it's not a sweep.

...go nats...

With what shall we replace the Saudi government? Best to drain the rest of the swamp before we turn that particular asylum over to the lunatics.

"Now watch this drive...

We could send the new James Bond to kill the terrorists. Oh wait, he hates guns.

Next plan...

"With what shall we replace the Saudi government? Best to drain the rest of the swamp before we turn that particular asylum over to the lunatics."

Exactly. If you take a look at a map of the Middle East, Iraq is clearly not the only nation controlled by an insane despot where a healthy dose of democracy might spur things in the right direction, but is it clearly the best place to start.

1. Because of the river valley, Iraq is easier to conquer than, say, Iran. Just start at the Gulf and move north, and you'll run into everything important between Basra and Baghdad. Iran if twice the size of Iraq, and its power centers are scattered all over the place. Advance into one city, and you're suddenly surrounded by three more. Harder to fortify, harder to find a "nerve center."

2. Because we have access from the Gulf, Kuwait, and Turkey (overflight, at least), the logistics problem is a lot easier than, say, Syria.

3. It's got tremendous natural resources, so the new regime can get a running start. Less of a financial burden on the U.S. if Iraq can pay some of its own way.

4. Iraq wasn't even ostensibly an ally, whereas Saudi at least gives lip-service to liking America. And in practice, that lip-service is manifested in American military bases and oil sales, both highly necessary to our continued presence in the Middle East.

5. Iraq is next door to Iran and Syria, so if we need to take that next step... Also, I think proximity to Syria very feasibly could have helped the Lebanese.

6. Liberated Iraqi Kurds might very well give Syrian, Iranian and Turkish Kurds something important to think about.

So you start in the best place to start, drain the swamp, and take on the tyrants one step at a time. Nothing at all inconsistent or unreasonable about that approach, and if, while we're building up Iraqi democracy, nations like U.A.E., Egypt, Morocco, Saudi, Lybia and Lebanon decide they ought to make some pro-democracy noise, so much the better.

From the "I Hate Radical Islam Almost As Much As I Hate Lawyers Department"...

In regards to the 1993 WTC truck bombing, it seems that a NY jury has decided that the NY Port Authority is more culpable than the actual terrorists.

I am not an apologist for the NY Port Authority, but what new Calculus allows someone to figure the following?

The jury also found that the Port Authority was 68 percent at fault and the bombers 32 percent at fault -- a decision that could force the Port Authority to pay virtually all the damages that any future jury might award in an individual suit.

More info here

Sobek, yer on effin' fire. Nice nail gun there, dude.

Monty, I'm not going to waste my time getting into a pointless name calling fight with you.

Good idea. Trust me. You will get your ass kicked if a lame brain like you gets into it with Monty.

I mean, as a general rule of thumb:

DON'T FUCK WITH POETS!

I'm a lawyer, and even I know that.

Michael:

Your kind words will not be forgotten the next time I'm whaling on you with a pool cue for welshing on a football bet. This time I'll quit before your retinas detach. You know, just for being a stand-up guy.

"...Joe Wilson lied repeatedly about his Niger trip..."

What are you referring to? His trip to Niger was intended to establish the veracity of a purported deal for uranium between Niger and Iraq, a deal he ascertained as nonexistent, and which subsequently proved to be, in fact, nonexistent.

"Monty, I'm not going to waste my time getting into a pointless name calling fight with you."

Translation: I'm getting my butt kicked, so I'm going to run away soon....

Here, I'll help you out

Actually, it's the bipartisan, "Senate Intelligence Committee report," that revealed Wilson's lies.

Excerpt:
"The Senate report says fairly bluntly that Wilson lied to the media. Schmidt notes that the panel found that, "Wilson provided misleading information to the Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on a document that had clearly been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'"

Sorry, but what you refer to as, "non-existent," was anything but....

JannyMae:

I've said it before, I'll say it again: this is the biggest nothing of a boring-ass scandal I've ever heard tell of. The only reason this whole imbroglio is giving lefties a chubby is the possibility of legal action against their nemeses Rove and Cheney. They don't give two shits about the actual legal issues involved.

Boil it all down to gravy, and it wouldn't cover up a chicken-fried steak.

That ancient NRO article is simply uninformed diatribe, written prior to the release of the Butler report, wherein the British provided absolutely no support for their Niger-Iraq uranium deal claim except to note that the Iraqi ambassador to the Vatican made a trip to Africa in 1999. A close reading of the actual Senate Intelligence Comittee report on the alleged Nigerien yellowcake deal, and its role in the infamous "16 words", demonstrates that Joe Wilson's conclusion that the deal did not exist was accurate, and concludes that his findings should have been promoted to at least the vice-president's attention.

Several intelligence agencies did indeed believe such a deal existed, but there is no evidence other than the forgery, and their sense that the others believed it as well, i.e., their beliefs blossomed in a classic "echo chamber" whereby they all passed around the same rumors based on the same forgery and ambassador's trip.

The only suggestion Joe Wilson uncovered that the Iraqis may have been shopping in Niger for uranium involves a rather cryptic conversation he had with a former Nigerien prime minister which related a tenuous chain of hearsay establishing nothing.

If you are able to provide anything which actually supports the existence of a uranium deal between Niger and Iraq, please do so.

What are you referring to? His trip to Niger was intended to establish the veracity of a purported deal for uranium between Niger and Iraq, a deal he ascertained as nonexistent, and which subsequently proved to be, in fact, nonexistent.

Oh, don't even get back into that, Sceptical. We're not going down that 'what constitutes evidence' path again, are we? If we are, then let's just pick it up from where we left off, rather than retreading old ground.

Okay, Sceptical, if you're looking for something a little more recent that details how Wilson repeatedly lied about his trip (and we're not talking about the Butler report or anything else--just Wilson's lies) check out this fairly comprehsnsive retelling of the whole story from the Weekly Standard. Some highlights:

Wilson's trip to Niger took place in February 2002, some eight months before the U.S. government received the phony Iraq-Niger documents in October 2002. So it is not possible, as he told the Washington Post, that he advised the CIA that "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." And it is not possible, as Wilson claimed to the New York Times, that he debunked the documents as forgeries.

That was hardly Wilson's only fabrication. He would also tell reporters that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Niger and, as noted in the New Republic article, that Vice President Cheney's office had seen the report of his findings. Both claims were false.

Then, on July 6, the New York Times published Wilson's now-famous op-ed. That account differs in important ways from the story Wilson had anonymously provided the Times, the Washington Post and the New Republic. Wilson acknowledged for the first time that he had not seen any forged document. "As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors--they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government--and were probably forged." Wilson acknowledged the same thing in an appearance that morning on Meet the Press, saying, "I had not, of course, seen the documents."

Oops.
Then there's a "seemingly exhaustive" timeline that the NYT gave of the whole story. Hayes, the Weekly Standard author writes:

As I say, seemingly exhaustive. But there is one curious omission: July 7, 2004. On that date, the bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee released a 511-page report on the intelligence that served as the foundation for the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq. The Senate report includes a 48-page section on Wilson that demonstrates, in painstaking detail, that virtually everything Joseph Wilson said publicly about his trip, from its origins to his conclusions, was false.

I hope that was helpful.

the British provided absolutely no support for their Niger-Iraq uranium deal claim except to note that the Iraqi ambassador to the Vatican made a trip to Africa in 1999.

From the Butler Report:

494. There was further and separate intelligence that in 1999 the Iraqi regime had also made inquiries about the purchase of uranium ore in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In this case, there was some evidence that by 2002 an agreement for a sale had been reached.

495. During 2002, the UK received further intelligence from additional sources which identified the purpose of the visit to Niger as having been to negotiate the purchase of uranium ore, though there was disagreement as to whether a sale had been agreed and uranium shipped.

They don't care.

On the other hand, I love chicken fried steak.

The only suggestion Joe Wilson uncovered that the Iraqis may have been shopping in Niger for uranium involves a rather cryptic conversation he had with a former Nigerien prime minister which related a tenuous chain of hearsay establishing nothing.

This is where our conversation ended the last time. My claim was that in the context of a high-level diplomatic fishing expedition, the conversation with the ex-prime minister constituted evidence of Iraq's search for a source of uranium. Your claim was that it was hearsay. Since hearsay is all his trip was ever likely to produce (short of some Mata Hari-type slipping a memory stick into his pocket), I don't know what you would consider a positive finding.

Sceptical? Hello?

"If you are able to provide anything which actually supports the existence of a uranium deal between Niger and Iraq, please do so."

You seem to be missing the point. As you've just conceded, several intelligence agencies believed -- well, not that a deal existed, but that the Iraqis were trying to make a deal. Given that's the case, and given that no one contends GWB is personally in charge of intelligence-gathering -- and that, consequently he reasonably relied on the CIA reports, how exactly can it be maintained that he lied in doing so? He can hardly be faulted for taking his intelligence agency at its word.

That said, for a long but thorough examination of l'affaire Plame from start to finish, you can start here. I post this, not to prove that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake from Niger, but to show the time line demonstrating Wilson's, er, "liberal" take on the truth.

Are we experiencing the same troll under a bunch of different names, or a bunch of different trolls displaying the groupthink for which the Donks have become so renowned?

John,

How many Iraqi policemen under Saddam died in shoot outs with Al Qaeda? Why wasn't Zarkawi picked up by Saddam's goons and killed?

Meanwhile, in Saudi, the police have been killing Al Qaeda for several years now while taking losses.

Yes, I'm sure funding and recruiting is still being done there, but seeing as the country has Mecca and Medina, invading there would be particularly hard.

Are we experiencing the same troll under a bunch of different names

Actually I think Sceptical is the best and most respectable of liberal commentors I've seen here, and I wouldn't mind seeing more of him. He sticks to the topic and uses quality references, which he actually reads and comprehends. There's a significant bias in his take on issues, but that's true of all of us.

blah blah blah Butler report, wherein the British provided absolutely no support for their Niger-Iraq uranium deal claim blah blah...
If you are able to provide anything which actually supports the existence of a uranium deal between Niger and Iraq, please do so.

Excerpt from Butler report: (link: http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/report/index.asp

499. We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded.

By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, was well-founded.

Ooo, so sorry, your little lefty buddies told you wrong. Thanks for playing though.

Good Lord, its almost as if these leftists have never even read the source documents!

wait a minute.....

Warden that's so unfair. They're too busy caring to be bothered with reading. Don't confuse the issue with facts, its about feelings!

If just once a troll would say, "You know, I may have had bad information there" or "Huh. You might have a point" I wouldn't be nearly so bored with them. But they just repeat the same crap long after they have been disabused of whatever lie Soros pounded into their thick heads.

The lesson there is we probably ought never grant them their POV, since they refuse to even listen to ours. Skeptical may be an exception, but ASAIAC, he's a troll just like the rest until proven otherwise.

MIERS -- OUT! Woohoo!

Now put up Janice Rogers Brown, Mr. President!

Oh please, what am I saying, it's probably going to be another Texan crony. :(

The lesson there is we probably ought never grant them their POV, since they refuse to even listen to ours. Skeptical may be an exception, but ASAIAC, he's a troll just like the rest until proven otherwise.

Let's just flame the living shit out of them until they go away!

Sean:

'I hope that was helpful.'

It was not. In fact, on the key matter of whether there were any "existent" uranium deals, or solicitations of such deals, between Niger and Iraq, the article contains significant errors of fact (one might even call them lies, if one was inclined to such bombast). For instance, the article states:

'An Iraqi delegation had visited Niger in 1999 to explore "expanding commercial relations" between Iraq and Niger.'

In fact, Wilson's account of Mayaki's account of a "businessman's" statements, relates no such thing. Anyone who carefully reads the SIC report on the matter would concede that there is no assertion that the Iraqi delegation explored or even said anything in particular. Thus, Hayes' next statement:

'Mayaki had met with the Iraqis and later concluded that their request for enhanced trade meant they wanted to discuss purchasing uranium.'

is patently misleading: the Iraqis, as far as we know, never requested anything. As far as I can tell, this conversation with Mayaki constitutes the sole suggestion that Iraq was indeed soliciting uranium from Niger, and, as geoff has reasonably conceded elsewhere, is a rather flimsy one.

Given that the author of the Weekly Standard piece has a problem with reading comprehension, or perhaps has a motive for obscuring the truth, I am hesitant to lend it much credence. Do you have any primary sources of evidence you can point to--i.e., something that is not simply a columnist's screed or blogger's rant?

geoff:

The Butler report does indeed repeatedly assert the truth of the Niger-Iraq uranium deal claim, but nowhere does it offer any tangible support, except to say that other intelligence agancies believed it as well. That the various intelligence agencies of Europe and North America constitute a single system of information exchange cannot be denied. They regularly rely on one another for both operational and pure intelligence functions. For any one of them to point to the others as reliable adjudicators of a rumor they themselves had a hand in passing around is, at best, a lame passing of the buck, and at worst, an exercise in cynical collusion.

Sue:

While the British government is quite eager, in the Butler report, to conclude that the claims of the British government are well-founded, it provides scant support for such a conclusion. Can you find anything in the Butler report constituting a reference to any sort of independent support for a Niger-Iraq uranium deal? I means besides a forged document, a trip to Africa by the Iraqi Vatican ambasssdor, or a vague reference to other intelligence agencies' beliefs.

Sceptical:

As quoted above from the Butler Report:

495. During 2002, the UK received further intelligence from additional sources which identified the purpose of the visit to Niger as having been to negotiate the purchase of uranium ore, though there was disagreement as to whether a sale had been agreed and uranium shipped.

They state, and stand by to this day, that they had additional intelligence sources. To persist in saying they didn't is intransigence and completely speculative.

Sceptical, you mentioned the Butler report as a source supporting your contention that Bush somehow lied.

The Butler report says that Bush did not lie.

So you can continue lifting and carrying the goalposts down the field if you want to. It only makes you look like a silly moonbat who can't be bothered to read his own sources.

So the Iraqi delegation didn't go to Nuger to explore commercial interests? Is that what you're saying? What do you suggest was the purpose? Is Niger a vacation hot spot?

And presuming you confront the reality that a delegation like that usually has a purpose for visiting, what do you think Iraq needed that Niger can supply? Goats?

If you really don't want to believe then we're wasting our time--you should just say so. Say, "Guys, I'm trolling. I care fuck-all about the truth." That at least would be honest.

Sue:

It is difficult for me to believe that you have actually read what I wrote.

Can you show me where I said "Bush lied?" If you read the thread closely, you'll see that I said no such thing. I said that the alleged Niger-Iraq uranium deal was "non-existent"--something that's been well established in the SIC report and elsewhere. I mentioned the Butler report in response to those who stated that the British stand by their claim that they had good reason to believe such a deal existed at the time. I cited it only to point out that their inquiry into the matter produced no actual support for such an assertion.

The Butler report, while saying a great many things, provides no evidence that such a deal was broached, let alone concluded or consummated. If I missed something significant in the Butler report that verifies the existence of a Niger-Iraq yellowcake agreement, please let me know where it can be found.

spongeworthy:

An infinite number of stories can be invented to explain what scarce data is available on this matter. The "Iraqi delegation" referred to by Mayaki, commonly assumed (including by me, at one point) to have been a "trade delegation", was, as the Butler report posits, most likely the African junket taken by Iraq's ambassador to the Holy See in 1999. We can reasonably imagine all sorts of purposes for this diplomatic sojourn--from canvassing "non-aligned" countries for General Assembly support, to illegal attempts to circumvent UN trade sanctions, to scouting for a nation amenable to harboring certain despised superrich exiled dictators on the run (or even just amenable to harboring certain out-of-work moderately wealthy ex-ambassadors to the Holy See who see the writing on the wall). There is simply no evidence that I've seen to lead one to any particular interpretation of the ambassador's trip, and the Butler report concedes that on its face it signifies nothing. Wilson's account of Mayaki's tale of a "bussinessman's" insinuations provides no indication of the Iraqi delegation's purpose, what was discussed or transacted, or even of whom it consisted.

I grant you that. What I'm asking is if that passes the smell test or whether you're going to be obtuse and try to say your scenarios are the likely ones.

What's more, stop wasting our time arguing that no deal took place--no one said it did.

We all know what Bush claimed, we all know why he said it and we all know what intelligence backed it up. None of that has been impeached.

You believe what you're comfortable with and I'll believe what probably is the truth, simply because it's the most likely: Iraqis were feeling out sources in Africe for yellowcake.

Now I ask you, do you believe Iraqis were feeling out sources in Africa for yellowcake?

Can you show me where I said "Bush lied?" If you read the thread closely, you'll see that I said no such thing.

So you actually agree with us that Bush didn't lie and you're posting and arguing here just to be an asshole. Way to go, putz.

spongeworthy:

I had originally characterized the Niger-Iraq deal as "non-existent." Subsequently "JannyMae" contradicted me, saying "...what [I] refer to as, 'non-existent,' was anything but...". I think it is reasonable to conclude from this exchange that JannyMae indeed asserts that a "deal took place."

As my pen-name might indicate to you, I'm not in the habit of inventing beliefs in the absence of evidence. In my experience, the world is a complicated, surprising and nuanced place that seems to take delight in ambushing any assumption and simplification human beings seek assurance in. If you wish to query my "gut", I view characters like Mayaki, Wilson, a Baathist ambassador to the Holy See, shady African "businessmen," European spies, Saddam Hussein and the entire panoply of Washington politicians and officials with the utmost of cynicism, and a robust respect for the devious cunning they employ when serving themselves. I am thus loathe to pretend I know what the ambassador attempted to gain by his trip through Africa.

Looking at the evidence available, my feeling is that the Hussein had much more pressing matters on his agenda in 1999 than to try and loudly kickstart his dismally moribund nuclear weapons program. The cost/risk-reward ratio was way too lopsided, even for the inveterate brinksman and poor calculator that he was. However, those same traits led him to be quite satisfied with keeping such suspicions alive.

Sceptical:

1) The Butler report calls it a trade mission (para. 220).

2) JannyMae appears to have misinterpreted your comments as meaning 'non-existent Wilsonian lies' rather than 'non-existent Iraq-Niger trade deal.' I agree with Spongeworthy in that nobody here is saying that the deal existed.

The original question was whether Wilson lied. Here's the Daily Howler's take:

In our view, Wilson’s letters to the Committee and the Post are fake, evasive, insincere, misleading. Correctly, Getler burned Wilson’s Straw Men in his ombudsman column, and similar Straw Men littered the letter Wilson sent to the Committee itself. But here is the most amazing thing Wilson says in his “rebuttal” to the Committee. Take a seat. Strap yourselves in. Try to believe that he said it:

WILSON (letter to the Intelligence Committee): My article in the New York Times makes clear that I attributed to myself “a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs.”...I went to great lengths to point out that mine was but one of three reports on the subject. I never claimed to have “debunked” the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have occurred and did not occur.

Amazing, isn’t it? I never claimed to have “debunked” the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa! Readers, what has the last year been about if Wilson didn’t claim to debunk Bush’s claim? (Think hard—we know you’ll come up with something.) Let’s compare two important statements—Bush’s famous 16 words, and Wilson’s amazing new admission:

BUSH: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

WILSON: I never claimed to have “debunked” the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.

Finally! This is what we’ve always told you—Wilson had no way of knowing if the 16-word statement was right or wrong. He had no way to debunk it! But throughout his thrilling and best-selling book, he calls this statement a “lie-lie-lie-lie,” over and over and over again. But then, grinding overstatement like that has been the problem with Wilson all along (as the three senators correctly note). And now, alas, Dems will start to pay a price for investing so much in his presentations.

putz

I just love using that word.

What was non-existent, is Wilson's credibility. I'm sorry if my words were misinterpreted. No one ever stated that there was ever a deal made.

I believe that the implication however, was that Wilson's trip somehow proved that no contact was ever made, in regards to a deal....i.e. "debunked," the claim. This is patently false, as shown above.

This, as quoted above by Geoff, is what Bush said:"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Where does it say that a deal was made? And, where does it misstate what the Butler report still contends was reliable intelligence regarding Iraq SEEKING to make a deal with Niger? The word SOUGHT certainly does not mischaracterize what the truth is, nor is the phrase, "The British government has learned," in any way distort the truth, or present, "a false message."

What does, however, present a false message, is the much reported notion that Bush was WRONG when he made that statement. WORDS MEAN THINGS!

JannyMae:

Words do, in fact, mean things. I used the word "nonexistent" in direct reference to the alleged Niger-Iraq uranium deal, which you then said was "anything but [nonexistent]". I don't believe your words were so much misinterpreted, but rather poorly employed, if you indeed meant them to convey anything other than the directly obvious meaning.

The importance of Wilson's trip, in my view, was its purpose. He was sent to ascertain the veracity of rumors that a deal between Iraq and Niger for uranium had been concluded. He determined, for a number of sound reasons, that no such deal existed. In fact, as you readily admit, he was correct.

Many have decided to believe, however, that his trip provided evidence of an Iraqi solicitation for such a deal. However, a close reading of the SIC report reveals no evidence of such a solicitation.

Words do mean something, and the International Atomic Energy Agency took Bush's "16 words" very seriously, as they are charged by the UN with monitoring international nuclear proliferation. When asked by the IAEA to support the "16 words", the US administration produced a yellowcake contract between Niger and Iraq, along with other documents, that the IAEA quickly and accurately identified as forgeries--a finding, by the way, that vice president Cheney publicly and forthrightly denied at the time, saying "[then IAEA director-general] El Baradei is frankly wrong."

By this time, of course, the invasion of Iraq was well under way, and the administration no longer felt it necessary to provide the IAEA with any further substantiation of the "16 words," and, as far as I can ascertain, forgeries remain the sole serious evidence ever provided to the IAEA by either the British or the Americans.

Why should we give in to terrorist they are the scum of the earth along with the liberals in the ACLU and hollywood

I don't believe your words were so much misinterpreted, but rather poorly employed, if you indeed meant them to convey anything other than the directly obvious meaning.

Very snarky, given that she's apologized. In fact, had you read her statement closely and with some forgiveness, you wouldn't have gone astray in the first place.

When asked by the IAEA to support the "16 words", the US administration produced . . .

They should have asked the British government to support the "16 words."

. . . forgeries remain the sole serious evidence ever provided to the IAEA by either the British or the Americans.

And the British still claim that they had credible evidence, prior to the distribution of the forgeries, that Bush's words were true. That this evidence has not been declassified should not imply to you that it does not exist.

Your skepticism tends to run in only one direction.

geoff:

Very snarky, given that she's apologized.

The apology, if that's what it was (people can be "sorry" for a great many things besides their own conduct), was conspicuously left-handed, essentially accusing me of "misinterpretion", and headed a post that ended in an ironically vociferous exclamation that "words mean things." I apologize for my lack of willpower and descending to "snark".

They should have asked the British government to support the "16 words."

They did.

Your skepticism tends to run in only one direction.

Scepticism, of its nature, necessarily must. That is, it leads me to reject--or hold as purely hypothetical--assertions that have no observable evidence to support them, whatever might be the cause of its absence. If indeed the British have good cause to stand by their claims, one wonders why they were unable to provide it to a UN agency they have confided much more to in the past, and continue to do so. My suspicion--and it is only a suspicion, granted--is that whatever they have will not withstand serious scrutiny. I could be wrong, but I see no good reason to suspect otherwise for now.

And this is where we part ways. You are entitled to be skeptical and there's nothing wrong with questioning what you're being told. But as has been pointed out, it appears your skepticism runs one way only.

This will always be the difference between your type and the rest of us. We recognize that the evidence is sketchy but it does exist. Taken as a whole there's at least a pretty good chance the story is as we've been told.

But more than this, the invasion is now fait accompli, and our job, lacking a red-hot smoking gun, is to support the President and the troops until they are removed from harms way. To show the enemy a united front and remain determined. If there's a real plot here to steal the oil or line Cheney's pocket we can deal with it down the road.

Guys like me feel we can do some good in the Mideast here but we have one shot only, and we can't show even a glimmer of waffling or weakness because that's what the jihadi say about us--no guts, no staying power. If we accomplish nothing else we have to end that little myth.

And we think guys like you, who beat this dead horse into a bloody mess, have another agenda. You don't really care if we win there or show resolve or anything else--you want to be Proven Right. And if that happens, tell us, what will you have won?