Anybody have any comments on that Richard Miniter book, Disinformation that Drudge is linking to? Specifically all the WMD claims?

Holy effin shite, Ace. . . EIGHT days?!?

I've worked FOIA requests, I've worked congressional requests. It takes eight days just to find the email address for the right fucking lawyers in General Counsel, let alone to actually declassify something.

I know nothing more about this case than what I've read in Hayes' piece, but speaking from my experience, the first thing that comes to my mind is that someone at DIA wanted this stuff out there and was looking for the right place to dump it-- meaning, they suggested to Levin's staff that they had something worth sending over, and not the other way around.

Dirty frickin' pool. Man, I hate us effin' bureaucrats.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Ace, you're almost always right, but I think you've overlooked something about pro-war intel vs. con-war intel. Stuff that is fabricated doesn't reveal any important US secrets; hence it is easy to declassify. Stuff that SUPPORTS the war is real intel revealing real sources, strategies, etc. I agree that the Plamegate supports your theory of a CIA domestic coup; this doesn't, in my opinion..

Love the site.

There is a permanent government in Washington of bureaucrats, liberal in their politics but conservative in the sense that they want desperately to protect the status quo -- their way of doing things, their preferred policies -- from "meddling" by outsiders like the duly elected President of the United States.

I have the same problem with the National Park Service. Management thinks each park is their own little fiefdom. Budget money earmarked for law enforcement gets raided. Million dollar mistakes are a guaranteed kick up the ladder. They spend Lord knows how many millions each year flying around, including internationally, and making contacts so they can set up their own private consulting firms for after retirement. They cheat and they steal and they barely get their hands slappped.

Steven Hayes wants to know why it's taken years of constant requests for declassifcation to get important documents into the public view which support the administration's case for war... and as of yet, more stonewalling.

Windows95™?

So you think there's lots of great pro-war intel out there, still hidden from view, that the Bush admin just couldn't manage to reveal in the build-up to war?

Is Pat Roberts part of the conspiracy?

Yeah, that's the ticket. He's stonewalling on Phase II, because it would make the case for the GOP!

Except, of course, that he is part of the GOP. And except, of course, that the case for WMD was not supported by evidence on the ground after the invasion.

And except, of course, for this administration's history of taking revenge on anyone who did anything CLOSE to what you're suggesting...

Nice try. Keep spinning. Pace yourself, you've got years ahead of you. The tough part in this case will be to explain why all kinds of fabrications were used to sell the war, instead of the no-names version of the truth.

"While the Clinton administration and intelligence agencies around the world had suspected Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration was the first to argue Saddam posed a direct threat to the continental United States."

From How the Bush administration sold the Iraq War to American people

Speaking of being selective...

That’s Not Accurate: White House Alters Transcript of Press Briefing

Welcome to the new revisionism. Revised to match the old revisionism.

"Keep spinning" is even more gay than "hat-tip."

"Keep spinning" is even more gay than "hat-tip."

Hey! Some of my best friends are spinning hat-tips! Not that there's anything wrong with that.

From link above:
The next day at the United Nations, Bush discussed Iraq’s alleged nuclear ambitions. “Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.” Bush continued, “ Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year.”

True?

Great read. How Bush has allowed himself to be accused of manufacturing or twisting intelligence is beyond me. Spinning gay hat tip (not that there's anything wrong with that) to LGF.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html

Sorry I am clueless on the link thing.

holy shit this one actually got through??? No I am a tool in two threads. I gotta put down the cough medicine.

That’s Not Accurate: White House Alters Transcript of Press Briefing

Welcome to the new revisionism. Revised to match the old revisionism.

If legislative can do this, why not the executive?

Don't argue the facts, let's debate the spin!

Scroll down here a tad

Anybody have any comments on that Richard Miniter book, Disinformation that Drudge is linking to? Specifically all the WMD claims?

Why yes, I do. I just got an email promoting this very book -- from an ultraconservative listserv. This is one item in a bulleted list:

How bin Laden declared war on America five separate times and pursued his jihad war against the United States throughout the 1990s -- contrary to liberal media claims that no one had heard of him before 9/11

I don't know those media claims. What I know is that Clinton had Richard Clarke bugging him about OBL, as did Bush (except Clarke couldn't get any face time even with Cheney).

I know that out-going Clinton told incoming W that OBL would take a LOT of his time.

So either the book is crap, or the salespitch for it is crap. But wait, there's more! If you order now, you'll get:

Clear, uncontested, proven links between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda

Suitcase nukes? Relax: most of the information causing the panic about them has come from one Russian general who has changed his story many times

I can believe the second one (don't know a thing about it either way).

But I think we all know about the Saddam-AlQ links, now don't we? Keyword: DITSUM No. 044-02

Save your money, geoff. OH WAIT, you wanted the WMD claims from the book! Here's what is claimed:

* 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
* 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)
* Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
* Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

I don't know how Miniter explains what is different about his interp of the info. Hope this helps, though.

firedoglake reminds us of Colin Powell's points before the UN. Only 1 point remains un-debunked at this point. Any one looking for a wager?

Save your money, geoff. OH WAIT, you wanted the WMD claims from the book! Here's what is claimed:

Yeah, I already read that on Drudge before I posted my question. Thanks anyway.

These concerns first became public when, on December 23, 2002, Ariel Sharon stated on Israeli television, "Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria."[24] About three weeks later, Israel's foreign minister repeated the accusation.[25] The U.S., British, and Australian governments issued similar statements. [26]

Would it make sense for Bush not to show the evidence of these trucks?

Then he would be asked why we didn't blow them up.

If we blew them up, he'd be accused of creating an environmental catastrophe to the sensitive desert ecosystem.

Tubino,

"I know that out-going Clinton told incoming W that OBL would take a LOT of his time."

Based on what? Clinton said so. He's a convicted perjurer - and, if I'm not mistaken, perjury is suddenly a crime that you think is very, very evil.

Also, I harld belive Clinton, who did absolutely nothing regarding OBL, Al Queda, or terrorist threats in the 8 years he was in office, suddenly decided, in his last minutes, to tell W that it was the most important thing.

If Clinton did say that to W, then Clinton should tried for treason, b/c it proves that he knew the threat, but refused to do anything about it, thus allowing 9/11, among other terrorist acts on his watch, to happen. And yes, we can lay 9/11 on his doorstep.

You say Clark couldn't even get face time with Cheney, yet it does not bother you that the CIA director could not get face time with Clinton when he was president - while all of this was brewing. If it weren't for your rabid hypocrisy, you'd have no points.

Look, Vanilla, Clinton said that no other issue consumed him so during his last years other than terrorism. It was so important that when he was talking to Arafat, he had to find a very special place to stow his cigars.

Getting ready to read disinformation on my flight tomorrow. Read few the first couple of pages, what? OBL not on dialysis? Not CIA trained? No Al Qaeda until 95? Most Mujahedeen were in the Northn Alliance? Nah, does not compute.

Vanilla,

Repubs flayed Clinton when he took steps against OBL. It's a joke to hear Repubs use all the Dem statements on terrorist threats to justify Iraq -- when they ignore that Repubs (controlling legislature) violently opposed the actions Clinton proposed. Remember missiles to wipe out camps? All repubs wanted to do was criminalize consensual sex. They couldn't get enough of sniffing Clinton's crotch.

If it weren't for your selective amnesia and rabid hypocrisy, you might be able to look at some facts. What I took exception to was this claim: contrary to liberal media claims that no one had heard of him before 9/11.

That's an absurd claim. Nothing in your rant changes the fact that Richard Clarke was warning everyone about OBL. You also have nothing to refute the PDB of Aug 2001, or the months of warnings prior to that, with people's hair on fire.

You have nothing to refute that Cheney took over all terrorism with his task force (or whatever he called it), which NEVER MET. And all the while Richard Clarke was screaming about OBL.

Tubino,

Yeah, right. It's not worth arguing with you because your "facts" are all pure b.s. and your analysis is sophmoric. Clinton played his fiddle while Al Queda attacked american interested again and again. He let them get away with bombing the WTC the first time. He let them get away with teh Cole. He refused to meet w/ Tenent. He refused to take any real action - yeah, he should have been flayed for his political missle strikes on teh empty desert. Apparently, Clarke spent 8 years doing everythnig he could to get Clinton to do ANYTHING. W had less than 8 months - in fact due to sore loserman, he had about 4 months. So, your points are idiotic adn your facts are wrong. the deaths of a lot of innocent americans are the result of Clinton's weakness, shortsightedness and liberalism. When you wake up and become rational, call me, we'll talk.

VT

If Mr. Miniter has discovered weapons of mass destruction, he needs to tell the President and his staff. Also the CIA because they have all now said there are none.

Repubs flayed Clinton when he took steps against OBL

Notice how I don't have any links to show (1) What steps Clinton took against Osama, and (2) Quotes from Reeps criticising Clinton.

Just lies and spin, that's all.

Clinton was pretty open with his bombing campaigns and military interventions. For the most part, us right wingers rolled our eyes, especially with the Grand Jury's Eve bombing campaign. We knew what he was doing. Some people complained that he depeleted our tomahawk stores, but the worst we complained was the withdrawal from Somalia. Well, the whole Somolian thing opened him to criticism.