Much has been said since the indictment came down about a matter that, for everyone involved with the investigation, had been settled for a long time already. The right-wing spin machine has presented the following arguments in recent days: Plame’s identity was not compromised by the Bush administration as much as the she and the CIA compromised it on their own, the charges against Libby rely solely on a disagreement in how he and Tim Russert recall a conversation from 2003, and the Bush administration was victimized by a coordinated effort by Wilson and his wife to lie about the administration’s Niger claims.
The need to over-simplify the matter in some areas and create false complexities in other areas has driven partisan commentators to promote many ideas that are neither based in fact nor consistent with the official documentation currently available to the public. None of this is unexpected, but for some conservatives who have actually READ the indictment, the truth is too overwhelming. William F. Buckley, an icon of the conservative movement, has this to say:
The importance of the law against revealing the true professional identity of an agent is advertised by the draconian punishment, under the federal code, for violating it. In the swirl of the Libby affair, one loses sight of the real offense, and it becomes almost inapprehensible what it is that Cheney/Libby/Rove got themselves into. But the sacredness of the law against betraying a clandestine soldier of the republic cannot be slighted.
How sure can Buckley be that Valerie Wilson was in fact considered clandestine? That’s the question the blogsphere has leveraged for countless lines of analysis, but from the start of this investigation has been settled. Literally thousands of articles/posts have been written in an effort to put forth the idea that Wilson’s status was not or shouldn’t have been deemed classified. I feel sorry for these people, as they’re continuing to tear apart and examine a matter that’s been settled since day one. Honestly, how any intelligent person could continue along this fruitless path of oblivion is beyond me.
FACT: THERE WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN AN INVESTIGATION AT ALL IF HER STATUS WASN’T CLASSIFIED!
In case that’s not sufficient, here’s what Fitzgerald wrote in the indictment:
Page 3 – f. Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.
Prior to the indictment even, we had the judicial opinion regarding Matt Cooper and Judith Miller in their appeal to deny the grand jury of their sources on First Amendment grounds. I’ve had this link posted for months now, and several times within the 83 page opinion, the status of Valerie Wilson is considered classified. One of my favorite portions reads as follows:
Page 81-82: …Indeed, Cooper’s own Time.com article illustrates this point. True, his story revealed a suspicious confluence of leaks, contributing to the outcry that led to this investigation. Yet the article had that effect precisely because the leaked information – Plame’s covert status – lacked significant news value. In essence, seeking protection for sources whose nefariousness he himself exposed, Cooper asks us to protect criminal leaks so that he can write about the crime. The greater public interest lies in preventing the leak to begin with.
So what you have is the courts on one side and the pundits and blogers on the other. On the one hand there’s a growing amount of evidence that further solidifies the fact that Valerie Wilson’s status was considered classified, and on the other hand you have a great deal of conjecture over her status that completely ignores what’s available to everyone in black and white. Frodo has done well to present sources for his opinion that her status remains up in the air. Here are some excerpts from a Wall Street Journal editorial that attempt to contradict the judicial record:
When the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was being negotiated, Senate Select Committee Chairman Barry Goldwater was adamant: If the CIA desired a law making it illegal to expose one of its deep cover employees, then the agency must do a much better job of protecting their cover. That is why a criterion for any prosecution under the act is that the government was taking “affirmative measures” to conceal the protected person’s relationship to the intelligence agency. Two decades later, the CIA, either purposely or with gross negligence, made a series of decisions that led to Ms. Plame becoming a household name:
In short, the writer is out to show that the identity of Valerie Plame becoming public knowledge was not the result of administration officials speaking with reporters, but that the CIA is responsible for what happened. Goldwater’s statement in the above paragraph appears to bear relevance to the leak case, but when you consider the activity of spies during this period of history it’s a stretch. Should a CIA agent have gone “off the reservation” or decided on their own to do something their bosses weren’t aware of, Congress shouldn’t be expected to enforce the law due to a situation that came about because of an internal failure of CIA leadership. This is why covert agents are trained for several years before embarking on a mission, and why after several years of retirement, former agents aren’t being charged left and right with crimes for leaking classified secrets.
The use of Goldwater’s speech is apt in terms of an agent who is operating on their own without authorization. Valerie Wilson never fell into this category, as her superiors were aware at every step of what she and her husband were doing. The CIA has never indicated otherwise.
• The CIA sent her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger on a sensitive mission regarding WMD. He was to determine whether Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake, an essential ingredient for unconventional weapons. However, it was Ms. Plame, not Mr. Wilson, who was the WMD expert. Moreover, Mr. Wilson had no intelligence background, was never a senior person in Niger when he was in the State Department, and was opposed to the administration’s Iraq policy. The assignment was given, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, at Ms. Plame’s suggestion.
The assumption is that Wilson was never adequately equipped to carry out this task is made in broad strokes, yet never qualified with an explanation of what about the task specifically was out of his grasp. The writer considers his former rank in the State Department and that he was not a ‘WMD expert’ as sufficient evidence that the CIA sent an unqualified person to Niger. The assumption is that the CIA set out to investigate this matter, and found it prudent to assign the task to someone who was incapable of carrying it out.
So you have a request from the Vice President’s office to investigate the Niger-yellowcake-Iraq link, and the CIA assigning it to a former ambassador who had spent almost 3 years in Niger working for the State Department. If yellowcake uranium had been sold to a foreign nation, documentation of that transaction would be on file. If Iraq had made an inquiry regarding a potential purchase of uranium, documentation of that request would have been on file as well. Wilson’s mission was to research and inquire whether any such documentation existed.
Are there past performance evaluations within the State Department that might indicate Wilson would be incapable of carrying out this task? Was Joe Wilson ever fired in all of this years working for the government? Let’s get real here, the CIA wasn’t sending Wilson to Niger for him to assassinate the prime minister or capture a terror suspect. He was there to ask questions.
• Mr. Wilson was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement, a mandatory act for the rest of us who either carry out any similar CIA assignment or represent CIA clients.
• When he returned from Niger, Mr. Wilson was not required to write a report, but rather merely to provide an oral briefing. That information was not sent to the White House. If this mission to Niger were so important, wouldn’t a competent intelligence agency want a thoughtful written assessment from the “missionary,” if for no other reason than to establish a record to refute any subsequent misrepresentation of that assessment? Because it was the vice president who initially inquired about Niger and the yellowcake (although he had nothing to do with Mr. Wilson being sent), it is curious that neither his office nor the president’s were privy to the fruits of Mr. Wilson’s oral report.
Wilson was not required to provide a written report concerning the questions he asked and the answers he received. What this proves is that the nature of his assignment was rather elementary. Either there was proof that Iraq had purchased or sought to purchase uranium or there wasn’t.
If the CIA had any reason to anticipate that depending on what they uncovered, the White House might politicize the results, then I’m sure they would have done a few more things to better position themselves. They were asked to investigate a lead and they did just that. The results of Wilson’s trip were communicated and sent up the chain. Whether they reached the Vice President or not is a high-level matter, and one that George Tenet would have to speak towards. Did the Vice President’s staff follow up on their inquiry? Did Tenet communicate the information, find out it wasn’t what Cheney wanted to hear and then let the matter die?
• Although Mr. Wilson did not have to write even one word for the agency that sent him on the mission at taxpayer’s expense, over a year later he was permitted to tell all about this sensitive assignment in the New York Times. For the rest of us, writing about such an assignment would mean we’d have to bring our proposed op-ed before the CIA’s Prepublication Review Board and spend countless hours arguing over every word to be published. Congressional oversight committees should want to know who at the CIA permitted the publication of the article, which, it has been reported, did not jibe with the thrust of Mr. Wilson’s oral briefing. For starters, if the piece had been properly vetted at the CIA, someone should have known that the agency never briefed the vice president on the trip, as claimed by Mr. Wilson in his op-ed.
Again, did the Vice President’s office follow up on their original inquiry? Since there is no documentation of a briefing that I know of, it seems to me that the ball was dropped. Why would you ask for an investigation, then never follow up on what the result was? If the writer is correct in stating that the Vice President’s office was never briefed on Wilson’s findings, then wouldn’t the VP’s office be guilty of negligence? I think so. In fact, it seems to me that the more likely scenario was that the results were communicated, but since it wasn’t what they wanted to hear, the matter was dropped.
• More important than the inaccuracies is that, if the CIA truly, truly, truly had wanted Ms. Plame’s identity to be secret, it never would have permitted her spouse to write the op-ed. Did no one at Langley think that her identity could be compromised if her spouse wrote a piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her expertise? The obvious question a sophisticated journalist such as Mr. Novak asked after “Why did the CIA send Wilson?” was “Who is Wilson?” After being told by a still-unnamed administration source that Mr. Wilson’s “wife” suggested him for the assignment, Mr. Novak went to Who’s Who, which reveals “Valerie Plame” as Mr. Wilson’s spouse.
This paragraph has me thinking the writer is short in the ‘imagination’ category. Isn’t it obvious what happened? The CIA officials who carried out the Niger assignment and reported their findings saw the Bush administration stating as fact something that they knew to be false. Wilson no doubt contacted the CIA and asked, “didn’t they get the results of our investigation?” When he and the CIA officials failed to get satisfaction on this matter, he went public. Does Tenet’s resignation have anything to do with the fact that the Niger story blew up? Wilson’s findings were buried at some level, and to assume that the Vice President’s office had nothing to do with it is extremely naive considering Libby is already under indictment.
• CIA incompetence did not end there. When Mr. Novak called the agency to verify Ms. Plame’s employment, it not only did so, but failed to go beyond the perfunctory request not to publish. Every experienced Washington journalist knows that when the CIA really does not want something public, there are serious requests from the top, usually the director. Only the press office talked to Mr. Novak.
She knows this how? If the answer to the question is, “because Novak said so”, then she should have left this paragraph out. Either the policy on disclosing information to reporters changed, Novak got lucky or he lied. The CIA would have this call saved if it took place.
• Although high-ranking Justice Department officials are prohibited from political activity, the CIA had no problem permitting its deep cover or classified employee from making political contributions under the name “Wilson, Valerie E.,” information publicly available at the Federal Elections Commission.
Qualifying this last bullet point as relevant would require Valerie Wilson to be a high-ranking (whatever that means) official in the CIA. Also, it would be nice to know whether the Justice Department’s standard is universal within the Federal Government or if the writer was simply running short on ideas at this point.
The CIA conduct in this matter is either a brilliant covert action against the White House or inept intelligence tradecraft. It is up to Congress to decide which.
At this point, such a conclusion is far from logical. The important thing to remember though, is that think tanks are burning the midnight oil. What they’re up against are the facts. Based on the number of assumptions I’ve just sorted through, this editorial is proof.
On to the talking point concerning the Libby indictment, many are now saying that it all boils down to a discrepancy between what he and Tim Russert recall from a conversation that took place in 2003. This one is tailor made for the large number of Republican voters who will never read the indictment on their own. It’s a flat out lie, as the following portions of the indictment will prove:
Page 12: b. LIBBY advised Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003 that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, and further advised him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; and
c. LIBBY advised Judith Miller of the New York Times on or about July 12, 2003 that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA but LIBBY did not know whether that assertion was true.33. It was further part of the corrupt endeavor that the time defendant LIBBY made each of the above described materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations to the grand jury, LIBBY was aware that they were false, in that:
…In or about early June 2003, LIBBY learned from the Vice President that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division;
On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY was informed by a senior CIA officer that Wilson’s wife was employed by the CIA and that the idea of sending him to Niger originated with her;
On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was informed by the Under Secretary of State that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA;
Libby spoke with Tim Russert on July 10, 2003. By that time he had already heard about Wilson’s wife working for the CIA from the Vice President, a senior CIA officer and the Under Secretary of State. His idea was to attribute his knowledge of all this to Tim Russert, and then play dumb regarding her covert status when leaking the information to Matt Cooper and Judith Miller.
To say that the entire case boils down to a disagreement between Russert and Libby is purposely misleading. Yet that’s where we’re at politically. The facts are out there.
What bothers me about the past week of commentary is there are many people out there cashing in on the market of voters who simply want to hear that their side did nothing wrong. To squeeze as much money out of this story as possible, the commentary must be misleading. Along the way, whoever needs to be ruined by assumptions will be sacrificed, and the bottom line will continue to supersede truth. This isn’t a First Amendment issue, as Americans can write and say whatever they want, but the corporations making money off of this blatant dishonesty are ethically culpable.
Bush thought it was serious when he said if anyone on his staff leaked they would be fired.
The other problem for the right wing is that this shows that they knew the claims they were making about Iraq were false. The excuses that people are making regarding the leak are sort of like the excuses they were making during Katrina. If all you care about is Roe v. Wade you will believe their excuses, if you care about the country at all, it is pretty obvious that the Bush and Co really screwed-up.
Karl, I tried to post this at KOS as a diary, but it’s not showing up. Is there a delay?
I have not been on KOS for awhile. I will have to go check.
The investigation is not over. No one is accused of outing anyone … yet. Let me start by saying if they did they go to jail. Period.
But I do also, in addition to Libby and Rove, the CIA’s role in this. This is a good read:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/56927.htm
The indictment is by no means a statement of fact, just the plan the prosecutor has for trial.
What is neglected in the debunking is how to find a judge who will say:
“yes, the spirit of the law is to protect CIA agents working under cover in the service of this country but it technically covers rogue agents conspiring to effect a coup against the President of the United States.
So, thank you, Mr. Libby, for uncovering this elaborate and masterfully executed political attack against our country but the law is the law. You go to jail.”
While I believe there are enough great judges out there who know how to balance the law there are those who go either too “letter of the law” and too “temper with mercy” judges to throw enough doubt in the outcome.
Wilson was not required to provide a written report concerning the questions he asked and the answers he received.
Because the trip was just a rouse for the real purpose of the trip, to create fuel for a political firestorm. The whole trip was a scam, there would only be one outcome, it was determined before Wilson ever left what the results would be. Hell, he could have sat at home and sent a look alike and the outcome would have still been the same.
Try debunking the following:
1. this trip and everything about it was a scam, a fraud, a conspiracy.
2. that it was Wilson that said Cheney sent him
3. Plame and Wilson acted purposefully without the direct supervision of the CIA, i.e. rogue
4.that there were huge political motivations behind it and
5. they were acting against the best interests of the American public (and their tax dollars.)
Debunk these 5 things and you have me but otherwise this is as I have said before, a trap and a fraud engeneered by Plame/Wilson strictly for political gain against the welfare of the American public.
Where’s your evidence of this? Let’s see it.
Again the question is “What was the CIA role in all of this?”. This is damaging to those who believe what Chris is saying about “debunking the CIA leak story”.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012183.php
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/327jhrsr.asp
Update: It will be interesting to see some of these people under oath at the trial. This gets better – read this:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/now-joe-wilson-threatens-to-sue-paul.html#comments
Wow, that about settles it. Wilson outed his own wife and the both of them engaged in the biggest conspiracy since the JFK murder.
I still think Libby will be convicted on at least a few counts but it sucks to know an innocent man is losing his career, or worse, going to jail. Was politics always this brutal?
A REAL LEAK PROBLEM!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174928,00.html“>News LINK
Now this is truely damaging to the U.S. and our allies. Since we have the leak investigation crew out in full force maybe they can find the answer to this devastating betrayal.
Any bets that this leak has a Democrat’s fingerprints on it?
In about 10 seconds there are some questions for the general I can think of that I’m sure Hannity never bothered to go near:
1-When’s the first time on record that you mentioned this?
2-Have you testified before the grand jury?
3-If you haven’t, why?
If he hasn’t been called in to answer questions…then this is just Fox and Hannity doing their thing.
Like the doctor they brought on saying that Terri Shiavo could be rehabilitated. C’mon everyone, Sean Hannity has a history of uncovering a nobody to lie their ass off for the circus. What makes any of you think this general or any of the other Fox contributors are at all credible?
And if they are, then why didn’t they testify before the grand jury?
Chris said: “And if they are, then why didn’t they testify before the grand jury?”
Good question and Fitzgerald should be asked that. That being said Fitzgerald has done a very good job on this investigation and the Rebublicans and Dems alike have stated just that and I agree. Lets give this some time to work its way out in the open and get scrutinized. If it is legit it will get the attention it deserves.
Just my 2 cents worth.
This is good. It is a story about the Republicans call for an investigation into a possible CIA leak that the US is using detention centers in other countries and Senator Reids reaction. I am still laughing out loud. I do not always agree with the good Captian Ed but his arguments are always intelligent and founded in facts.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005757.php
Excerpt but you should read the whole thing:
“Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said the Republicans’ call to investigate the leak was “only a play to the press, that’s all this is.”
Only a play to the press? Reid has to be joking. The Democrats have done nothing but play to the cameras since the Grinch stole their Fitzmas. First Reid unilaterally threw the Senate into a Rule 21 secret session for the first time in 25 years, ostensibly to discuss classified material but most obviously to grandstand after the Alito nomination threatened to steal media attention from Scooter Libby’s indictment for not cooperating with a probe into an alleged crime that never took place. Yesterday Reid and Chuck Schumer, whose staffers still have not explained their felonious conduct in getting Michael Steele’s credit report, held a press conference to air their demands that Bush not pardon Libby — despite the lack of any suggestion that he might do so.
All of this foolishness arises from a leak of a CIA employee’s name, who may or may not have been covert six or more years ago but has driven to Langley headquarters every day since then to perform analytical work — when she isn’t busy getting her husband plum assignments overseas so that he can launch political broadsides against the administration on his return. That has resulted in at least two Congressional investigations and a special prosecutor, none of which found any criminal problems except Libby’s stupidity in trying to lie his way through his grand jury testimony.
Now we have a leak of an ongoing CIA operation involving the detention and interrogation of enemy prisoners during wartime — and Reid considers a call for its investigation a PR stunt?
Talk about tone deafness! Reid provides another reason why the Tantrum Party has no business leading this country in their current state during a period where we find ourselves under attack by radical Islamists. ” end
If the Democrats want to be the party of the future they need to get their act together and give us a decent alternative to whomever the Republicans march out in ’08. Just my humble opinion.
See, here’s where this writer loses all credibility to me. He needs to read the indictment. The matter of whether she was or wasn’t covert is a closed matter as far as the court documents are concerned.
And those official documents are all that matters.
Fair enough – but you have to admit that Hannity and the blogsphere components having run with this without addressing these loose ends (“did you testify” would be the first question from a conservative concerned about libby getting a raw deal here – think about it…Hannity is sitting with the man who could possibly clear Libby’s name, yet the word “testimony” never comes up)
That to me indicates that the fix was in, just like it was with the Shaivo doctor who said he could get her back on his feet…the guy had no background and no track record of being able to do anything he claimed was possible – AND – he lied about being nominated for a Nobel Prize…
So Hannity would introduce him as, “a nobel prize nominated doctor in the field says he can bring Terri back”
Look at the official documentation, and the judge who denied the parents’ claim was very clear about the fact that the doctor was a fraud.
He appeared on Fox News consistently, regardless of all this.
Ask any middle aged man put in jail as a kid, screwed by a ridiculous mandatory minimum sentence for some sympathy when it comes to Libby.
Right, conservatives are all about ‘law and order’ until one of their own go down apparantly.
Ask any middle aged man put in jail as a kid, screwed by a ridiculous mandatory minimum sentence for some sympathy when it comes to Libby.
If your talking about the 3 FELONIES and then mandatory life then that is a lot different than getting framed/entrapped by someone trying to hack his way into some relevant political career.
Mandatory minimums keep the bad guys away from the good guys, you won’t be seeing that in San Fran anytime soon, though. They pay bums to be bums and steal peoples guns, that place will be another Wash. D.C. or Chicago in about 5 years or less. What were we talking about again?
OK This is funny.
“Democrates had no pre-war intelligence”
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2065
This kind of puts into perspective the Anti-Bush and Anti-War crowds arguments. And to think they want to ride this attack until 2006 and 2008 elections. Go for it.
Frodo:
Trying to argue that everyon believed the lie so it is OK to lie is a losing argument. Bush and Co made intentional mistatements in the run up to the war. If the reasons for the war were so good why did they have to lie. The fact that they lied shows that they knew their reasons were weak.
I doubt they thought they were going to get caught because no one thought the war was going to last this long or cost this many lives.
Bush and co lied. It does not matter how many people believed it, Bush is the one who went on national TV and in the state of the union address mislead the American public. No matter how you try to spin it, he lied.
Democrats weren’t talking about mushroom clouds. Iraq’s Prime Minister Allayi was in town, so the RNC had to go on offense.
That Bush did it on Veterans Day is despicable.
What is despicable is that you throw that comment at Bush on Veterans day. It is obvious that you have no clue about what is going on in the war on terror. It is obvious that you are angry at Bush for the decision to go in. It is obvious you think America should be ashamed of what it is doing. Things are better over there than the Media will allow you to believe. The soldiers are doing some very worth while things, but we can not be told by the media because it is not anti- Bush/Hitler.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_11_06_corner-archive.asp#082465
This is my last post here. It is also obvious that you will never be swayed by anything I or people like me say.
I am glad you are able to have that opinion, and the freedom to post it here, although I do not agree and I feel you, with help from the media, are helping to terriosts win the war of public opinion. So be it.
I believe in the Presidents approach to fight terrirism. I believe America is better than what we are fighting. I believe the terrorists are wrong and I want to see us win. I do not believe the Anti war Anti Bush crowd want that. They are just hoping we will loose and can not wait to report it.
It is time to be proud of what we are and what we as Americans stand for. Get out your faverite search ewngine and look all the Pro-American rallys and condemations of Terror in the Muslims countries over the last week. The tide of opinion is turning in the Muslum world but you would never know by wathcing the news. We can not report that because it might make Bush or America look good. Bush is fighting back and calling out the revisionist history news makers and its about time.
I am proud of America and our troops. I am porud of what we stand for and what we are treying to do in Iraq and the Middle East. Even with the abuses of prisioners we have have had in this fight we are still better than the enemy. Sonehow you and others keep loosing sight of that.
Frodo:
In excess of 2000 deaths and all we can point to is a couple of schools built and a rising political star in the form of Al Sadre. Iraq is not going well, that is the fact, the only way to fix the situation is admit mistakes and learn from them. Pretending everything is going well and that their are enough troops is not going to do anything but get more people killed.
Torture is not winning friends in Muslim countries. This situation is fubar and at least some people are willing to admit it.
Frodo – the fact that we disagree and that neither of us are going to change the other’s mind doesn’t make either of us insufficient as a human being.
The serious nature of all this is warranted, and with that being the case, you’re frustrated that I don’t put politics aside and pledge allegience to the flag. You perceive my attitude to be disgusting, hence the statement concerning terrorists winning in the court of public opinion.
Nothing could be further from the truth. We exist in a box here in America, as is the case with just about every country in the world.
Me being able to express myself as I so choose is a great thing, but in my opinion, the freedom of others to present another point of view is what makes this ‘American’.
I’ve offered space to Right Thinker in the past, which he’s used to post two articles, both prompted significant threads of discussion.
I read everything you posted, and even broke down that editorial in the WSJ in its entirety. Sorry to see you go if that’s the case.
In excess of 2000 deaths and all we can point to is a couple of schools built and a rising political star in the form of Al Sadre.
I think that is his point, this is all the media will allow you to see. I can’t imagine what makes you think Iraq was better with Saddam in charge. I’m equally baffled as to why you would want Saddam back.
Iraq is not going well, that is the fact, the only way to fix the situation is admit mistakes and learn from them.
How can you possible justify this statement? I understand the learning from mistakes part and that is what we are doing all the time but I am baffled as to how you can say Iraq isn’t going well. Was Amercia any better off when it was young?
Torture is not winning friends in Muslim countries.
No one cares about what Muslim countries think, Islam is an invasive religion that you can never appease so you should stop trying. They don’t want to be your friend, go to movies with you, date you or have coffee with you. They want to either kill you or convert you or for you to accept their rule without question.
This situation is fubar and at least some people are willing to admit it.
John Kerry sure admits it and there is no better example of “when the going get tough, liberals get going”
Frodo – the fact that we disagree and that neither of us are going to change the other’s mind doesn’t make either of us insufficient as a human being.
America is doing the right thing in Iraq but we still have to have the debate, it’s the only way to really be sure that we are correct. Over annd over again, we must test our arguments and beliefs to make them stronger and hold up to future generations.
I also believe the media is going above and beyond to build the negative against the President and build morale in the ranks of the terrorists around the globe. I’m all for debate and critical thinking but the Deans, Schumers, Reids and Kennedy’s don’t care about the troops, just about getting elected and defeating Bush.
The President came out on Veterans Day to boost America’s morale and the morale of the troops and all liberals could do was shit all over it and then throw in the unemotional, malice intended, “but I support the troops”. This couldn’t be further from the truth.
Me being able to express myself as I so choose is a great thing, but in my opinion, the freedom of others to present another point of view is what makes this ‘American’.
Yup.
RT:
First Bush came out flag waving on memorial day to boost his saging poll numbers.
If we are really fighting Muslims why did invade a largely secular Iraq. Their are much better targets. Even if invading Iraq was a good idea why not bring in enough troops to do the job.
Is the world better off without Saddam in charge, perhaps, right now I would argue Al Sadre and Zarquawi are the real power in Iraq. A fat lazy Saddam may have been better.
Got this from Andrew Sullivan thought it was interesting:
BUSH’S CREDIBILITY GAP: One consequence of the WMD intelligence fiasco in Iraq is that no one in the international community gives the U.S. the benefit of the doubt any more on intelligence. We may have come across the mother-lode of computer evidence of Iran’s nuke program. But why should anyone believe us now? They keep suspecting it’s faked.
– 1:25:00 PM
First Bush came out flag waving on memorial day to boost his saging poll numbers.
Should I even bother to ask for any proof? Chris has been harping on Bush to come out and say anything to boost morale for months now. Bush is no Reagan but but I like the sound of his new speeches.
If we are really fighting Muslims why did invade a largely secular Iraq.
Seriously, do I really need to go through this? Saddam was destabilizing the region, crimes against humanity, yada, yada, yada. Militant islam is trying to fill the void that most other muslim countries don’t want them to fill. Militant islam and moderate islam is about conquering and control. We are working to make a peaceful and “long-term” stable nation.
Even if invading Iraq was a good idea why not bring in enough troops to do the job.
Because we shouldn’t be doing this unilaterally but since the U.N. and most of the security council was on-the-take we had to go on our own to do what was right. Now Frnace is dealing with their fraud in the form of muslim riots. We were proven right about Saddam and militant islam but liberals to this day refuse to hear any of it. Michael Moore thinks Iraq was Disneyland before we invaded. Plain ignorance.
Is the world better off without Saddam in charge, perhaps,
Here’s some help…100% YES!!!!!
right now I would argue Al Sadre and Zarquawi are the real power in Iraq.
I don’t think the new government or the new constitution would agree with you nor any of the other heads of state from around the world. I don’t think Zarquawi attends to many agriculture cabinet meetings.
A fat lazy Saddam may have been better.
Wow, were you wearing a helmet when you went snowboarding???
BUSH’S CREDIBILITY GAP:
What’s funny is some of these foreign governments are the ones who gave us the intelligence. Probably sabotage.
Bush fights back … finally. Is it too late?
Warning: Do not read this if you are offended by the truth.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/11/hardly_seems_fa.html
http://techcentralstation.com/111405E.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051113.html
Frodo, great job. While I understand your frustration at not being able to sway liberal opinion, be satisfied in your own edification in that your beliefs and arguments are stronger. I think that is the purpose of open debate, no as much to sway elected officials but to sway the electorate that can hire or fire elected officials.
Soon, you will be able to accurately dismiss any liberal propaganda that is foisted upon you. Testify!!!!
“You want the truth? You cant handle the truth.”
What a line.
From the links I just posted above is this gem. Remember the truth hurts sometimes.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005783.php
Excerpt: How empty are the Democrats of ideas and long-term plans for national security? Three years later, they’re still lying about their own statements on national TV to smear George Bush — even though he can’t run for election again! Rockefeller shows how lame this meme has become. It should embarrass every Democrat in the country and start a demand for new party leadership. Unfortunately, it won’t, but it may finally convince the rational moderates that the Democrats have led the party over a cliff.
RT:
I agree with your last sentence. Certain governmennts probably did give the US bad information. Chalabi has been rumored to work for Iran. If he does I hope they are paying him well as he has done a good job for them.
Zarqawi seems fairly powerful in Iraq and Al Sadre also seems to be doing well there. Nice that we helped these people rise to power.
Blaming the UN for our ill prepared invasion. Seems like a reach.
Zarqawi seems fairly powerful in Iraq and Al Sadre also seems to be doing well there. Nice that we helped these people rise to power.
Isn’t that how Saddam rose to power???
Blaming the UN for our ill prepared invasion
Not ill prepared rather we were fighting a cold war against France, Russia and Chine that we didn’t knoo about. We are ill-prepared for the Deans and Kerrys of this world whole leverage human suffering for political gain.
Why are we in Iraq if dealing with nations of Islam is so pointless? Right, Iraq is a nation of Islam according to the constitution they voted to ratify.
Right, how do you know the riots were fueled by religion? I’ve heard and read quite a bit to the contrary. How do you qualify the France riots/Islam connection?
Bush brought the negative press on himself. Right, a WH staffer is facing federal charges. They didn’t make any mistakes in how they handled the Iraq War? They didn’t exagerate?
Right, take it from me. The soldiers in Iraq neither heard, nor do they give a shit about what any politician has to say, president or otherwise, about anything. They’re not a part of this world we exist in at all. Bush’s speech was political.
Not only do the soldiers in Iraq have heavier concerns than politics, but being where they are and doing what they do, there’s simply a natural detachment from everything.
Attacking Democrats in a Veteran’s Day speech as a method of ‘boosting morale’ is probably not going to help the morale of the soldier who’s a Democrat.
Right, are you saying that the only soldiers who deserved a speech that would motivate them were the Republican soldiers?
“Chris: Right, take it from me. The soldiers in Iraq neither heard, nor do they give a shit about what any politician has to say, president or otherwise, about anything. They’re not a part of this world we exist in at all. Bush’s speech was political.
Not only do the soldiers in Iraq have heavier concerns than politics, but being where they are and doing what they do, there’s simply a natural detachment from everything.
Attacking Democrats in a Veteran’s Day speech as a method of ‘boosting morale’ is probably not going to help the morale of the soldier who’s a Democrat.
Right, are you saying that the only soldiers who deserved a speech that would motivate them were the Republican soldiers? “
Sigh … where to begin??
Chris I respect your opinion but I also believe it is wrong. Not just wrong but dead wrong. I can not word that any stronger.
The Democrats and Main stream Media have long boasted and supported the Anti-war, Cindy Sheehan and friends, contention that “Bush Lied and People Died”. It is a fabrication and any honest assessment of some of the links above would tend to prove that. I think most people looked at the facts prior to last election and did just that.
The politicisation (is that a word?) of this issue was by the mainstream media and the Democrats. They launched the Bush Lied (yada yada yada) campaign and Bush let it slide by not challenging it. How any intelligent person can look at the facts and state that is beyond me. Bush has finally called them on it and it is about time.
The troops do care and are paying attention and if you look into it yourself they are pissed off on how the war is being portrayed over here and in the media. Do not take my word for it go look for yourself. Do not watch CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, NYT or MSNBC as they will distort the message and have been from day one.
I have read numerous accounts of the soldiers abroad and they are upset at that we the people back home are not getting the whole story about the war in Iraq and the overall war on terrorism. They have access to the internet and are aware of how this is being reported. They care.
Look at some the blogs by the soldiers and see how they feel about things. Read the Winds of Change and other blogs that try and bring you the honest assessment of what is going on. Read the “Good News from Iraq” series and see what a pitiful job the media is doing in its reporting. If I listened only to the major news outlets I would also be against this war. If I came back from Iraq and saw this I would be pissed. No one is saying War is pretty and I can say that from experience. The Vietnam war affected my family and everyone came home. I know there are families that would easily trade with ours. The point is the troops do care and I resent you Chris saying they do not. This is important and the Democrats by making this statement have hit the moral of the troops hard. Just so they can hopefully gain power in an upcoming election cycle. They should be ashamed and as an American I am ashamed of what this has turned into. The enemy would love nothing better than the public support for this effort to fold and we bring the troops back to early. They would claim victory and rightly so. This is going to be a long war and Bush has said so right from the beginning.
Again do not take my word for it. Look for yourself. It may take some work to find but Google is amazing. Most of Iraq is more stable and better off than they were before we went to war and ousted Saddam. Reconstruction of schools and hospitals and essential resources has made living conditions better. The people have hope, hope of freedom and they are not taking it for granted. They are thankful to the Americans and tired and angry that foreign soldiers are killing them because they can not reach the Americans as easily as they could before.
Are there problem areas? Yes of course. But fewer and fewer of them if the truth be known. The ability of the enemy is getting weaker. But you would never know that by watching the news. The soldiers are happy they are making a difference and are bitter we are not aware of that. Most upon return re-up to go back. I just recently read an article about a group that came home and 90% re-enlist to go back. Boy that the argument that we are locked in a quagmire sound awful hollow. We have Heroes over there, the next “Greatest Generation” is making a difference. Too bad no one wants to cover that. But listen to the Dems and the media and you would think the US was the scourge of the world and Bush the anti-christ. Give me a break. We need to be held to higher standard and although not perfect we have done just that. It is time to be proud again of what we are and what we are doing. The Military has done an incredible thing in turning over 2 hostile regimes and minimised the casualties both militarily and civilian. When looked back upon this War could be the most human war ever compared to the total impact of wars past. But no one wants to talk about that. Not Anti-Bush or American enough. The only countries that did not want us to go into Iraq, France China and Germany, have all by linked to the Food for Oil UN scandal. Funny why do you suppose they did not want the US to invade Iraq? Hmmm.
You can say I am biased but it looks like to me, after examining all the information available, that the Dems, the media and the UN want us to loose. That they are anti-American. Just my humble opinion.
The attack by Bush on the Democrats was long overdo.
Sorry if I wrote too long or this makes no sense. I am under pressure from my real word responsibilities and this is just a quick brain dumb. I had some much more to say that I am sure is not here…. Oh well. Duty calls.
Sorry I forgot to include this. Read the whole thing it is a powerful message.
“do not be afraid!”
We must repeat again and again that America’s honor is no illusion. Imperfect as it may be this is still the land to which – in large or small ways – every free nation owes its current liberty. This is the nation that has routinely sent its idealistic young men off to foreign lands, to die there, not for empire, not for real-estate, but for the protection and advancement of that unseen thing that is freedom, the strengthener of the human spirit, the burnisher of human potential. First Children and their motley co-horts aside, this is still the nation to which every creative or industrious person wishes to come, it is the nation to which the oppressed call out for rescue and relief.
We must repeat, over and over, that the American Presidency is, like a papacy or a monarchy, larger than the person who occupies the office, and it is noble. The American President freed slaves before anyone else would entertain the notion. The American President has carried the big stick used to overthrow tyrants and bullies both foreign and domestic. The American President has put his airmen to use to keep his vanquished enemies in Berlin from starving in a brutal winter, he has used his navy to bring aid after tsunami. The American President has dreamed great space voyages into reality, has opened closed markets, has encouraged a people to tear down walls. The American President has envisioned tens of millions of people raising purple fingertips to the sky, and made it so.
We must repeat, over and over, that Liberty is the means by which we created creatures are meant to live and to grow and be. That Liberty lives in the Truth. That Liberty lives where people can speak freely, without fear of injury or reprisals. That Liberty lives only when the press is free and unencumbered – when it is detached from events instead of entwined in them. That Liberty lives when people refuse to be intimidated into silence or acquiescence, whether in the workplace or within the community. That Liberty is the fragile thing that diminishes whenever one refuses to acclaim it for oneself.
http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/10/29/the-art-of-the-painless-coup/
Frodo – I spent 4 years in the Army and 2.5 in an infantry batallion. My brother was in the marines for 4 years. Putting our experiences together, neither of us remember discussing politics with anyone but a group of officers while we were in. That’s in the rear. When you’re in the field, the #1 thing on your mind is the mission and the #2 is ‘I can’t wait to get the hell out of here’.
When we’re talking politics here at home, it’s easy to assume a lot of things about whether or not a soldier in Iraq agrees with what we’re saying. Fact is, there are Democrats, Republicans, Nihilists, Independents, etc. represented in our military.
From my experience I think it’s safe to say that the majority of them fall into the ‘undecided’ category. Usually not because the arguments are so compelling they can’t choose who they want to believe – but because they don’t pay attention to it.
Walk through an infantry company barracks with a few poll questions on DC specifics from the week and you’ll get a lot of shrugged shoulders in response.
Chris –
I come from a family that was about a 50-50 split of military people and civilians. My dad was a Air Force Officer, my brother, uncle and grandfather all served for some time (Navy, Navy and Army). Some for more than 6 years and my dad for 28 years. I could not sign up because of medical reasons so I do not have the first hand experience you have. I have discussed much with my brother and father the closet people, to me, in my family that did serve. My father was hard to get information from because he is the one that went to Vietnam and returned. If you know anyone from that condition you would understand the difficulties in extracting information. As I mentioned before I know first hand the impact it had on my family and I think I can state I understand the sacrifices the soldiers and their families are making. I am no war monger and hate the thought that this is what it is going take to get the job done. Thousands of years of evolution and war is the best solution man can find?
There are bad people in this world and freedom is not cheap. I know because I and my family have paid a price … and my father was one of the lucky ones that came home. There are a lot of people who trade places with me in an instant. There are way too many orphans, widows and parents who have hole so big in their lives that nothing will fill it. And I think current trends in politics and the media insult them.
But this is where I think you are wrong. Anyone with access to the Internet can have an opinion with the entire world to see. The soldiers have such access and many have taken the opportunity to speak out. Most agree that war is hell. Most agree we are not getting the whole story. Do not take my word for it. Go and see for yourself. If I link tons of web sites and blogs you will accuse me of only finding stories that back up my point of view and you would be right. Therefore I challenge you to go out with an honest effort to get the real story. If you still feel the same I can respect your point of view but I will not agree with it.
My contempt for the media can not be overstated. They have obviously made some choices just like they did in the last election. again do not take my word for it. Pew research is a pretty good group that is independently funded and they found heavy bias in the election and war coverage. To me this is no surprise to anyone paying attention. The choices they have made are that Bush is bad. War is bad and terrorists are just misunderstood and we need to think about why and how we as Americans caused this to happen.
I am sorry but I do not agree. America has faults and we have made mistakes in the war on terror. Bush and his staff have made some bad choices and given America some black eyes and I am angry about that. But choosing to go to war was not one of them.
My friend from Italy, responding to my email shortly after 911, said “there is a time to stand and fight and now is that time.” After many hours of soul searching I agreed. We are doing a great disservice to our troops to give even the hint of non-commitment to this
war effort. Bush said in the beginning it would be a long fight, and many Democrats including Sen. Biden, to name one, agreed. We need to stay the course and finish the job correctly to honor those who have and still are sacrificing. The media and the Democrats are not doing that now. They are playing politics and it hurts the soldiers and the efforts they are making. Again go look for yourself. I have and I am angry about what I found out.
I hate this I think faster than I type and I know I did not get everything in here I wanted to but I guess this will have to do for now. I am sorry I am not as eloquent as some of you but I hope my thoughts got communicated clearly enough.
Frodo:
I never heard that the Iraq war would be a long fight. Cheney was on record saying it would take weeks maybe months. If bush really thought it was going to be a long tough fight why did he put on a flight suit and declare victory so early? The politics were plyed when Bush decided he needed a war to insure re-election.
The real disrespect of the armed forces comes in the way injured soldgers are treated and the way Bush and the right wing have smeared anyone who disagrees with them.
Nice to see you back, since right thinker went to the sports book no conservatives have consistantely been here.
Karl – I am a registered independent with conservative leaning on issues of fiscal spending (smaller Government) and strong military. I am very moderate or some would even say Liberal on my views about topics like Abortion, Stem Cell Research and the Environment. I am glad the Republicans lost the battle to drill in Anwar. But that battle may yet be lost. I do not just go into agreement with everything Bush and Republicans want to push through. If you want to call me a conservative go ahead as I am not offended by that. My position is too look at each issue independently and make my own decision not a forced party line. Party politics is source of much concern for me but that is another topic for another thread elsewhere.
I should have been a little more specific in my statement above about Bush stating this would be a long war. The war he and I were referring to is the war on terror. This is going to be a long battle. The battle in Iraq is just a part of the overall war effort. Syria and Iran are big concerns to war effort. As much as I hate to say this I think there is more to come in the way of military action against terrorist targets in other countries.
The treatment of soldiers and veterans is a sore spot for me as well. I have serious issues with how our government, past and present (Bush and Congress), have handled certain issues. These people answered the call and put there buts on the line when we needed them most and we treat them this way? It is a disgrace but again this is another topic for another thread.
I want to declare a time out from personal hostilities here for a second and point an article I found this morning. It kind of puts things in perspective a little bit. Lets keep in mind who the real enemy is. Hint – it is not you and me arguing here about political beliefs. Lets also keep in mind who are family is. Hint – the Iraq people want freedom just as much as we do. Warning you may need tissues before you are done reading this. Enjoy.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/huerta200511110822.asp
Frodo:
One thing I have noticed since I started posting here and at a few other places is that most of us have far more in common than we like to admit. The fact that we are taking time out of our day to discus policy says we either care about this stuff or don’t have much of a life.
Almost everone likes a fiscal conservative, personally I think that is why Bill Clinton was so popular. The problem with Bush is tat he claims to be a fiscal conservative but he keeps letting government grow. As far as freedom, social conservatives seem more like Christian socialists and I don’t get the impression they care about the freedoms of people who believe differentely from them.
Bush’s latest “if you critsize me you hurt the soldgers” routine is just a weak president hiding behind the flag. These are just my opinions.
I hope you have a good day.