anyone like nader?

topic posted Wed, July 2, 2008 - 10:07 PM by  Maestro
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
was just curious to see/hear if anyone is feeling drawn to him
posted by:
Maestro
SF Bay Area
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: anyone like nader?

    Wed, July 2, 2008 - 11:31 PM
    My philosophy is this....The two party system is corrupt, but I think McCain is worse. If I lived in a swing state I would not vote for Nadder. If I am living in a solid state (red or blue) where my vote is unlikely to count I will vote third party as a form of protest....and it wont affect the election.

    I havnt really been satisfied with Nader lately. I was more impressed with Kuchinich and Gravel this time around.

    Nader should lower his expectations and run for the house of representatives, then make the case for presidency after he accomplishes something more substantial.
    • Re: anyone like nader?

      Fri, July 4, 2008 - 3:48 AM
      very well said. more involvement in public office would've been great for him. and, btw, i like how you think! i'm not enthused about him either; and after moving to california, i am likely to vote for third party candidates if they're on the ballot, including nader.
    • Re: anyone like nader?

      Wed, July 9, 2008 - 7:10 PM
      yes...Kucinich and Gravel were awesome...still are, really...I always follow the rep. from ohio's HRs...and usually call or write to my elected officials and encourage them to vote in support of his work.
      • Re: anyone like nader?

        Wed, July 9, 2008 - 7:48 PM
        yeah, there are problems with nader. Hes getting to be too old and that makes him crankier and even more narcisstic.

        The good thing about obama is that he seems to recognize that he personally does not have all the answers. The bad thing about obama
        compared to Nader or Kucinich is that Obamas level of knowledge is like a 5 or 6 on a scale of 1 to 20, and Naders like almost 10, but utterly alienating and not good as a diplomat, with little or no charisma. Kucinich is maybe an eight or a nine, and much more diplomatic than nader, but also no charisma. Anybody like moron x arguing with me above is in negative numbers. I'll give mccain a benefit of the doubt and give him a 1, but i think hes probably in negative numbers as well.

        The comedy of the situation is that theres a reasonably good chance that you score as high or higher than obama does in terms of your understanding of the problems and your ability to solve a real life problem solving process.

        I dwarf even Nader in terms of what i know, i'm about a 15 or 17. I sped read textbooks as a hobby for 15 years.

        The conversation gets stupid when talking to troll morons, when talking about candidates, or when talking about current events.
        It gets smart when its talking about the issues.

        Heres my problem. 99 percent of whats on the net is garbage or propaganda.
        Mybo is no different, its 1 million walled gardens called "personal blog.", and 8000 list serves.
        My task is to somehow talk the herd out of its insanity and tell them the answers to their problems.
        Things obvious to me which they can't see, out of inertia, ignorance, groupthink, and opinon, and because of propaganda,
        manufactured distractions, and even other information which has them overwhelmed which is good information, but not nearly as important.

        Heres the two most important things in the english language and the 21st century.
        1. Geothermal Power
        2. Solar Power.

        Now, I can iterate that list down pretty far, but not with certainty because its hard to tell where my biases step in past number 20 or so.
        3. Electric Cars
        4. Mass Transit
        5. Universal Single Payer
        a. Healthcare
        b. Public Education
        c. Retirement
        d. Criminal Rehabilitation

        6. Dynamic Localization of all resources to Cities;
        Reverse globalizations trend of interdependency with
        a fully redudndant series of completely self sufficient cities and states.
        a. Food
        b. Water
        c. Energy
        d. Goods
        f. Services

        7. Increased globalization but fair, sane, and mutually beneficial globalization of national support and diplomacy.
        8. Decrease the power of Corporations and remove the Corporate Identiy laws, making corporations subject to
        rule of law or ARREST by CITIZENS.
        9. Absolutely no more pollution, no nuclear power, no fossil fuels, no biofuels, for a green earth.

        And 10. The left/right false duality is a propaganda mental cage. The truth and the solutions are an order of magnitude simpler
        and more complicated than the argument between a puppetized "left hand" and a puppetized "right hand" of one corporate oligarchy.

        Do you see "OBAMA" on that list? No, neither do I. Hes probably there in the top 200 or so.

        But i have to argue, with utterly ignorant people, trolls, crowds, and all of that noise, in order to get the important facts out to humanity,
        before we run into 11.
        Global Warming is REAL, and if we do not STOP the MADNESS NOW, all life on earth as we know it WILL DIE.

        So, JC, I'm sorry if you got caught in the battle between me and the lies and BS and noise and the big herd movement.
        I'm sure thats some my fault, some your fault, and mostly, THEIR fault, for not providing or creating environments conducive to deeper thinking
        or reasoning or more complicated forms of communication to support actual intellectual rather than propaganda processes.

        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vete...ychic_Wars
        www.youtube.com/watch

        www.youtube.com/watch

        You see me now a veteran of a thousand psychic wars
        Ive been living on the edge so long
        Where the winds of limbo roar
        And Im young enough to look at
        And far too old to see
        All the scars are on the inside
        Im not sure if theres anything left of me

        Dont let these shakes go on
        Its time we had a break from it
        Its time we had some leave
        Weve been living in the flames
        Weve been eating up our brains
        Oh, please dont let theses shakes go on

        You ask me why Im weary, why I cant speak to you
        You blame me for my silence
        Say its time I changed and grew
        But the wars still going on dear
        And theres no end that I know
        And I cant say if were ever...
        I cant say if were ever gonna to be free

        Dont let these shakes go on
        Its time we had a break from it
        Its time we had some leave
        Weve been living in the flames
        Weve been eating out our brains
        Oh, please dont let theses shakes go on

        You see me now a veteran of a thousand psychic wars
        My energys spent at last
        And my armor is destroyed
        I have used up all my weapons and Im helpless and bereaved
        Wounds are all Im made of
        Did I hear you say that this is victory?

        Dont let these shakes go on
        Its time we had a break from it
        Send me to the rear
        Where the tides of madness swell
        And been sliding into hell
        Oh, please dont let shakes go on
        Dont let these shakes go on
        Dont let these shakes go on
        mytalktoday.com/forum/forum.php
        mytalktoday.com/forum/index.php
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: anyone like nader?

    Thu, July 3, 2008 - 11:26 AM
    I voted for him in 2000 in protest, but perish the thought that he should ever hold elected office.

    As a critic, he has some good things to say, but I also think he is an intellectually dishonest, junk science-loving scumbag.
    • Re: anyone like nader?

      Fri, July 4, 2008 - 5:25 AM
      He's a self absorbed, selfish, egoist. The difference in Florida in 2000 was what? Nader got something over 20,000 votes. He could have made a difference, when he saw how close it was. Anybody think we would be in Iraq if Gore had gotten elected? Nader was the Green Party candidate, no? He could have gone to Gore and offered his endorsement, in exchange for something really substantial. Maybe the top job at the EPA? Department of the interior? Alternative energy Czar? But no, his shortsightedness helped elect W. Nader sucks, and has done his country a disservice.
      • Re: anyone like nader?

        Fri, July 4, 2008 - 10:39 PM
        even so, on the whole, He has some pretty good ideas.

        Better than the democratic party think tanks and way better than the republican party think tanks.

        The real question is what of value does nader have to offer us in terms of insights?

        theres a lot of content there underneath his more unfortunate hobby of using presidential politics to try to advance his message.
      • Re: anyone like nader?

        Fri, July 4, 2008 - 11:19 PM
        "Anybody think we would be in Iraq if Gore had gotten elected? "

        I wonder...Gore doesnt strike me as a hawk, but he does strike me as a little weak and quick to cave into peer pressure and he chose that hawk of a VP Lieberman who practically kissed Bush on the lips when he invaded Iraq. It could have gone either way.

        However, I bet the economy would be stronger and our relations with Europe and other key allies would be stronger. Our environmental standards would have been higher, cars would be more fuel efficient, our greenhouse emissions would be on the decline and we would be working on energy independence sooner.
        • Re: anyone like nader?

          Sat, July 5, 2008 - 2:14 AM
          No doubt. I'm no pacifist. Can you imagine if we had put the resources we've sunk into the Iraq war, into defeating the Taleban, and then rebuilding Afghanistan? The Taleban were actually active enemies, harboring and supporting AQ. By now, that place could be a garden of wealth and prosperity. It might have actually provided an example throughout the Islamic world of what they could have if they tossed out their despotic tyrannical governments, and embraced Western enlightened ideals.

          As for:

          "The real question is what of value does nader have to offer us in terms of insights?"

          He could have put those "insights" to work as a senior member of the Gore administration. Instead, he gave us eight years of Bush. I'll not forgive him. Now, he can take his "insights" and shove them up his ass for all I care. He doesn't deserve another chance. There are plenty of others out there with insightful thoughts worth listening to, others that haven't contributed to the current fucked up situation we are in, and will be paying for for generations. Fuck him.
          • Re: anyone like nader?

            Sat, July 5, 2008 - 2:22 AM
            Here:

            www.nationalpriorities.org/cost..._home

            Say, maybe, if we spent half of this on Afghanistan, and the other half on improving our national infrastructure, funding green energy, investing in our education system, shoring up Social Security and Medicare? Or, maybe even give some of it back to us to spend as WE see fit.

            By the way, this site is pretty effective, when you show it to Republican fiscal conservatives. Bush doesn't mind spending your money as long as he and his oligarchical oil friends make a killing.
            • .
              .
              offline 39

              Re: anyone like nader?

              Wed, August 20, 2008 - 3:56 PM
              Explain to me exactly how the money we're spending in Iraq is going into the pockets of the oil companies.
              Oil companies are making record profits for ONE reason alone:

              GLOBAL DEMAND has gone up - VOLUME=$$

              Big oil has a shoestring profit margin: www.csmonitor.com/2008/0807...-coop.html
              • .
                .
                offline 39

                Re: anyone like nader?

                Wed, August 20, 2008 - 3:57 PM
                dont get me wrong though - Bush's spending is out of hand - in his first 4 years he outspent Clinton on social programs like education by more than 50%. Good grief.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: anyone like nader?

        Sat, July 5, 2008 - 10:14 PM
        "Anybody think we would be in Iraq if Gore had gotten elected?"

        --who knows? It's total speculation at this point. I do think Gore is a total hypocrite, I don't like him on any level, even though I admire his efforts on global warming, and at the time, I was quite convinced he would have made an awful president.

        I also thought Bush would make an awful president, and I was right about that. That is why I voted for Nader in 2000. It was a protest vote. Presented with two awful candidates, I chose neither.

        To judge this with hindsight is not fair. Who knew 911 would happen, who knew that Bush would use it as a pretext to occupy an ungovernable piece of mideast real estate? This is the stuff of fantasy. Based on the facts known at the time, I had no reason to think Gore would not fuck up the economy and generally be a lousy president.

        And who knows what he would have done? Two lousy candidates. What else is there to say?
        • Re: anyone like nader?

          Sun, July 6, 2008 - 2:28 AM
          "To judge this with hindsight is not fair."

          Huh? Of course it is. It is history. Sometimes we can look at history, and decide not to make the same mistakes. Like helping elect the worst President this country has ever had by voting for Nader. And yes, I blame those of you who voted for Nader as well. Calling it a "protest vote" changes nothing. If only five thousand of those Nader "protest vote[s]" had gone for Gore instead, the world would historically look a lot different today. I'm pretty certain it wouldn't look any worse.

          I didn't vote for Obama in the primary. However, despite his flip flops on some issues, and his despicable pandering to the religious with his support of "faith based initiatives" I'm still going to vote for him. The lesser of two evils.
          • Re: anyone like nader?

            Sun, July 6, 2008 - 11:19 AM
            Too many on the left is pissed at him for his aiding Bush take the white House in 2000. Too few on the right care what he has to say make them generally vote for him in protest this time around.

            In other words, he is moot in 2008...
            • Re: anyone like nader?

              Sun, July 6, 2008 - 12:26 PM
              We have no way of knowing if Gore would have invaded Iraq. He did come out and say that Iraq was a threat, totally marching in step with the other hawkish dems like Hilary Clinton. His VP REALLY wanted to invade Iraq and also Iran. We cant rule out the likelihood that we would have attacked Iraq anyway and perhaps also Iran by now if Gore had become president.
              • Re: anyone like nader?

                Mon, July 7, 2008 - 3:43 AM
                And, yes, Iraq was a threat. Iraq was a threat throughout the Clinton administration. What of it? Bush was looking for an excuse to get the bastard that tried to kill his daddy. His team ginned up the facts to suit his ambitions (and theirs). He either lied, willfully ignored, or was simply too stupid to recognize the facts, and proceeded to drag his country into an unnecessary, if not illegal war that has cost us thousands of dead and horribly wounded, not to mention over half a trillion dollars of your money. Do you honestly think Gore comes close to meeting any of these criteria? If you do, fine. If not, and you persist with your "cant [sic] rule out the likelihood" line of reasoning, you are being disingenuous.

                The Soviet Union, and their allies were a threat for seventy years. The threat of force, on the part of the West, was a big factor in winning that long cold war against tyranny. I know that some on the left in the West are uncomfortable with this fact, but I am not. I now live in a country that I trained to blow the fuck out of. They are now a democratically elected republic, where the rule of law is supreme. You should check out some of the former Eastern European communist states that are now democratic republics. Come talk to the people, sure they complain and bitch, but then ask them about the good old days under Uncle Joe. Ask them if they want to go back. Be careful though how you word your question, as you don't want to get popped in the nose by some big ugly Polish guy who's had a few too many piwo. Everyone in the West, comfortably living in peace and freedom behind the military might of their countries and their allies, should come take a look around.

                As I said, I'm no pacifist. Force is only one of the myriad of pieces in the political tool box. Bush has demonstrated that he has a very limited capacity (or willingness) for employing the other tools at his disposal. Although his Father pursued policies with which I disagreed, I still fought a war with him as my CinC. I had confidence in his intelligence, his experience, and his capabilities, with respect to bringing me home alive from it. He did not disappoint, with regard to these.

                People elected W because he was folksy. The kind of guy you would like to sit and have a beer (or chop a line) with in front of the TV. They disliked Gore for the same reason that everybody hates the smartest kind in class. The problem is that beer swilling (or former beer swilling) anti-intellectual dumb-shits don't make good Presidents, as much as their "average" constituents wish they would. I want my President to be smarter than me.

                By the way, I'm reading a great book at the moment, "The Political Brain" by Drew Westen. If you want to know why most Americans agree with Democrats and vote for Republicans, and the frustrated rashly throw their votes away on political Naders, it is a great read. I'm hoping Obama's people (and all other Democratic campaign teams) are studying it closely.
                • Re: anyone like nader?

                  Mon, July 7, 2008 - 7:24 AM
                  Erik, the plans to overthrow the Iraqi government were drawn up during the Clinton administration with Gore as VP. I believe Gore would have invaded Iraq, and he certainly would have had pressure to do so from Lieberman. It wasnt just about Bush and his dad. Its about control of the worlds oil supply as the supply approaches its decline vs demand. Thats why we overthrow some tyrants (And democratically elected governments) and support violent dictators when it suits us.

                  The difference with Gore on Iraq is likely that he would have worked more closely with other governments, probably wouldnt have used a false justification like WMDs, he would have formed a stronger coalition and took his time working on a strategy that was less of a blunder.....I think he still would have invaded though...Either that or he would have attacked Iran by now.
                • .
                  .
                  offline 39

                  Re: anyone like nader?

                  Mon, July 7, 2008 - 1:42 PM
                  Erik - we've been over this 'ginned up' argument time and time again, and you know its bullshit.

                  Bush did not invent, lie, or willfully ignore anything - Hillary herself has flatly stated that the intelligence Bush presented on Iraq was no different than what had been seen in the Clinton white house.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: anyone like nader?

                    Mon, July 7, 2008 - 6:19 PM
                    "Bush did not invent, lie, or willfully ignore anything - Hillary herself has flatly stated that the intelligence Bush presented on Iraq was no different than what had been seen in the Clinton white house."

                    Bush did lie, invent, and willfully ignore the facts. The Clintons (Both of them) did also, though the most bluderous deceptions were carried out under Bush.
                    • .
                      .
                      offline 39

                      Re: anyone like nader?

                      Mon, July 7, 2008 - 11:15 PM
                      Well then, Sent, Bush, the Clintons, the French, the Germans, and pretty much everyone involved lied about it. We all just got together and tried to pull the wool over your eyes, but boy oh boy, you caught us!

                      quit blathering on about this. the global intelligence community was in agreement on Saddam's threat potential, and the US under Bush had a very middle of the road position. The French for instance, was sure his nuclear capability was developed, and the Russians were positive that he was planning terrorist attacks against the US.

                      You really havent a clue.
                      • Re: anyone like nader?

                        Tue, July 8, 2008 - 1:41 AM
                        It seems like most of the global community was skeptical of US claims of WMDs. The coalition of the willing was supposed to be a back up plan. I really dont think the global community bought it.

                        "We all just got together and tried to pull the wool over your eyes, but boy oh boy, you caught us! "

                        Thats basically what Bushs former aid told everybody, but we already knew that.
                        • Re: anyone like nader?

                          Tue, July 8, 2008 - 1:52 AM
                          ush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

                          Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.

                          By Sidney Blumenthal
                          Pages 1 2

                          * Buzz up!
                          * Share
                          o Email
                          o Digg
                          o Facebook
                          o Del.icio.us
                          o Reddit
                          o My Yahoo
                          * Print
                          * RSS
                          * Font: S / S+ / S++

                          Read more: Tony Blair, Politics, United Nations, Sidney Blumenthal, Saddam Hussein, CIA, Colin Powell, Opinion, Weapons of mass destruction, Iraq War

                          Photos: AP/Wide World

                          (Clockwise from top left) Naji Sabri, George W. Bush, Colin Powell and George Tenet.

                          Sept. 6, 2007 | On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

                          Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

                          On April 23, 2006, CBS's "60 Minutes" interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."

                          Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller's account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri's intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.

                          Instead, said the former officials, the information was distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs. That false and restructured report was passed to Richard Dearlove, chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on it as validation of the cause for war.

                          Secretary of State Powell, in preparation for his presentation of evidence of Saddam's WMD to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, spent days at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., and had Tenet sit directly behind him as a sign of credibility. But Tenet, according to the sources, never told Powell about existing intelligence that there were no WMD, and Powell's speech was later revealed to be a series of falsehoods.

                          Both the French intelligence service and the CIA paid Sabri hundreds of thousands of dollars (at least $200,000 in the case of the CIA) to give them documents on Saddam's WMD programs. "The information detailed that Saddam may have wished to have a program, that his engineers had told him they could build a nuclear weapon within two years if they had fissile material, which they didn't, and that they had no chemical or biological weapons," one of the former CIA officers told me.

                          On the eve of Sabri's appearance at the United Nations in September 2002 to present Saddam's case, the officer in charge of this operation met in New York with a "cutout" who had debriefed Sabri for the CIA. Then the officer flew to Washington, where he met with CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, who was "excited" about the report. Nonetheless, McLaughlin expressed his reservations. He said that Sabri's information was at odds with "our best source." That source was code-named "Curveball," later exposed as a fabricator, con man and former Iraqi taxi driver posing as a chemical engineer.

                          The next day, Sept. 18, Tenet briefed Bush on Sabri. "Tenet told me he briefed the president personally," said one of the former CIA officers. According to Tenet, Bush's response was to call the information "the same old thing." Bush insisted it was simply what Saddam wanted him to think. "The president had no interest in the intelligence," said the CIA officer. The other officer said, "Bush didn't give a fuck about the intelligence. He had his mind made up."

                          But the CIA officers working on the Sabri case kept collecting information. "We checked on everything he told us." French intelligence eavesdropped on his telephone conversations and shared them with the CIA. These taps "validated" Sabri's claims, according to one of the CIA officers. The officers brought this material to the attention of the newly formed Iraqi Operations Group within the CIA. But those in charge of the IOG were on a mission to prove that Saddam did have WMD and would not give credit to anything that came from the French. "They kept saying the French were trying to undermine the war," said one of the CIA officers.

                          The officers continued to insist on the significance of Sabri's information, but one of Tenet's deputies told them, "You haven't figured this out yet. This isn't about intelligence. It's about regime change."

                          The CIA officers on the case awaited the report they had submitted on Sabri to be circulated back to them, but they never received it. They learned later that a new report had been written. "It was written by someone in the agency, but unclear who or where, it was so tightly controlled. They knew what would please the White House. They knew what the king wanted," one of the officers told me.

                          That report contained a false preamble stating that Saddam was "aggressively and covertly developing" nuclear weapons and that he already possessed chemical and biological weapons. "Totally out of whack," said one of the CIA officers. "The first [para]graph of an intelligence report is the most important and most read and colors the rest of the report." He pointed out that the case officer who wrote the initial report had not written the preamble and the new memo. "That's not what the original memo said."

                          The report with the misleading introduction was given to Dearlove of MI6, who briefed the prime minister. "They were given a scaled-down version of the report," said one of the CIA officers. "It was a summary given for liaison, with the sourcing taken out. They showed the British the statement Saddam was pursuing an aggressive program, and rewrote the report to attempt to support that statement. It was insidious. Blair bought it." "Blair was duped," said the other CIA officer. "He was shown the altered report."

                          The information provided by Sabri was considered so sensitive that it was never shown to those who assembled the NIE on Iraqi WMD. Later revealed to be utterly wrong, the NIE read: "We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

                          www.salon.com/opinion/blu.../index1.html
                          • Re: anyone like nader?

                            Tue, July 8, 2008 - 1:59 AM
                            www.prwatch.org/books/wmd.html

                            It was a day for the history books. On April 9th, 2003, millions of Americans sat glued to their television sets as U.S. soldiers and Iraqi citizens joined together to topple the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad's Firdos Square. Like the fall of the Berlin wall, the fall of Saddam's statue appeared to be one of those iconic moments that proved - spontaneously and undeniably - that democracy would always triumph over totalitarianism, that freedom was the great equalizer. "If you don't have goose bumps now," said Fox News anchor David Asman as the extraordinary footage rolled, "you will never have them in your life."

                            "Jubilant Iraqis Swarm the Streets of Capital," read the New York Times headline.

                            Or did they?

                            In their eye-opening new exposé, Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq, Rampton and Stauber take no prisoners as they reveal - headline by headline, news show by news show, press conference by press conference - the deliberate, aggressive, and highly successful public relations campaign that sold the Iraqi war to the American public. April 9th seemed to confirm what Washington and pro-war pundits had been saying for months: that the Iraqi people would eventually come to see America as their liberator, not their enemy. Yet the American media chose to focus on headlines such as "Iraqis Celebrate in Baghdad" (Washington Post) rather than on a Reuters long-shot photo of Firdos Square showing it to be nearly empty, or the Muslim cleric who was assassinated by an angry crowd in Najaf for being too friendly to the Americans, or the 20,000 Iraqis in Nasiriyah rallying to oppose the U.S. military presence.

                            We've always known what good PR and advertising could do for a new line of sneakers, cosmetics, or weight-loss products. In Weapons of Mass Deception, Rampton and Stauber show us a brave new shocking world where savvy marketers, "information warriors," and "perception managers" can sell an entire war to consumers. Indeed, Washington successfully brought together the world's top ad agencies and media empires to create "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" - a product no decent, patriotic citizen could possibly object to. With meticulous research and documentation, Rampton and Stauber deconstruct this and other "true lies" behind the war:

                            * Top Bush officials advocated the invasion of Iraq even before he took office, but waited until September 2002 to inform the public, through what the White House termed a "product launch."
                            * White House officials used repetition and misinformation - the "big lie" tactic - to create the false impression that Iraq was behind the September 11th terrorist attacks on the United States, especially in the case of the alleged meeting in Prague five months earlier between 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence officials.
                            * The "big lie" tactic was also employed in the first Iraq war when a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl named Nayirah told the horrific - but fabricated - story of Iraqi soldiers wrenching hundreds of premature Kuwaiti babies from their incubators and leaving them to die. Her testimony was printed in a press kit prepared by Citizens for a Free Kuwait, a PR front group created by Hill and Knowlton, then the world's largest PR firm.
                            * In order to achieve "third party authenticity" in the Muslim world, a group called the Council of American Muslims for Understanding launched its own web site, called OpenDialogue.com. However, its chairman admitted that the idea began with the State Department, and that the group was funded by the U.S. government.
                            * Forged documents were used to "prove" that Iraq possessed huge stockpiles of banned weapons.
                            * A secretive PR firm working for the Pentagon helped create the Iraqi National Congress (INC), which became one of the driving forces behind the decision to go to war.

                            Weapons of Mass Deception is the first book to expose the aggressive public relations campaign used to sell the American public on the war with Iraq. It is a must-read for those who want to know how and why they bought this war.
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

                            ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

                            INTRODUCTION: Liberation Day

                            CHAPTER 1: Branding America

                            CHAPTER 2: War Is Sell

                            CHAPTER 3: True Lies

                            CHAPTER 4: Doublespeak

                            CHAPTER 5: The Uses of Fear

                            CHAPTER 6: The Air War

                            CHAPTER 7: As Others See Us

                            INDEX
                            • Re: anyone like nader?

                              Tue, July 8, 2008 - 2:06 AM
                              mindprod.com/politics/iraqlies.html

                              repugnicons should take a good close look at what their evil leaders have caused.

                              mindprod.com/politics/ir...#DUBABIESPIX

                              www.dailykos.com/story/200...193750/666

                              mindprod.com/politics/ir....html#DENIAL

                              mindprod.com/politics/iraqlies.html#LIES

                              Bush’s Five Big Lies That Led to the Iraq Quagmire
                              These are the five lies Bush told that Ralph Nader documented to impeach him.

                              * Weapons of Mass Destruction. The weapons have still not been found. Nader emphasized, “Until the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was our government’s anti-communist ally in the Middle East. We also used him to keep Iran at bay. In so doing, in the 1980s under Reagan and the first Bush, corporations were licensed by the Department of Commerce to export the materials for chemical and biological weapons that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney later accused him of having.” Those weapons were destroyed after the Gulf War. George W. Bush’s favorite chief weapons inspector, David Kay, after returning from Iraq and leading a large team of inspectors and spending nearly half a billion dollars told the president “We were wrong.” See: David Kay testimony before Senate Armed Services Committee, 2004-01-28.

                              Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA’s Europe division, revealed that in the fall of 2002, George W. Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and others were told by CIA Director George Tenet that Iraq’s foreign minister — who agreed to act as a spy for the United States — had reported that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction program.
                              * Iraq Ties to Al Qaeda. The White House made this claim even though the CIA and FBI repeatedly told the Administration that there was no tie between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. They were mortal enemies — one secular, the other fundamentalist.
                              * Saddam Hussein was a Threat to the United States. In fact, Saddam was a tottering dictator, with an antiquated, fractured army of low morale and with Kurdish enemies in Northern Iraq and Shiite adversaries in the South of Iraq. He did not even control the air space over most of Iraq.
                              * Saddam Hussein was a Threat to his Neighbors. In fact, Iraq was surrounded by countries with far superior military forces. Turkey, Iran and Israel were all capable of obliterating any aggressive move by the Iraqi dictator.
                              * The Liberation of the Iraqi People. There are brutal dictators throughout the world, many supported over the years by Washington, whose people need “liberation” from their leaders. This is not a persuasive argument since for Iraq, it’s about oil. In fact, the occupation of Iraq by the United States is a magnet for increasing violence, anarchy and insurrection.

                              Bush’s Untrue Statements About WMDs in Iraq

                              “What’s the difference?”
                              ~ George W. Bush, 2003-12-16 in an interview with Diane Sawyer, excusing his lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, by claiming that there was no difference between having weapons and wanting to have them.

                              Here are the Bush Administration’s statements about WMDs and Iraq that turned out to be untrue. In the next section, I will show they were not just errors, but bald lies.

                              “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”
                              ~ George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2002-10-07, on evidence for Iraq’s non-existent nukes.

                              “The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.”
                              ~ George W. Bush, 2003-03-17

                              “Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”
                              ~ George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2002-10-07. These tubes turned out to be nothing more threatening than the tubing used to construct playground equipment.

                              “We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States.”
                              ~ George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2002-10-07, on Iraq’s non-existent drones capable of launching an attack on the USA.

                              “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.”
                              ~ George W. Bush, 2005-05-23, Interview of the President by TVP, Poland. If he found them, what happened to them?

                              “Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”
                              ~ George W. Bush, Speech to UN General Assembly, 2002-09-12

                              “Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”
                              ~ George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 2003-01-28

                              “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
                              ~ George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 2003-01-28. The documents supporting this turned were crudely forged.

                              “The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters (6,604.3 US gallons) of anthrax — enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn’t accounted for that material. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed it.”
                              ~ George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 2003-01-28 This was a bit of dissembling, using out-of-date information to imply Saddam was still armed even though inspectors found no traces. What would constitute evidence something was destroyed other than by allowing inspectors to see for themselves it no longer exists, which Saddam did.

                              “The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters (10,039 US gallons) of botulinum toxin — enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn’t accounted for that material. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed it.”
                              ~ George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 2003-01-28 This was a bit of dissembling, using out-of-date information to imply Saddam was still armed even though inspectors found no traces.

                              “We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.”
                              ~ George W. Bush, Radio address, 2003-02-08

                              “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
                              ~ George W. Bush, Address to the nation, 2003-03-17

                              “While we were here in this Council chamber debating Resolution 1441 last fall, we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was dispersing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agent to various locations, distributing them to various locations in western Iraq. Most of the launchers and warheads had been hidden in large groves of palm trees and were to be moved every one to four weeks to escape detection.”
                              ~ Colin Powell, 2003-02-05

                              “We know he has been absolutely trying to acquire nuclear weapons and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons,”
                              ~ Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, 2003-03-16

                              “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”
                              ~ Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW convention, 2002-08-26

                              “For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.”
                              ~ Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair Interview, 2003-05-28

                              “Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly… all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.”
                              ~ Ari Fleisher, Press Briefing, 2003-03-21

                              “But make no mistake — as I said earlier — we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.”
                              ~ Ari Fleisher, Press Briefing, 2003-04-10

                              “If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.”
                              ~ Ari Fleisher, Press Briefing, 2002-12-02

                              “Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly… all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.”
                              ~ Ari Fleisher, Press Briefing, 2003-03-22

                              “There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And … as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.”
                              ~ Tommy Franks, General, Press Conference, 2003-03-22

                              “I have no doubt we’re going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.”
                              ~ Ken Adelman, Defense Policy Board member, Washington Post, 2003-03-23

                              “One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.”
                              ~ Patricia Clark, Pentagon Spokeswoman, Press Briefing, 2003-03-22

                              “We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
                              ~ Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, Washington Post, op-ed, 2003-04-09

                              “The war could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
                              ~ Donald Rumsfeld, 2003-02-07, apparently not.

                              How You Know Bush Lied About WMDs in Iraq

                              “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”
                              ~ Mark Twain

                              Many people are willing to let Bush off the hook for not finding any WMDs. They say the poor man was mislead by faulty intelligence.

                              I say that is not true. He knowingly lied. Here are 23 reasons why I think this.

                              1. SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY Top secret document leaked in Britain is the smoking gun. 2002-07-23. It describes an elaborate plan by George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to hoodwink the planet into supporting an attack on Iraq knowing full well the evidence for war was a phony. Greg Palast explains its significance.
                              2. Bush used a forged document to back up his claims, — the Niger Uranium document. He knew the document was forged since he sent retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson in 2002-02 to Niger to check. A document to sell yellowcake would require the signature of the prime minister, the forgoing minister and the minister of mines. Nobody had signed such a document and further all the yellowcake had been presold to the Japanese and Europeans. There was no way that huge quantity of 500 tons could have been shunted. Wilson wrote about this in an op-ed in the New York Times 2003-07-06. Someone in the Bush camp (presumably Karl Rove) retaliated by outing Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA agent, thus endangering her life and the lives of operatives who worked with her. Jeff Gannon and Bob Novak published the outing and refused to name the source.
                              3. There were no WMDs. Even FOX news announced the formal end to the search. The final CIA Duelfer report said there never were any, and none were moved to Syria (another Bush lie). It was not just that Bush said he had evidence of WMDs, he claimed solid proof. If he had solid proof, where are they? There were no drones, no nuclear centrifuges, no gas, no biologicals, no nukes, no plutonium, no uranium, absolutely nothing! In his 2003-01-28 State Of the Union Speech, Bush talked specifically of “38,000 liters (10,039 US gallons) of botulinum toxin — enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure” and “500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”. He also claimed he knew where this stuff was.
                              4. Bush hired John Bolton to massage the data, and see to it that nobody else saw the raw intelligence. See Chain Of Command.
                              5. Bush ignored the advice of the CIA. See Chain Of Command.
                              6. Senator Sam Levin released formerly classified documents that undercut top Bush pre-Iraq war claims of a link between Saddam Hussein’s regime and the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

                              “These documents are additional compelling evidence that the intelligence community did not believe there was a cooperative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda, despite public comments by the highest ranking officials in our government to the contrary.”
                              ~ Carl Levin, Senator, 2005-04-16

                              7. The Atomic Energy Commission said Saddam had no nuclear program. The could tell because sensitive instruments checking rivers and ground water would detect one if there were. See Chain Of Command.
                              8. Weapons inspectors including American inspectors, declared Iraq had no weapons.
                              9. His traditional allies did not believe his solid proof. That includes Canada, Mexico, France, Germany and Russia. If none of these military allies bought it, how could it have been so solid? Surely you don’t take chances with someone about to nuke you with drones, yet still America’s allies insisted Bush’s was bluffing. France denounced Bush’s claim as completely fraudulent in the UN. Others were more diplomatic.
                              10. The UN had repeatedly searched Iraq and found nothing. There were American members on that U.N. team whom Bush could have told where to look if he actually knew anything. They still found nothing.
                              11. Bush used the vague term WMD instead of being specific about just what is was he suspected Saddam of having. If he truly knew he could have said, “Saddam has X kilograms of sarin poison gas” or “enough plutonium for three Hiroshima sized nuclear bombs.” But he didn’t, thus covering his ass so that if he found even one rusty canister of the poison gas Rumsfeld sold Saddam on credit for the Iran war, it would count as a WMD.
                              12. Listen to his Cincinnati speech on 2002-10-07 about the Iraq threat, where he talks about the “mushroom cloud” and “30,000 liters (7,925.2 US gallons) of anthrax”, the “nuclear mujahideen”, “750 attacks on American and British planes” — all pretty scary stuff on first reading or first hearing. But if you read carefully you realise he is dissembling, making things sound far more dangerous than they really are. For example, in the 750 “attacks” there was not one plane hit much less shot down. He is trying to snow you to make you think there is a threat where none exists, while still covering his ass for when he is later confronted with his deception. If he had a case, why did he need to deceive?
                              13. George Tenet, the ex CIA director, said that Bush demanded he find some evidence linking Al-Qaeda and Saddam, even when Tenet assured him no such link existed. That is tantamount to demanding the CIA forge some evidence.

                              “From the very first instance it was about Iraq. I was all about finding away to do it. That was the tone of it: the President saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.’”
                              ~ Paul O’Neill, treasury secretary, The Price Of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O’Neill by Ron Suskind.

                              14. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had already decided to invade Iraq long before they claimed to have evidence of the WMDs.

                              “I expected to go back to a round of meetings [on 2001-09-12], examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were, what we could do about them in the short term. Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting al Qaeda. Then I realised with an almost sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were trying to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq. Since the beginning of the administration, indeed well before, they had been pressing for a war with Iraq. My friends in the Pentagon had been telling me that the word was we would be invading Iraq sometimes in 2002.”
                              ~ Richard A. Clarke, White House Counter Terrorism Chief, Against All Enemies

                              15. CIA analysts who didn’t agree that Iraq posed a threat were removed or reprimanded.
                              16. Bush said, “We’ve wanted so many wars, and we didn’t get them. And we’ve wanted this one for years.”
                              17. Bush kept changing his supposed justification for the war.
                              18. One of the neocons confessed that they kicked around various justifications for the war and picked the one they thought would “sell” best.

                              “For reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on one issue everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction…”
                              ~ Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair, 2003-06

                              19. The neocons posted on the PNAC website long ago their plan for the Iraq war to control its oil and for a “New Pearl Harbor” to justify war, making reference to FDR deliberately failing to pass on intelligence about the coming Pearl Harbour attack to convince Americans to join the war, shades of 9/11.

                              “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.”
                              ~ PNAC Rebuilding American Defenses

                              20. The neocons confessed on their own website that deposing Saddam had nothing to with the Iraq war.

                              “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
                              ~ PNAC (Project for the New American Century) the neocon website 2000-09, Rebuilding American Defenses

                              21. The war is still going on, even though no WMDs were found and Saddam is captured. The first thing Bush did on invading Iraq was secure the oil fields. That was obviously what he was worried about, not the WMDs.
                              22.

                              “But long before the war started, there was plenty of doubt among intelligence analysts about Saddam’s weapons.”
                              ~ Colin Powell on 60 Minutes 2004-02-04

                              23. Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6 (the British CIA), told Prime Minister Tony Blair that the case for war against Iraq was being “fixed” by the Americans to suit the policy. Read the transcript of the BBC documentary.

                              Bush’s lie was the greatest crime of the last 100 years.

                              * It cried wolf about nuclear war.
                              * It framed an innocent country.
                              * It conned the taxpayers of $300+ billion and funneled it to the likes of Halliburton…
                              * It attempted to steal the second largest oil reserves on the planet worth trillions.
                              * It sent over 1100 young Americans to their deaths, thinking they were saving America from a nuclear attack, when in reality they were participating in a robbery.
                              * It sent thousands of Iraqi children to hideously painful deaths.

                              “All this was inspired by the principle — which is quite true in itself — that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”
                              ~ Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
                      • Re: anyone like nader?

                        Tue, July 8, 2008 - 2:15 AM
                        "You really havent a clue."

                        No, you really haven't a clue. Or ethics. Or knowledge. Or a moral center. Or anything resembling a conscience.

                        mytalktoday.com/forum/repu...-vt578.html

                        Republican Anti-Intellectualism
                        In the immediate aftermath of the election, I noted that the current state of electoral affairs privileges "style" over substance. The reticence of Americans to truly engage the issues and think critically about world affairs makes appeals to the basest of instincts--prejudice, bigotry, fear--an extremely effective electoral strategy, one at least partially responsible for recent GOP victories. Now, a paper by George Mason Government and Politics Professor Colleen J. Shogan gives some background and further analysis on this phenomona. She argues that Republican anti-intellectualism allows them to appeal to the "common man" and thus gain votes.

                        I got the link from Oxblog, whose David Adnesik gave a strong critique of the paper. I don't think it defeats the overall point, but I don't think that was the objective of the criticism.

                        Adnesik essentially argues that Shogan's article is biased because it presents academia and intellectuals as flawless. Isn't it possible that Republicans dislike the academy because of the certain (liberal) biases contained within it?

                        This is true, to an extent, and I think it represents a key weakness in Shogan's argument. I do not, however, think it is ultimately overriding. Even if Republicans have good reasons to ignore academics, this section struck me as almost definitely true:

                        "First, presidential power in the plebiscitary era relies upon the strategy of “going public.” Television is a medium that encourages images of activity and exalted rhetoric. The political era of the sound-byte frustrates an extended intellectual discussion of complex policy issues. Americans now identify directly with the presidency through fleeting visual images, and this connection is more easily forged when the presidency is depicted as “personal” rather than disconnected, antiseptic, and intellectual.

                        Furthermore, the plebiscitary presidency is dependent upon the creation of “spectacles” that encourage awestruck citizens to become passive spectators rather than active participants in politics.15 Spectacles lend themselves to the portrayal of presidents as energetic, dynamic, hyper-masculine individuals who defeat evil in the name of American democracy, exemplified most recently by George W. Bush’s landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln. The intellectual process of deliberation cannot constitute a spectacle. As images replace political debate, the plebiscitary presidency becomes more anti-intellectual
                        ...
                        The glaring dilemma is that domestic and foreign policy have become progressively complex. An inverse relationship has developed between the demands of presidential leadership and its current institutional incentives and capacities. In this sense, anti-intellectualism is an indicator of the larger structural tensions that inhibit presidential leadership. The political benefit of anti-intellectualism is the pseudo-egalitarian connection it forges between presidents and the public. The danger is that the political importance of this connection has supplanted the more intricate demands of executive governance and democratic leadership."


                        I think this claim is true, as is Adnesik's. Republicans can reject the academy for perfectly solid, principled reasons. However, at the moment it is also in their political interests, because a) their base is motivated by issues that recieve the LEAST argumentative (as opposed to rhetorical) discussion in America (abortion, gay marriage, etc) and b) it allows them to maintain their advantage on national security even as they oppose the very programs (Homeland Security, Nuclear Plant Security, Nunn/Lugar, etc) that protect us. Furthermore, the rational reasons for rejecting intellectualism doesn't mitigate the negative impacts of anti-intellectualism: The impoverishment of political discourse and government via soundbites. Ultimately, the rejection of analysis and debate in favor of rhetoric and assertion will cause the death of American political institutions.

                        • .
                          .
                          offline 39

                          Re: anyone like nader?

                          Tue, July 8, 2008 - 9:06 AM
                          such utter and complete bullshit.

                          we've been over this time and time again, and all you folks can find on this are slanted sources with agendas, and non-evidence to support your claim.

                          SO WHAT if a couple CIA officers wrote a dissenting report, big fucking deal. EVERY CIA threat assessment includes dissenting conclusions.

                          Even Bush's staunchest critics refuse to make the claim you are making, and state otherwise:


                          "an acrimonious and highly partisan debate broke out over whether the Bush administration manipulated and misused intelligence in making its case for war. The administration defended itself by pointing out that it was not alone in its view that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and active weapons programs, however mistaken that view may have been.

                          In this regard, the Bush administration was quite right: its perception of Saddam's weapons capacities was shared by the Clinton administration, congressional Democrats, and most other Western governments and intelligence services." - Paul Pillar

                          "The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent" - Hillary Clinton

                          Here, wilkerson SKEWERS the president, www.newamerica.net/events/2...g_process

                          but did Bush lie?

                          "I can’t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the U.N. on 5 February 2003 was the truth"

                          The Senate Intelligence Com and the Butler report clearly show Bush didnt lie, yet YOU know the truth.

                          Speaking of which - you clearly distorted the truth about Niger. The AMERICAN intelligence included forged documents, the BRITISH intelligence STILL STANDS, there is little doubt that Iraq went to Niger seeking fissile material.

                          and here's a whole shitload of support:

                          Who Is Lying About Iraq?
                          By Norman Podhoretz
                          CommentaryMagazine.com | Friday, November 11, 2005

                          [This article will appear in the December issue of Commentary but has been released in advance at the magazine's website, www.commentarymagazine.com]

                          Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.

                          What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.

                          Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.

                          The main “lie” that George W. Bush is accused of telling us is that Saddam Hussein possessed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or WMD as they have invariably come to be called. From this followed the subsidiary “lie” that Iraq under Saddam’s regime posed a two-edged mortal threat. On the one hand, we were informed, there was a distinct (or even “imminent”) possibility that Saddam himself would use these weapons against us and/or our allies; and on the other hand, there was the still more dangerous possibility that he would supply them to terrorists like those who had already attacked us on 9/11 and to whom he was linked.

                          This entire scenario of purported deceit has been given a new lease on life by the indictment in late October of I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, then chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby stands accused of making false statements to the FBI and of committing perjury in testifying before a grand jury that had been convened to find out who in the Bush administration had “outed” Valerie Plame, a CIA agent married to the retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, IV. The supposed purpose of leaking this classified information to the press was to retaliate against Wilson for having “debunked” (in his words) “the lies that led to war.”

                          Now, as it happens, Libby was not charged with having outed Plame but only with having lied about when and from whom he first learned that she worked for the CIA. Moreover, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor who brought the indictment against him, made a point of emphasizing that

                          [t]his indictment is not about the war. This indictment is not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.

                          This is simply an indictment that says, in a national-security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer’s identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person—a person, Mr. Libby—lied or not.

                          No matter. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, spoke for a host of other opponents of the war in insisting that

                          [t]his case is bigger than the leak of classified information. It is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the President.

                          Yet even stipulating—which I do only for the sake of argument—that no weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq in the period leading up to the invasion, it defies all reason to think that Bush was lying when he asserted that they did. To lie means to say something one knows to be false. But it is as close to certainty as we can get that Bush believed in the truth of what he was saying about WMD in Iraq.

                          How indeed could it have been otherwise? George Tenet, his own CIA director, assured him that the case was “a slam dunk.” This phrase would later become notorious, but in using it, Tenet had the backing of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. In the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with “high confidence” was that

                          Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

                          The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and—yes—France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix—who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid of the weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the past—lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:

                          The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

                          Blix now claims that he was only being “cautious” here, but if, as he now also adds, the Bush administration “misled itself” in interpreting the evidence before it, he at the very least lent it a helping hand.

                          So, once again, did the British, the French, and the Germans, all of whom signed on in advance to Secretary of State Colin Powell’s reading of the satellite photos he presented to the UN in the period leading up to the invasion. Powell himself and his chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, now feel that this speech was the low point of his tenure as Secretary of State. But Wilkerson (in the process of a vicious attack on the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of Defense for getting us into Iraq) is forced to acknowledge that the Bush administration did not lack for company in interpreting the available evidence as it did:

                          I can’t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits, and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the UN on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can’t. I’ve wrestled with it. [But] when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASP—Ammunition Supply Point—with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they’re there, you have to conclude that it’s a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet’s deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powell’s UN speech] was accurate.

                          Going on to shoot down a widespread impression, Wilkerson informs us that even the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) was convinced:

                          People say, well, INR dissented. That’s a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That’s all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios.

                          In explaining its dissent on Iraq’s nuclear program, the INR had, as stated in the NIE of 2002, expressed doubt about

                          Iraq’s efforts to acquire aluminum tubes [which are] central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear-weapons program. . . . INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors . . . in Iraq’s nuclear-weapons program.

                          But, according to Wilkerson,

                          The French came in in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and said, we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by God, we did it to this RPM, et cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive that the aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery casings, they were for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such exquisite instruments?

                          In short, and whether or not it included the secret heart of Hans Blix, “the consensus of the intelligence community,” as Wilkerson puts it, “was overwhelming” in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that he was also in all probability well on the way to rebuilding the nuclear capability that the Israelis had damaged by bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981.

                          Additional confirmation of this latter point comes from Kenneth Pollack, who served in the National Security Council under Clinton. “In the late spring of 2002,” Pollack has written,

                          I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).

                          No wonder, then, that another conclusion the NIE of 2002 reached with “high confidence” was that

                          Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.1

                          But the consensus on which Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:

                          If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

                          Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:

                          Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

                          Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:

                          He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

                          Finally, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.

                          Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President

                          to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.

                          Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:

                          Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

                          This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared:

                          There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.

                          Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:

                          Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

                          Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:

                          In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.

                          Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:

                          There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

                          Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:

                          We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

                          And here is Gore again, in that same year:

                          Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

                          Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:

                          I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force—if necessary—to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.

                          Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:

                          Kennedy: We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.

                          Byrd: The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.2

                          Liberal politicians like these were seconded by the mainstream media, in whose columns a very different tune would later be sung. For example, throughout the last two years of the Clinton administration, editorials in the New York Times repeatedly insisted that

                          without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year [and] future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again.

                          The Times was also skeptical of negotiations, pointing out that it was

                          hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as his country’s salvation.

                          So, too, the Washington Post, which greeted the inauguration of George W. Bush in January 2001 with the admonition that

                          [o]f all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous—or more urgent—than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade’s efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf [where] intelligence photos . . . show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.3

                          All this should surely suffice to prove far beyond any even unreasonable doubt that Bush was telling what he believed to be the truth about Saddam’s stockpile of WMD. It also disposes of the fallback charge that Bush lied by exaggerating or hyping the intelligence presented to him. Why on earth would he have done so when the intelligence itself was so compelling that it convinced everyone who had direct access to it, and when hardly anyone in the world believed that Saddam had, as he claimed, complied with the sixteen resolutions of the Security Council demanding that he get rid of his weapons of mass destruction?

                          Another fallback charge is that Bush, operating mainly through Cheney, somehow forced the CIA into telling him what he wanted to hear. Yet in its report of 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, while criticizing the CIA for relying on what in hindsight looked like weak or faulty intelligence, stated that it

                          did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities.

                          The March 2005 report of the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission, which investigated intelligence failures on Iraq, reached the same conclusion, finding

                          no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. . . . [A]nalysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments.

                          Still, even many who believed that Saddam did possess WMD, and was ruthless enough to use them, accused Bush of telling a different sort of lie by characterizing the risk as “imminent.” But this, too, is false: Bush consistently rejected imminence as a justification for war.4 Thus, in the State of the Union address he delivered only three months after 9/11, Bush declared that he would “not wait on events while dangers gather” and that he would “not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer.” Then, in a speech at West Point six months later, he reiterated the same point: “If we wait for threats to materialize, we will have waited too long.” And as if that were not clear enough, he went out of his way in his State of the Union address in 2003 (that is, three months before the invasion), to bring up the word “imminent” itself precisely in order to repudiate it:

                          Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

                          What of the related charge that it was still another “lie” to suggest, as Bush and his people did, that a connection could be traced between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11? This charge was also rejected by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Contrary to how its findings were summarized in the mainstream media, the committee’s report explicitly concluded that al Qaeda did in fact have a cooperative, if informal, relationship with Iraqi agents working under Saddam. The report of the bipartisan 9/11 commission came to the same conclusion, as did a comparably independent British investigation conducted by Lord Butler, which pointed to “meetings . . . between senior Iraqi representatives and senior al-Qaeda operatives.”5

                          Which brings us to Joseph C. Wilson, IV and what to my mind wins the palm for the most disgraceful instance of all.

                          The story begins with the notorious sixteen words inserted—after, be it noted, much vetting by the CIA and the State Department—into Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address:

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

                          This is the “lie” Wilson bragged of having “debunked” after being sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to check out the intelligence it had received to that effect. Wilson would later angrily deny that his wife had recommended him for this mission, and would do his best to spread the impression that choosing him had been the Vice President’s idea. But Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, through whom Wilson first planted this impression, was eventually forced to admit that “Cheney apparently didn’t know that Wilson had been dispatched.” (By the time Kristof grudgingly issued this retraction, Wilson himself, in characteristically shameless fashion, was denying that he had ever “said the Vice President sent me or ordered me sent.”) And as for his wife’s supposed non-role in his mission, here is what Valerie Plame Wilson wrote in a memo to her boss at the CIA:

                          My husband has good relations with the PM [the prime minister of Niger] and the former minister of mines . . . , both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.

                          More than a year after his return, with the help of Kristof, and also Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, and then through an op-ed piece in the Times under his own name, Wilson succeeded, probably beyond his wildest dreams, in setting off a political firestorm.

                          In response, the White House, no doubt hoping to prevent his allegation about the sixteen words from becoming a proxy for the charge that (in Wilson’s latest iteration of it) “lies and disinformation [were] used to justify the invasion of Iraq,” eventually acknowledged that the President’s statement “did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address.” As might have been expected, however, this panicky response served to make things worse rather than better. And yet it was totally unnecessary—for the maddeningly simple reason that every single one of the sixteen words at issue was true.

                          That is, British intelligence had assured the CIA that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy enriched uranium from the African country of Niger. Furthermore—and notwithstanding the endlessly repeated assertion that this assurance has now been discredited—Britain’s independent Butler commission concluded that it was “well-founded.” The relevant passage is worth quoting at length:

                          a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

                          b. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

                          c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this.

                          As if that were not enough to settle the matter, Wilson himself, far from challenging the British report when he was “debriefed” on his return from Niger (although challenging it is what he now never stops doing6), actually strengthened the CIA’s belief in its accuracy. From the Senate Intelligence Committee report:

                          He [the CIA reports officer] said he judged that the most important fact in the report [by Wilson] was that Niger officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Niger prime minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium.

                          And again:

                          The report on [Wilson’s] trip to Niger . . . did not change any analysts’ assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original CIA reports on the uranium deal.

                          This passage goes on to note that the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research—which (as we have already seen) did not believe that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear weapons—found support in Wilson’s report for its “assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.” But if so, this, as the Butler report quoted above points out, would not mean that Iraq had not tried to buy it—which was the only claim made by British intelligence and then by Bush in the famous sixteen words.

                          The liar here, then, was not Bush but Wilson. And Wilson also lied when he told the Washington Post that he had unmasked as forgeries certain documents given to American intelligence (by whom it is not yet clear) that supposedly contained additional evidence of Saddam’s efforts to buy uranium from Niger. The documents did indeed turn out to be forgeries; but, according to the Butler report,

                          [t]he forged documents were not available to the British government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine [that assessment].7

                          More damning yet to Wilson, the Senate Intelligence Committee discovered that he had never laid eyes on the documents in question:

                          [Wilson] also told committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article . . . which said, “among the envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.’” Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports.

                          To top all this off, just as Cheney had nothing to do with the choice of Wilson for the mission to Niger, neither was it true that, as Wilson “confirmed” for a credulous New Republic reporter, “the CIA circulated [his] report to the Vice President’s office,” thereby supposedly proving that Cheney and his staff “knew the Niger story was a flatout lie.” Yet—the mind reels—if Cheney had actually been briefed on Wilson’s oral report to the CIA (which he was not), he would, like the CIA itself, have been more inclined to believe that Saddam had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger.

                          So much for the author of the best-selling and much acclaimed book whose title alone—The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife’s CIA Identity—has set a new record for chutzpah.

                          But there is worse. In his press conference on the indictment against Libby, Patrick Fitzgerald insisted that lying to federal investigators is a serious crime both because it is itself against the law and because, by sending them on endless wild-goose chases, it constitutes the even more serious crime of obstruction of justice. By those standards, Wilson—who has repeatedly made false statements about every aspect of his mission to Niger, including whose idea it was to send him and what he told the CIA upon his return; who was then shown up by the Senate Intelligence Committee as having lied about the forged documents; and whose mendacity has sent the whole country into a wild-goose chase after allegations that, the more they are refuted, the more they keep being repeated—is himself an excellent candidate for criminal prosecution.

                          And so long as we are hunting for liars in this area, let me suggest that we begin with the Democrats now proclaiming that they were duped, and that we then broaden out to all those who in their desperation to delegitimize the larger policy being tested in Iraq—the policy of making the Middle East safe for America by making it safe for democracy—have consistently used distortion, misrepresentation, and selective perception to vilify as immoral a bold and noble enterprise and to brand as an ignominious defeat what is proving itself more and more every day to be a victory of American arms and a vindication of American ideals.

                          —November 7, 2005


                          NORMAN PODHORETZ is the editor-at-large of COMMENTARY and the author of ten books. The most recent, The Norman Podhoretz Reader, edited by Thomas L. Jeffers, appeared in 2004. His essays on the Bush Doctrine and Iraq, including “World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win” (September 2004) and “The War Against World War IV” (February 2005), can be found by clicking here.

                          ENDNOTES:

                          1 Hard as it is to believe, let alone to reconcile with his general position, Joseph C. Wilson, IV, in a speech he delivered three months after the invasion at the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, offhandedly made the following remark: “I remain of the view that we will find biological and chemical weapons and we may well find something that indicates that Saddam’s regime maintained an interest in nuclear weapons.”

                          2 Fuller versions of these and similar statements can be found at www.theconversationcafe.com/foru...land. Another source is www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/...mds.php.

                          3 These and numerous other such quotations were assembled by Robert Kagan in a piece published in the Washington Post on October 25, 2005.

                          4 Whereas both John Edwards, later to become John Kerry’s running mate in 2004, and Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, actually did use the word in describing the threat posed by Saddam.

                          5 In early November, the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, who last year gave their unanimous assent to its report, were suddenly mounting a last-ditch effort to take it back on this issue (and others). But to judge from the material they had already begun leaking by November 7, when this article was going to press, the newest “Bush lied” case is as empty and dishonest as the one they themselves previously rejected.

                          6 Here is how he put it in a piece in the Los Angeles Times written in late October of this year to celebrate the indictment of Libby: “I knew that the statement in Bush’s speech . . . was not true. I knew it was false from my own investigative trip to Africa. . . . And I knew that the White House knew it.”

                          7 More extensive citations of the relevant passages from the Butler report can be found in postings by Daniel McKivergan at www.worldwidestandard.com. I have also drawn throughout on materials cited by the invaluable Stephen F. Hayes in the Weekly Standard.
                          • Re: anyone like nader?

                            Tue, July 8, 2008 - 10:11 AM
                            Ive probably poured over 50 hours worth of similar material and documentation, so I already know that the evidence was fabricated.....however, Im not going to read all this over again just so I can participate in something as unimportant as an online argument.
                            • .
                              .
                              offline 39

                              Re: anyone like nader?

                              Tue, July 8, 2008 - 11:21 AM
                              50 hours?

                              hahahahah - I've been studying Iraq militarily and academically since 1996. I see your 50 hours and raise you 12 years.

                              It was not fabricated, and any claims to the contrary are built on ignorance.
                              • Re: anyone like nader?

                                Tue, July 8, 2008 - 2:47 PM
                                I estimated 50 hours specifically on documentation dealing with the misrepresentation of facts on Iraqs WMDs right before the invasion of Iraq, not my total historical education of the region.
                                • .
                                  .
                                  offline 39

                                  Re: anyone like nader?

                                  Tue, July 8, 2008 - 8:53 PM
                                  Well, clearly you havent read the Senate Intelcom report, the Butler report, or any of the numerous anti-Bush pieces written by people like Pillar and Wilkerson who clearly state that there was a consensus in the west on the matter.

                                  But gosh, what would I know about it?
                                  • Re: anyone like nader?

                                    Tue, July 8, 2008 - 10:30 PM
                                    There was no consensus over Iraq having WMDs. There were people who bought that garbage and people who didnt. I bet you were probably one of the people who was duped.
                                    • Re: anyone like nader?

                                      Tue, July 8, 2008 - 11:03 PM
                                      obviously, hes a dupe.
                                      -------------
                                      such utter and complete bullshit.
                                      ---------
                                      says a dupe.
                                      --------

                                      we've been over this time and time again, and all you folks can find on this are slanted sources with agendas, and non-evidence to support your claim.
                                      ---------
                                      obviously, you can't be bothered to check sources or look at youtube. The evidence is absolute and incontrovertible. Even bushes own admin said they did not have wmd until after 911 and until after a 6 month long orwellian buildup to talk the American people into going to war. Anybody paying real attention knew that hey were lying, and at this late there are dozens of proofs of it.
                                      ------------



                                      SO WHAT if a couple CIA officers wrote a dissenting report, big fucking deal. EVERY CIA threat assessment includes dissenting conclusions.
                                      --------
                                      No, it wasn't a "dissenting report." It was the ONLY report. The only report that the CIA formally EVER put out said there was no WMD.
                                      The bush admin changed the report, and declassified specific pieces of it. What you are talking about is internal dissent. There wasn't any in the CIA. Everybody at the CIA knew there was no WMD in Iraq.
                                      ---------

                                      Even Bush's staunchest critics refuse to make the claim you are making, and state otherwise:
                                      --------
                                      Bushes staunchest critics where? in republican hat boxes?
                                      Listen to your own orwellian doublethink. I AM bushes staunchest critic.
                                      ---------


                                      "an acrimonious and highly partisan debate broke out over whether the Bush administration manipulated and misused intelligence in making its case for war. The administration defended itself by pointing out that it was not alone in its view that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and active weapons programs, however mistaken that view may have been.

                                      In this regard, the Bush administration was quite right: its perception of Saddam's weapons capacities was shared by the Clinton administration, congressional Democrats, and most other Western governments and intelligence services." - Paul Pillar
                                      -----------
                                      Interesting, but wrong. Anybody with brains and the ability to run google knew iraq had no wmds.
                                      The CIA knew it, and the only people ever fooled were those that though the bush admins BS should be taken on face value.
                                      ---------

                                      "The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent" - Hillary Clinton
                                      ---------
                                      Again, BS. Again, all it took to know there were no WMD was a realistic asessement of Iraqs activities and investments.
                                      They were too busy having a beneficient dictatorship, rebuilding, and etc to have WMDs.
                                      The writing was on the wall. The only people ever fooled were those who believed bush admin propaganda.
                                      Just because that includes Hillary does not make any difference. And excuse me? If Hillary (as first lady)had access to classified Iraq intel...
                                      THAT WOULD BE A BREACH OF NATIONAL SECURITY.
                                      ----------

                                      Here, wilkerson SKEWERS the president, www.newamerica.net/events/2...g_process

                                      but did Bush lie?

                                      "I can’t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the U.N. on 5 February 2003 was the truth"

                                      The Senate Intelligence Com and the Butler report clearly show Bush didnt lie, yet YOU know the truth.

                                      Speaking of which - you clearly distorted the truth about Niger. The AMERICAN intelligence included forged documents, the BRITISH intelligence STILL STANDS, there is little doubt that Iraq went to Niger seeking fissile material.
                                      ------------
                                      Even if true, they didn't get any. Even if true, your blurring the line between the formal Iraqi government and elements within that government.
                                      ----------

                                      and here's a whole shitload of support:

                                      Who Is Lying About Iraq?
                                      By Norman Podhoretz
                                      CommentaryMagazine.com | Friday, November 11, 2005

                                      [This article will appear in the December issue of Commentary but has been released in advance at the magazine's website, www.commentarymagazine.com]

                                      Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.

                                      What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike.
                                      ---------
                                      Finding BS propaganda is great. Just saying that the arguments been refuted does not make it so. In fact, the arguments stand very well,
                                      and in fact, the youtube videos clearly demonstrate the scam as it changed over time and how all they did was work a propaganda angle.
                                      Theres absolute incontrovertible truth; you just refuse to look at it.
                                      ---------

                                      In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.
                                      ---------
                                      More lies and propaganda bs. The FACTS are that bush and the bush admin lied, and there are dozens of proofs of this.
                                      Just waving a magic wand and saying that it just isn't so doesn't do it.
                                      • Re: anyone like nader?

                                        Tue, July 8, 2008 - 11:09 PM
                                        • .
                                          .
                                          offline 39

                                          Re: anyone like nader?

                                          Tue, July 8, 2008 - 11:15 PM
                                          I guess Paul Pillar is clueless too.

                                          Its amazing - all you guys who have never served as part of ANY intelligence community know what was going on.

                                          outstanding. good to know we're so easily replaceable.
                                          • Re: anyone like nader?

                                            Tue, July 8, 2008 - 11:20 PM
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.
                                            you didn't have time to look at the evidence.
                                            you are just repeating stupid ignorant BS like a programmed zombot.


                                            • Re: anyone like nader?

                                              Tue, July 8, 2008 - 11:22 PM
                                              notice, everybody, i post a long list of facts and links at what time? Today, 11:09 PM


                                              and zombot mron answers how many minutes later? Today, 11:09 PM

                                              thats 4 minutes.

                                              not even enough time to watch even one of the shorter youtube videos.

                                              fool moron idiots who refuse to look at the evidence should not be making fool moron assertions about the people who do.
                                      • .
                                        .
                                        offline 39

                                        Re: anyone like nader?

                                        Tue, July 8, 2008 - 11:22 PM
                                        holy freaking crap you're a liar.

                                        1) "No, it wasn't a "dissenting report." It was the ONLY report. The only report that the CIA formally EVER put out said there was no WMD.
                                        The bush admin changed the report, and declassified specific pieces of it. What you are talking about is internal dissent. There wasn't any in the CIA. Everybody at the CIA knew there was no WMD in Iraq. "

                                        This is a bold, outright, no-holds-barred lie. First off, its just not true, secondly, its DEMONSTRATABLY not true. I've read those analyses, and I JUST provided you with a quote FROM PAUL PILLAR that disproves your case, not to mention the entirety of Tenet's statements on the issue (remember him, Clinton-era DCI who hung on into the Bush admin?)

                                        2) "Interesting, but wrong. Anybody with brains and the ability to run google knew iraq had no wmds.
                                        The CIA knew it, and the only people ever fooled were those that though the bush admins BS should be taken on face value."

                                        Right, Paul Pillar doesnt know ANYTHING about what CIA thought. Your ignorance speaks volumes. Stop talking about CIA assessments as if you had a clue.

                                        3) "And excuse me? If Hillary (as first lady)had access to classified Iraq intel...
                                        THAT WOULD BE A BREACH OF NATIONAL SECURITY. "

                                        Again, your inability to form a cogent argument underwhelms me. Clinton is and was a SENATOR

                                        4) "Even if true, they didn't get any. "

                                        BUSH NEVER SAID THEY GOT ANY
                                        • Re: anyone like nader?

                                          Tue, July 8, 2008 - 11:26 PM
                                          Stop talking about CIA assessments as if you had a clue.
                                          --------
                                          stop talking period about anything as if you had a clue. but lets just look at CIA asessments, shall we?
                                          seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/...9.html

                                          Prewar intelligence doubted al-Qaida link to Iraq, report says

                                          By Jonathan Weisman

                                          The Washington Post

                                          Related

                                          * U.S. tally of Baghdad deaths omits car bombs, mortars
                                          * Suit alleges fraud by Halliburton over Iraq services

                                          WASHINGTON — A declassified report released Friday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.

                                          Far from aligning himself with al-Qaida and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Saddam repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaida's overtures and tried to capture al-Zarqawi, the report said.

                                          Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, told the FBI that Saddam "only expressed negative sentiments about [al-Qaida leader Osama] bin Laden."

                                          The report also said exiles from the Iraqi National Congress (INC) tried to influence U.S. policy by providing, through defectors, false information on Iraq's nuclear-, chemical- and biological-weapons capabilities. Even though analysts warned that the group had been penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including Iran's, a 2002 White House directive ordered that U.S. funding for the INC be continued.

                                          The newly declassified intelligence report provided administration critics with fresh ammunition less than two months before midterm elections and in the middle of President Bush's campaign to refocus the public's attention away from Iraq and toward the threat of terrorism.

                                          Senior Senate Democrats seized on the findings, using some of their strongest language yet to say the president continues to willfully and falsely connect Saddam to al-Qaida.

                                          As recently as Aug. 21, Bush suggested a link between Saddam and al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, who was killed by U.S. forces in June. But a CIA assessment in October 2005 concluded that Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," according to the report.
                                          Some new findings


                                          Some disclosures from captured Iraqis in the Senate Intelligence Committee's report:

                                          Saddam Hussein did not trust al-Qaida or any other radical Islamist group and did not want to cooperate with them; however, he thought al-Qaida was an effective organization.

                                          When told there was evidence the Iraqi government had met with Osama bin Laden, Saddam responded, "Yes," according to an FBI summary of his statements. "Saddam then specified that Iraq did not cooperate with bin Laden."

                                          Saddam's deputy, Tariq Aziz, told the FBI that Saddam expressed only negative sentiments about bin Laden and that when the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan, Iraq declined to open an embassy in Kabul.

                                          Abid Hamid Mahmoud al-Kattab al-Tikriti, a top official in Saddam's government, told the FBI that "Saddam's position was that Iraq should not deal with al-Qaida."

                                          The Associated Press

                                          "The president is still distorting. He's still making statements which are false," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., an intelligence committee member.

                                          The partial release of the report came after nearly three years of partisan wrangling over what is to be a five-chapter analysis of the use of prewar intelligence in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

                                          The heart of the report — a detailed comparison of administration statements with the intelligence then available — is still far from release.

                                          But the committee voted Thursday to release two chapters, one on the role that Iraqi exiles played in shaping prewar intelligence, the other on the accuracy of the prewar analyses of Saddam's nuclear-, chemical- and biological-weapons capabilities and his suspected links to al-Qaida and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

                                          White House spokesman Tony Snow dismissed the findings as old news. "If we have people who want to re-litigate that, that's fine," he said.

                                          But Republican attempts to paint the findings as a partisan rehash were undercut by intelligence committee members from the GOP.

                                          The committee report's conclusions are based on the Democrats' findings because two Republicans — Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska — supported those findings.

                                          "After reviewing thousands of pages of evidence, I voted for the conclusions that most closely reflect the facts in the report," Snowe said. "Policy-makers seemingly discounted or dismissed warnings about the veracity of critical intelligence reports that may have served as a basis for going to war."

                                          Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., was emphatic this week that Iraqi exiles did not fundamentally shape the critical assessment of the Iraqi threat in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate.

                                          But, as Snowe emphasized, the report concluded that information provided by an INC source was cited in that estimate and in Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 2003 speech to the United Nations as corroborating evidence about Iraq's mobile biological-weapons program.

                                          Those citations came despite two April 2002 CIA assessments, a May 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency fabrication notice and a July 2002 National Intelligence Council warning saying the INC source may have been coached by the exile group into fabricating the information.

                                          Democrats and Republicans agree that analysts and politicians of all political stripes were wrong about the prewar assessments of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

                                          But the committee report indicates that intelligence analysts were substantially right about Saddam's lack of operational links to al-Qaida.

                                          Democrats compared the administration's public statements with newly declassified intelligence assessments to build their case that efforts to link Iraq to al-Qaida were willfully misleading.

                                          In a classified January 2003 report, for instance, the CIA concluded Saddam "viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat."

                                          But one day after that conclusion was published, Levin noted, Vice President Dick Cheney said the Iraqi government "aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida."

                                          Intelligence reports in June, July and September 2002 all cast doubts on a reported meeting in Prague, the Czech Republic, between Iraqi intelligence agents and Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta.

                                          Yet, in a Sept. 8, 2002, appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney said the CIA considered the reports on the meeting credible, Levin said.

                                          In February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that "Iraq is unlikely to have provided bin Laden any useful [chemical and biological weapons] knowledge or assistance."

                                          A year later, Bush said, "Iraq has also provided al-Qaida with chemical and biological weapons training."

                                          Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., an intelligence committee member, said it was unfair for Democrats to compare the intelligence assessments in the report to the administration's statements. He said such comparisons go beyond the scope of the chapters released.

                                          But Democrats were unequivocal in asserting that the chapters chronicle an indisputable pattern of deception.

                                          "It is such a blatant misleading of the United States, its people, to prepare them, to position them, to, in fact, make them enthusiastic or feel that it's justified to go to war with Iraq," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., the committee's vice chairman. "That kind of public manipulation I don't know has any precedent in American history."

                                          Washington Post staff writer Charles Babington contributed to this report.
                                          • Re: anyone like nader?

                                            Tue, July 8, 2008 - 11:28 PM
                                            Again, your inability to form a cogent argument underwhelms me. Clinton is and was a SENATOR
                                            -------
                                            and as a senator, all she had to gone on was lies told her by the bushies.
                                            you are trying to have it both ways.
                                            either she has special relevance as she knows intimate details about the clinton admin, or she doesn't, and shes an irrelevant dupe,
                                            just like all of the spineless dem irrelevant dupes.
                                            • Re: anyone like nader?

                                              Tue, July 8, 2008 - 11:31 PM
                                              WWW.REFORM.HOUSE.GOV/MIN
                                              UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY STAFF
                                              SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION
                                              MARCH 16, 2004
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD
                                              THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              PREPARED FOR REP. HENRY A. WAXMAN
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                              EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... i
                                              I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................1
                                              II. METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................................1
                                              III. NUMBER AND TIMING OF MISLEADING STATEMENTS ................................................................3
                                              IV. CATEGORIES OF MISLEADING STATEMENTS ..............................................................................6
                                              A. Statements that Iraq Posed an Urgent Threat................................................................6
                                              B. Statements about Iraq’s Nuclear Capabilities ...............................................................7
                                              1. Claims about the Status of Iraq’s Nuclear Program ...........................................8
                                              2. Claims about the Aluminum Tubes ....................................................................10
                                              3. Claims about Uranium from Africa ...................................................................13
                                              C. Statements about Iraq’s Chemical and Biological Weapons Programs ......................15
                                              1. Claims about Chemical and Biological Weapons .............................................15
                                              2. Claims about Unmanned Aerial Vehicles..........................................................18
                                              3. Claims about Mobile Biological Laboratories ..................................................20
                                              D. Statements about Iraq’s Support of al Qaeda..............................................................21
                                              V. MISLEADING STATEMENTS BY INDIVIDUAL OFFICIALS............................................................25
                                              A. President Bush..............................................................................................................25
                                              B. Vice President Cheney..................................................................................................26
                                              C. Secretary Rumsfeld.......................................................................................................27
                                              D. Secretary Powell ..........................................................................................................28
                                              E. National Security Advisor Rice ....................................................................................29
                                              VI. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................................30
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              i
                                              EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
                                              On March 19, 2003, U.S. forces began military operations in Iraq. Addressing the
                                              nation about the purpose of the war on the day the bombing began, President
                                              Bush stated: “The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not
                                              live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of
                                              mass murder.”
                                              One year later, many doubts have been raised regarding the Administration’s
                                              assertions about the threat posed by Iraq. Prior to the war in Iraq, the President
                                              and his advisors repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass
                                              destruction that jeopardized the security of the United States. The failure to
                                              discover these weapons after the war has led to questions about whether the
                                              President and his advisors were candid in describing Iraq’s threat.
                                              This report, which was prepared at the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, is a
                                              comprehensive examination of the statements made by the five Administration
                                              officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public
                                              opinion on Iraq: President George Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney,
                                              Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and
                                              National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. It finds that the five officials made
                                              misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq in 125 public appearances.
                                              The report and an accompanying database identify 237 specific misleading
                                              statements by the five officials.
                                              Methodology
                                              The Special Investigations Division compiled a database of statements about Iraq
                                              made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary
                                              Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. All of the statements in the database
                                              were drawn from speeches, press conferences and briefings, interviews, written
                                              statements, and testimony by the five officials.
                                              This Iraq on the Record database contains statements made by the five officials
                                              that were misleading at the time they were made. The database does not include
                                              statements that appear in hindsight to be erroneous but were accurate reflections
                                              of the views of intelligence officials at the time they were made. The entire
                                              database is accessible to members of Congress and the public at
                                              www.reform.house.gov/min.
                                              This report is a summary of the Iraq on the Record database. Because the
                                              officials’ statements have been compiled into a searchable database, the report can
                                              make new observations about the topics that were the subject of misleading
                                              claims, the timing of these claims, and the officials who were responsible. To
                                              ensure objectivity, the report was peer reviewed for fairness and accuracy by two
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              ii
                                              leading experts: Joseph Cirincione, senior associate and director of the Non-
                                              Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and
                                              Greg Thielmann, former acting director of the Office of Strategic, Proliferation,
                                              and Military Affairs in the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and
                                              Research.
                                              Findings
                                              Number of Misleading Statements. The Iraq on the Record database contains
                                              237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by
                                              President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell,
                                              and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate
                                              appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53
                                              interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies. Most of the
                                              statements in the database were misleading because they expressed certainty
                                              where none existed or failed to acknowledge the doubts of intelligence officials.
                                              Ten of the statements were simply false.
                                              Timing of the Statements. The statements began at least a year before the
                                              commencement of hostilities in Iraq, when Vice President Cheney stated on
                                              March 17, 2002: “We know they have biological and chemical weapons.” The
                                              Administration’s misleading statements continued through January 22, 2004,
                                              when Vice President Cheney insisted: “there’s overwhelming evidence that there
                                              was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government.” Most of the
                                              misleading statements about Iraq — 161 statements — were made prior to the
                                              start of the war. But 76 misleading statements were made by the five
                                              Administration officials after the start of the war to justify the decision to go to
                                              war.
                                              The 30-day period with the greatest number of misleading statements was the
                                              period before the congressional vote on the Iraq war resolution. Congress voted
                                              on the measure on October 10 and October 11, 2002. From September 8 through
                                              October 8, 2002, the five officials made 64 misleading statements in 16 public
                                              appearances. A large number of misleading statements were also made during the
                                              two months before the war began. Between January 19 and March 19, 2003, the
                                              five officials made 48 misleading statements in 26 public appearances.
                                              Topics of the Statements. The 237 misleading statements can be divided into
                                              four categories. The five officials made 11 statements that claimed that Iraq
                                              posed an urgent threat; 81 statements that exaggerated Iraq’s nuclear activities; 84
                                              statements that overstated Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons capabilities;
                                              and 61 statements that misrepresented Iraq’s ties to al Qaeda.
                                              Statements by President Bush. Between September 12, 2002, and July 17,
                                              2003, President Bush made 55 misleading statements about the threat posed by
                                              Iraq in 27 separate public appearances. On October 7, 2002, three days before the
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              iii
                                              congressional votes on the Iraqi war resolution, President Bush gave a speech in
                                              Cincinnati, Ohio, with 11 misleading statements, the most by any of the five
                                              officials in a single appearance.
                                              Some of the misleading statements by President Bush include his statement in the
                                              January 28, 2003, State of the Union address that “the British government has
                                              learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium
                                              from Africa”; his statement on October 2, 2002, that “the Iraqi regime is a threat
                                              of unique urgency”; and his statement on May 1, 2003, that “the liberation of Iraq
                                              . . . removed an ally of al Qaeda.”
                                              Statements by Vice President Cheney. Between March 17, 2002, and January
                                              22, 2004, Vice President Cheney made 51 misleading statements about the threat
                                              posed by Iraq in 25 separate public appearances.
                                              Some of the misleading statements by Vice President Cheney include his
                                              statement on September 8, 2002, that “we do know, with absolute certainty, that
                                              he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs . . . to build
                                              a nuclear weapon”; his statement on March 16, 2003, that “we believe he has, in
                                              fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons”; and his statement on October 10, 2003, that
                                              Saddam Hussein “had an established relationship with al Qaeda.”
                                              Statements by Secretary Rumsfeld. Between May 22, 2002, and November 2,
                                              2003, Secretary Rumsfeld made 52 misleading statements about the threat posed
                                              by Iraq in 23 separate public appearances.
                                              Some of the misleading statements by Secretary Rumsfeld include his statement
                                              on November 14, 2002, that within “a week, or a month” Saddam Hussein could
                                              give his weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda, which could use them to attack
                                              the United States and kill “30,000, or 100,000 . . . human beings”; his statement
                                              on January 29, 2003, that Saddam Hussein’s regime “recently was discovered
                                              seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa”; and his statement on July
                                              13, 2003, that there “was never any debate” about whether Iraq had a nuclear
                                              program.
                                              Statements by Secretary Powell. Between April 3, 2002, and October 3, 2003,
                                              Secretary Powell made 50 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq in
                                              34 separate public appearances.
                                              Secretary Powell sometimes used caveats and qualifying language in his public
                                              statements. His statements that contained such cautions or limitations were not
                                              included in the database. Nonetheless, many of Secretary Powell’s statements did
                                              not include these qualifiers and were misleading in their expression of certainty,
                                              such as his statement on May 22, 2003, that “there is no doubt in our minds now
                                              that those vans were designed for only one purpose, and that was to make
                                              biological weapons.”
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              iv
                                              Statements by National Security Advisor Rice. Between September 8, 2002,
                                              and September 28, 2003, National Security Advisor Rice made 29 misleading
                                              statements about the threat posed by Iraq in 16 separate public appearances.
                                              Although Ms. Rice had the fewest public appearances and the fewest misleading
                                              statements, she had the highest number of statements — 8 — that were false.
                                              These false statements included several categorical assertions that that no one in
                                              the White House knew of the intelligence community’s doubts about the
                                              President’s assertion that Iraq sought to import uranium from Africa.
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              1
                                              I. INTRODUCTION
                                              The President and his senior advisors have a special obligation to describe
                                              accurately the national security threats facing the nation. This special obligation
                                              derives in part from the nature of the subject. There is no decision that is more
                                              grave than sending our armed forces to battle. The special obligation also derives
                                              in part from the unique access that the President and his advisors have to
                                              classified information. On matters of national security, only the President and his
                                              advisors have full access to the relevant classified information. Members of
                                              Congress and the public see only a partial picture based on the information the
                                              President and his advisors decide to release.
                                              Recently, serious questions have been raised regarding whether President Bush
                                              and his Administration met this special obligation. Numerous news reports and
                                              columns have questioned the accuracy of specific statements by President Bush
                                              and other Administration officials. The White House maintains that any
                                              misstatements were “only a small part of an ‘overwhelming’ case that Iraqi
                                              President Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States.”1 Other observers,
                                              though, have detected a pattern of consistent misrepresentation.
                                              The one-year anniversary of the beginning of military operations in Iraq marks an
                                              occasion for comprehensively assessing whether the President and his senior
                                              advisors met their obligation to accurately present intelligence to the American
                                              public. For this reason, Rep. Waxman asked the Special Investigations Division
                                              to assemble in a single database any misleading statements made by President
                                              Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other senior Administration officials about the
                                              threat posed by Iraq. This report summarizes key findings from this Iraq on the
                                              Record database. The database itself is available to members of Congress and the
                                              public at www.reform.house.gov/min.
                                              II. METHODOLOGY
                                              The Iraq on the Record database contains statements from the five Administration
                                              officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public
                                              opinion on the Iraq war: President George Bush; Vice President Richard Cheney;
                                              Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Secretary of State Colin Powell; and
                                              National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.
                                              The statements in the database are drawn from 125 public statements or
                                              appearances in which the five officials discussed the threat posed by Iraq. The
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              1 White House Admits CIA Warned It before Speech, Los Angeles Times (July 23, 2003) (quoting
                                              Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley).
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              2
                                              sources of the statements are 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53
                                              interviews, 4 written statements and articles, and 2 appearances before
                                              congressional committees. Quotes from the officials in newspaper articles or
                                              other similar secondary sources were not included in the database because of the
                                              difficulty of discerning the context of such quotes and ensuring their accuracy.
                                              Statements made by the officials before March 2002, one year before the
                                              commencement of hostilities in Iraq, were also not included.
                                              The database contains statements that were misleading based on what was known
                                              to the Administration at the time the statements were made. In compiling the
                                              database, the Special Investigations Division did not assess whether
                                              “subjectively” the officials believed a specific statement to be misleading.
                                              Instead, the investigators used an “objective” standard. For purposes of the
                                              database, a statement is considered “misleading” if it conflicted with what
                                              intelligence officials knew at the time or involved the selective use of intelligence
                                              or the failure to include essential qualifiers or caveats.
                                              The database does not include statements that appear mistaken only in hindsight.
                                              If a statement was an accurate reflection of U.S. intelligence at the time it was
                                              made, the statement is excluded from the database even if it now appears
                                              erroneous.
                                              To determine whether a statement was misleading, the Special Investigations
                                              Division examined the statement in light of intelligence known to the
                                              Administration at the time of the statement. The primary sources for determining
                                              the intelligence available to the Administration were (1) the portions of the
                                              October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that have been released to the public,
                                              (2) the February 5, 2004, statement by Director of Central Intelligence George
                                              Tenet entitled Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction, (3) the recent report of the
                                              nonpartisan Carnegie Endowment for International Peace entitled WMD in Iraq:
                                              Evidence and Implications, and (4) news and other reports quoting U.S. officials
                                              regarding the intelligence available to the Administration on Iraq.
                                              In general, hypothetical and implied statements about threats posed by Iraq were
                                              not included in the database of misleading statements. A few such statements
                                              were included, however, where they implied a threat in evocative and frightening
                                              language. These statements were misleading because the effect was to instill in
                                              the public the perception that the threat actually existed.
                                              To be conservative, the Special Investigations Division excluded hundreds of
                                              statements by the five officials that many observers would consider misleading.
                                              For example, the five officials made numerous claims that Iraq “had” stockpiles
                                              of chemical weapons. Many of these statements were misleading in that they
                                              implied that Iraq possessed these stockpiles currently and did not acknowledge
                                              the doubts of intelligence experts. Nevertheless, these statements were not
                                              included in the database when they were expressed in the past tense because Iraq
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              3
                                              did possess chemical weapons at least as late as the early 1990s and used them
                                              during the 1980s.2
                                              Investigators also excluded scores of statements of certainty that Iraq possessed
                                              “weapons of mass destruction” prior to the war. To many observers, these
                                              statements would be misleading because they implied that Iraq possessed nuclear
                                              weapons without acknowledging the divisions among intelligence officials about
                                              whether this was the case. The Special Investigations Division excluded these
                                              general “weapons of mass destruction” assertions, however, because of the
                                              ambiguity inherent in the phrase.
                                              The Special Investigations Division asked two leading independent experts to
                                              peer review this report for fairness and accuracy. These two independent experts
                                              are: Joseph Cirincione, senior associate and director of the Non-Proliferation
                                              Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Greg Thielmann,
                                              former acting director of the Office of Strategic, Proliferation, and Military
                                              Affairs in the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. These
                                              experts judged that this report is a fair and accurate depiction of the
                                              Administration’s statements.
                                              III. NUMBER AND TIMING OF MISLEADING STATEMENTS
                                              President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell,
                                              and National Security Advisor Rice repeatedly made misleading statements about
                                              the threat posed by Iraq. They made these statements in 125 separate public
                                              appearances. The total number of misleading statements made by the five
                                              officials is 237.
                                              The 237 misleading statements were made in a variety of forums. On 53
                                              occasions, the five officials gave interviews in which they made claims that were
                                              misleading. They also made misleading statements in 40 speeches, 26 press
                                              conferences and briefings, 4 written statements and articles, and 2 appearances
                                              before Congress.
                                              The misleading statements began at least one year before the start of the war in
                                              Iraq, when Vice President Cheney stated on March 17, 2002:
                                              The President’s made it clear that we are concerned about nations such as
                                              Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction. We know the Iraqis have
                                              been engaged in such efforts over the years. We know they have
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              2 United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission, Unresolved Disarmament
                                              Issues: Iraq’s Proscribed Weapons Programmes, UNMOVIC Working Document (Mar. 6, 2003).
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              4
                                              biological and chemical weapons. . . . And we also have reason to believe
                                              they’re pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons.3
                                              These misleading statements have continued through at least January 2004. On
                                              January 22, 2004, Vice President Cheney said in a National Public Radio
                                              interview, “I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection
                                              between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. . . . I’m very confident that there
                                              was an established relationship there.”4 He also said in the same interview, “we
                                              know . . . that prior to our going in that he had spent time and effort acquiring
                                              mobile biological weapons labs, and we’re quite confident he did, in fact, have
                                              such a program. We’ve found a couple of semi trailers at this point which we
                                              believe were, in fact, part of that program.” As described below, both of these
                                              assertions were misleading in that they failed to disclose the serious doubts held
                                              by intelligence officials.
                                              The majority of the misleading statements — 161 — were made in the buildup to
                                              the war in Iraq. The volume of misleading statements by the five officials peaked
                                              before key decision points in the buildup to the war. Congress began debate on
                                              the Iraq war resolution in early October 2002 and voted on the measure on
                                              October 10 and October 11, 2002. During the 30 days between September 8 and
                                              October 8, 2002, the five officials made 64 misleading statements in 16 public
                                              appearances. This was the highest number of misleading statements for any 30-
                                              day period.
                                              There were also a large number of misleading statements in the two months
                                              before hostilities began on March 19, 2003, when the five officials made 48
                                              misleading statements in 26 public appearances.
                                              Figure 1 shows the ebb and flow of misleading statements over time.
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              3 White House, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and his Highness Salmam bin
                                              Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain, at Shaikh Hamat Palace (Mar. 17, 2002).
                                              4 Morning Edition, National Public Radio (Jan. 22, 2004).
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              5
                                              Figure 1: Number of Misleading Statements Made Each Month
                                              March 2002 - January 2004
                                              0
                                              10
                                              20
                                              30
                                              40
                                              50
                                              60
                                              Mar
                                              Apr
                                              May
                                              June
                                              July
                                              Aug
                                              Sept
                                              Oct
                                              Nov
                                              Dec
                                              Jan
                                              Feb
                                              Mar
                                              Apr
                                              May
                                              June
                                              July
                                              Aug
                                              Sept
                                              Oct
                                              Nov
                                              Dec
                                              Jan
                                              2002 2003 2004
                                              Month and Year
                                              Number of Misleading Statements
                                              Most of the misleading statements in the Iraq on the Record database involve the
                                              selective use of intelligence or the failure to include essential qualifiers or caveats.
                                              For example, statements of certainty that Iraq was close to possessing nuclear
                                              weapons were misleading because they ignored significant doubts and
                                              disagreement in the U.S. intelligence community regarding whether Iraq was
                                              actively pursuing a nuclear program.
                                              In 10 instances, however, the statements included in the database were false
                                              statements that directly contradicted facts known at the time by the
                                              Administration. For example, on July 11, 2003, Ms. Rice stated with respect to
                                              the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa: “Now, if there were doubts
                                              about the underlying intelligence . . . those doubts were not communicated to the
                                              President, to the Vice President, or to me.”5 This statement is false because, as
                                              Ms. Rice’s deputy Stephen Hadley subsequently acknowledged, the CIA sent Ms.
                                              Rice and Mr. Hadley memos in October 2002 warning against the use of this
                                              claim.6
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              5 White House, Press Gaggle with Ari Fleischer and Dr. Condoleezza Rice (July 11, 2003).
                                              6 White House, Dan Bartlett and Steve Hadley Hold Press Briefing on Iraq Weapons of Mass
                                              Destruction and the State of the Union Speech (July 22, 2003).
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              6
                                              IV. CATEGORIES OF MISLEADING STATEMENTS
                                              The misleading statements by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary
                                              Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice fall into four
                                              general categories: (1) statements suggesting that Iraq posed an urgent threat, (2)
                                              statements regarding Iraq’s nuclear activities, (3) statements regarding Iraq’s
                                              biological and chemical weapons capabilities, and (4) statements regarding Iraq’s
                                              support of al Qaeda. Figure 2 shows the number of misleading statements in each
                                              category.
                                              Figure 2: Categories of Misleading Statements
                                              0
                                              10
                                              20
                                              30
                                              40
                                              50
                                              60
                                              70
                                              80
                                              90
                                              Urgent Threat Nuclear Activities Biological/Chemical
                                              Weapons
                                              Al-Qaeda
                                              Category
                                              Number of Statements
                                              A. Statements that Iraq Posed an Urgent Threat
                                              On February 5, 2004, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet categorically
                                              stated that the U.S. intelligence community “never said there was an ‘imminent’
                                              threat.”7 Yet this was not the impression conveyed by President Bush, Vice
                                              President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security
                                              Advisor Rice in their public statements on Iraq. In 10 different appearances, these
                                              five officials made 11 statements claiming that Iraq posed an urgent threat.
                                              For example:
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              7 Central Intelligence Agency, Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Director of Central
                                              Intelligence George J. Tenet at Georgetown University (Feb. 5, 2004).
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              7
                                              • President Bush stated on October 2, 2002: “the Iraqi regime is a threat of
                                              unique urgency. . . . [I]t has developed weapons of mass death.”8
                                              • President Bush stated on November 20, 2002: “Today the world is . . .
                                              uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.”9
                                              • Vice President Cheney stated on August 26, 2002: “Simply stated, there is
                                              no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
                                              There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against
                                              our allies, and against us.”10
                                              In one instance, Secretary Rumsfeld said that Iraq could give weapons of mass
                                              destruction to al Qaeda in “a week, or a month,” resulting in the deaths of up to
                                              100,000 people. On November 14, 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld stated:
                                              Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years, or a week, or a month,
                                              and if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass destruction and
                                              transfer them, either use them himself, or transfer them to the Al-Qaeda,
                                              and somehow the Al-Qaeda were to engage in an attack on the United
                                              States, or an attack on U.S. forces overseas, with a weapon of mass
                                              destruction you’re not talking about 300, or 3,000 people potentially being
                                              killed, but 30,000, or 100,000 . . . human beings.”11
                                              B. Statements about Iraq’s Nuclear Capabilities
                                              In their potential for destruction and their ability to evoke horror, nuclear weapons
                                              are in a class by themselves. As Dr. David Kay, former special advisor to the Iraq
                                              Survey Group, testified on January 28, 2004: “all of us have and would continue
                                              to put the nuclear weapons in a different category. It’s a single weapon that can
                                              do tremendous damage, as opposed to multiple weapons that can do the same
                                              order of damage. . . . I think we should politically treat nuclear as a difference.”12
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              8 White House, President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution (Oct. 2, 2002).
                                              9 President Bush Speaks to Atlantic Youth Council, CNN (Nov. 20, 2002).
                                              10 White House, Vice President Speaks at VFW 103rd National Convention (Aug. 26, 2002).
                                              11 U.S. Department of Defense, Secretary Rumsfeld Live Interview with Infinity CBS Radio (Nov.
                                              14, 2002).
                                              12 Testimony of David Kay, former special advisor to the Iraq Survey Group, before the Senate
                                              Armed Services Committee, Hearing on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction and Related
                                              Programs (Jan. 28, 2004).
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              8
                                              For precisely this reason, the Administration’s statements about Iraq’s nuclear
                                              capabilities had a large impact on congressional and public perceptions about the
                                              threat posed by Iraq. Many members of Congress were more influenced by the
                                              Administration’s nuclear assertions than by any other piece of evidence. Rep.
                                              Waxman, for example, wrote to President Bush in June 2003 that in voting for the
                                              Iraq war resolution: “Like other members, I was particularly influenced by your
                                              views about Iraq’s nuclear intentions. Although chemical and biological weapons
                                              can inflict casualties, no threat is greater than the threat of nuclear weapons.”13
                                              Numerous members of Congress stressed Iraq’s nuclear threat in their floor
                                              statements explaining their support of the resolution.14
                                              Despite the significance of the nuclear issue, President Bush, Vice President
                                              Cheney, Secretary Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld, and National Security Advisor
                                              Rice repeatedly misrepresented the nuclear threat posed by Iraq. The five
                                              officials made 49 separate public appearances in which they made misleading
                                              statements about Iraq’s nuclear threat. In these appearances, they made a total of
                                              81 misleading statements regarding Iraq’s nuclear activities.
                                              These misleading statements generally fall into one of three categories: (1)
                                              misleading statements about the status of Iraq’s nuclear program, (2) misleading
                                              statements about the purpose of aluminum tubes sought by Iraq, and (3)
                                              misleading statements about Iraq’s attempts to obtain uranium from Africa.
                                              1. Claims about the Status of Iraq’s Nuclear Program
                                              Prior to the war, there were significant divisions within the intelligence
                                              community about whether Iraq had resumed efforts to make nuclear weapons. In
                                              his speech on February 5, 2004, Mr. Tenet explained that there was not unanimity
                                              on whether Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear program and that these differences
                                              were described in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE): “let me be clear,
                                              where there were differences, the Estimate laid out the disputes clearly.”15 In
                                              particular, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR)
                                              concluded in the NIE that “[t]he activities we have detected do not, however, add
                                              up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider
                                              to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons.”
                                              INR added: “Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent
                                              effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              13 Letter from Rep. Henry A. Waxman to President George W. Bush (June 2, 2003).
                                              14 See, e.g., Statement of Senator Mary Landrieu, Congressional Record, S10330 (Oct. 10, 2002);
                                              Statement of Rep. C.L. “Butch” Otter, Congressional Record, H7787 (Oct. 10, 2002); Statement
                                              of Rep. Dennis Moore, Congressional Record, H7796 (Oct. 10, 2002).
                                              15 Central Intelligence Agency, supra note 7.
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              9
                                              that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors.”16 The INR
                                              position was similar to the conclusions of the International Atomic Energy
                                              Agency (IAEA), which concluded that there was “no indication of resumed
                                              nuclear activities . . . nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities.”17
                                              These doubts and qualifications, however, were not communicated to the public.
                                              Instead, the five Administration officials repeatedly made unequivocal comments
                                              about Iraq’s nuclear program. For example, President Bush said in October 2002
                                              that “[t]he regime has the scientists and facilities to build nuclear weapons and is
                                              seeking the materials required to do so.”18 Several days later, President Bush
                                              asserted that Saddam Hussein “is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear
                                              weapon.”19
                                              Vice President Cheney made perhaps the single most egregious statement about
                                              Iraq’s nuclear capabilities, claiming: “we know he has been absolutely devoted to
                                              trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted
                                              nuclear weapons.”20 He made this statement just three days before the war. He
                                              did not admit until September 14, 2003, that his statement was wrong and that he
                                              “did misspeak.”21
                                              President Bush and others portrayed the threat of Saddam Hussein waging nuclear
                                              war against the United States or its allies as one of the most urgent reasons for
                                              preemptively attacking Iraq. Administration officials used evocative language
                                              and images. On the eve of congressional votes on the Iraq war resolution, for
                                              example, President Bush stated: “Knowing these realities, America must not
                                              ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot
                                              wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a
                                              mushroom cloud.”22
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              16 National Intelligence Council, Iraq’s Continuing Program for Weapons of Mass Destruction:
                                              Key Judgements (from October 2002 NIE) (declassified July 18, 2003).
                                              17 In a Chief Inspector’s Words: ‘A Substantial Measure of Disarmament,’ New York Times
                                              (Mar. 8, 2003).
                                              18 White House, President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, supra note 8.
                                              19 White House, President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq (Oct. 7,
                                              2002).
                                              20 Meet the Press, NBC (Mar. 16, 2003).
                                              21 Meet the Press, NBC (Sept. 14, 2003). On May 20, 2003, the Washington Post reported that
                                              Vice President Cheney’s aides said, “Cheney was referring to Saddam Hussein’s nuclear
                                              programs, not weapons.” White House Notebook: Energy Policy Spurs Affirmative Action
                                              Debate, Washington Post (May 20, 2003).
                                              22 White House, President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat, supra note 19.
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              10
                                              Following the commencement of military operations in Iraq, Administration
                                              officials continued to make misleading statements regarding Iraq’s nuclear
                                              program. For example, Secretary Rumsfeld denied on July 13, 2003, that there
                                              was “any debate” about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities within the Administration,
                                              stating: “We said they had a nuclear program. That was never any debate.”23
                                              Since the war ended, the Iraq Survey Group has been unable to find evidence of
                                              the nuclear program described by the five officials. On October 2, 2003, David
                                              Kay reported that “we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook
                                              significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile
                                              material.”24 In his January 28, 2004, testimony, Dr. Kay reported that “[i]t was
                                              not a reconstituted, full-blown nuclear program.”25 He added, “As best as has
                                              been determined . . . in 2000 they had decided that their nuclear establishment had
                                              deteriorated to such point that it was totally useless.”26 His conclusion was that
                                              there was “no doubt at all” that Iraq had less of an ability to produce fissile
                                              material in 2001 than in 1991.27 According to Dr. Kay, the nuclear program had
                                              been “seriously degraded” and the “activities of the inspectors in the early ‘90s
                                              did a tremendous amount.”28
                                              2. Claims about the Aluminum Tubes
                                              In 2001 and 2002, shipments of aluminum tubes to Iraq were intercepted.29 This
                                              discovery led to an active debate within intelligence agencies about the intended
                                              use of the tubes.
                                              Numerous experts believed the tubes were for conventional rockets rather than a
                                              nuclear development program. In his February 5, 2004, speech, Mr. Tenet
                                              explained that disagreement over the purpose of the aluminum tubes was “a
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              23 This Week With George Stephanopoulos, ABC (July 13, 2003).
                                              24 Statement by David Kay on the Interim Progress Report on the Activities of the Iraq Survey
                                              Group (ISG) before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee
                                              on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
                                              (Oct. 2, 2003).
                                              25 Testimony of David Kay, supra note 12.
                                              26 Id.
                                              27 This Week With George Stephanopoulos, ABC (Oct. 5, 2003).
                                              28 Id.
                                              29 Speculation, Fact Hard to Separate in Story of Iraq’s ‘Nuclear’ Tubes, USA Today (Aug. 1,
                                              2003).
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              11
                                              debate laid out extensively in the estimate and one that experts still argue over.”30
                                              The agency with the most technical expertise in this area, the Department of
                                              Energy, believed that the tubes likely were not part of a nuclear enrichment
                                              program, stating in the NIE that “the tubes probably are not part of the
                                              program.”31 The International Atomic Energy Agency agreed, concluding:
                                              “There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use
                                              in centrifuge enrichment.”32
                                              In addition to dissent from the Energy Department and international inspectors,
                                              the State Department also expressed formal reservations, stating in the NIE that
                                              “INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge
                                              rotors.”33 Instead, the State Department accepted the “judgment of technical
                                              experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the
                                              tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges.” The State
                                              Department explained its position in detail:
                                              The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by
                                              the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the
                                              procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE
                                              assessment, that lead INR to conclude that the tubes are not intended for
                                              use in Iraq’s nuclear weapon program.35
                                              According to the NIE, “INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are
                                              intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets.”36
                                              These doubts about the use of the aluminum tubes were not conveyed by
                                              Administration officials, however. Instead, the aluminum tubes became one of
                                              the two principal pieces of information cited by the Administration to support the
                                              claim that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. President Bush,
                                              Vice President Cheney, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice
                                              made 10 misleading statements in 9 public appearances about the significance of
                                              the aluminum tubes.
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              30 Central Intelligence Agency, supra note 7.
                                              31 National Intelligence Council, supra note 16.
                                              32 U.N. Split Widens as Allies Dismiss Deadline on Iraq, New York Times (Mar. 7, 2003).
                                              33 National Intelligence Council, supra note 16.
                                              34 Id.
                                              35 Id.
                                              36 Id.
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              12
                                              For example, Ms. Rice stated on September 8, 2002: “We do know that there
                                              have been shipments going into . . . Iraq . . . of aluminum tubes that . . . are only
                                              really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.”37 Similarly,
                                              Vice President Cheney said on September 8, 2002: “[Saddam Hussein] now is
                                              trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs
                                              to be able to enrich uranium to make the bombs . . . [s]pecifically aluminum
                                              tubes.”38 These statements were misleading because they did not present the
                                              possibility that the tubes were suitable or intended for another purpose, or
                                              acknowledge that key U.S. experts doubted that the tubes were intended to make
                                              nuclear bombs.
                                              In one instance, Secretary Powell did acknowledge that some experts disputed
                                              that the aluminum tubes were intended for nuclear uses. In his February 5, 2003,
                                              address before the United Nations, Secretary Powell stated, “By now, just about
                                              everyone has heard of these tubes and we all know that there are differences of
                                              opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most US experts
                                              think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium.”39
                                              Even in that statement, however, Secretary Powell did not make clear that experts
                                              from the Department of Energy and the State Department’s own intelligence
                                              division played a significant role in the analysis of this issue and in formal and
                                              deliberate dissents had disputed the view that the tubes would likely be used to
                                              enrich uranium.
                                              On another occasion, Secretary Powell cited the tubes as evidence of pursuit of
                                              nuclear weapons, without noting that the intended use of the tubes was under
                                              dispute, asserting: “We also know that Iraq has tried to obtain high-strength
                                              aluminum tubes, which can be used to enrich uranium in centrifuges for a nuclear
                                              weapons program.”40
                                              By January 27, 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency had reached the
                                              tentative conclusion that the aluminum tubes “would be consistent with the
                                              purpose stated by Iraq and, unless modified, would not be suitable for
                                              manufacturing centrifuges.”41 Following the occupation of Iraq, the Iraq Survey
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              37 Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, CNN (Sept. 8, 2002).
                                              38 Meet the Press, NBC (Sept. 8, 2002).
                                              39 U.S. Department of State, Remarks to the United Nations Security Council, Secretary Colin L.
                                              Powell (Feb. 5, 2003).
                                              40 U.S. Department of State, Press Conference with Secretary of State Colin Powell re: U.S.
                                              Reaction to Iraqi Arms Declaration (Dec. 19, 2002).
                                              41 UN News Centre, IAEA Chief: No Evidence So Far of Revived Iraqi Nuclear Arms Programme
                                              (Jan. 27, 2003).
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              13
                                              Group did not find evidence indicating that the tubes were intended for nuclear
                                              use. In his January 28, 2004, testimony, Dr. Kay announced: “It is my judgment,
                                              based on the evidence that was collected . . . that it’s more probable that those
                                              tubes were intended for use in a conventional missile program, rather than in a
                                              centrifuge program.”42
                                              3. Claims about Uranium from Africa
                                              Another significant component of the Administration’s nuclear claims was the
                                              assertion that Iraq had sought to import uranium from Africa. As one of few new
                                              pieces of intelligence, this claim was repeated multiple times by Administration
                                              officials as proof that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program. In
                                              total, the five Administration officials made misleading assertions about Iraq’s
                                              attempts to obtain uranium from Africa in 7 statements in 6 public appearances.
                                              In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, President Bush stated:
                                              “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
                                              significant quantities of uranium from Africa. . . . Saddam Hussein has not
                                              credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.”43
                                              Other officials echoed this statement. In a January 23, 2003, New York Times oped
                                              piece, Ms. Rice argued that Iraq had lied in its December 2002 declaration,
                                              noting: “the declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq’s efforts to get
                                              uranium from abroad.”44 In his opening remarks in his televised press conference
                                              on January 29, 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld stated, “[Saddam Hussein’s] regime . . .
                                              recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”45
                                              These claims that Iraq was seeking to import uranium were misleading. The
                                              documentary evidence behind the assertions was declared to be “not authentic” by
                                              the International Atomic Energy Agency.46 An envoy, former Ambassador
                                              Joseph Wilson, was sent by the CIA to investigate the alleged purchase.47
                                              Ambassador Wilson concluded that it was “highly doubtful that any such
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              42 Testimony of David Kay, supra note 12.
                                              43 White House, State of the Union Address (Jan. 28, 2003).
                                              44 Condoleezza Rice, Why We Know Iraq Is Lying, New York Times (Jan. 23, 2003).
                                              45 Press Conference with Donald Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, CNN (Jan. 29, 2003).
                                              46 Some Evidence on Iraq Called Fake; U.N. Nuclear Inspector Says Documents on Purchases
                                              Were Forged, Washington Post (Mar. 8, 2003).
                                              47 Joseph Wilson, What I Didn’t Find in Africa, New York Times (July 6, 2003).
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              14
                                              transaction had ever taken place,” and on his return, he provided detailed briefings
                                              to the CIA and to the State Department African Affairs Bureau.48
                                              When evidence emerged that the importation claim was false, Ms. Rice claimed
                                              that the White House had no knowledge of these doubts. She asserted
                                              unequivocally that no senior White House officials were informed about questions
                                              about the uranium claim prior to its use in the State of the Union address. She
                                              stated that “[t]he intelligence community did not know at that time, or at levels
                                              that got to us . . . that there was serious questions about this report.”49 As she put
                                              it on another occasion:
                                              [H]ad there been even a peep that the agency did not want that sentence in
                                              or that George Tenet did not want that sentence in, that the Director of
                                              Central Intelligence did not want it in, it would have been gone.50
                                              Ms. Rice’s claims were simply false. The CIA sent two memos to the National
                                              Security Council — one of which was addressed to Ms. Rice personally —
                                              warning against including the claim in a speech by the President.51 Director of
                                              Central Intelligence George Tenet also “argued personally” to Ms. Rice’s deputy
                                              national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, “that the allegation should not be used”
                                              by the President.52 Further, in the October 2002 NIE provided to top White
                                              House officials, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research had
                                              stated that claims that Iraq sought to acquire uranium in Africa were “highly
                                              dubious.”53
                                              Ultimately, the White House was forced to admit its error. On July 9, 2003,
                                              White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer said that the statement about importing
                                              uranium from Africa “should not have risen to the level of a presidential
                                              speech.”54 The White House minimized the significance of the Administration’s
                                              use of the Niger claim, arguing that it was “only a small part of an
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              48 Id.
                                              49 This Week With George Stephanopoulos, ABC (June 8, 2003).
                                              50 Face the Nation, CBS (July 13, 2003).
                                              51 White House, Dan Bartlett and Steve Hadley Hold Press Briefing, supra note 6.
                                              52 CIA Got Uranium Reference Cut in Oct.; Why Bush Cited It in Jan. Is Unclear, Washington
                                              Post (July 13, 2003); see also White House, Dan Bartlett and Steve Hadley Hold Press Briefing,
                                              supra note 6.
                                              53 National Intelligence Council, supra note 16.
                                              54 White House, Ari Fleischer Holds News Briefing (July 9, 2003).
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              15
                                              ‘overwhelming’ case that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the
                                              United States.”55
                                              C. Statements about Iraq’s Chemical and Biological Weapons
                                              Programs
                                              President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell,
                                              and National Security Advisor Rice made misleading statements regarding Iraq’s
                                              chemical and biological weapons programs in 61 public appearances. In these
                                              appearances, the five officials made 84 different misleading statements. These
                                              statements addressed three general topics: (1) Iraq’s chemical and biological
                                              weapons, (2) Iraq’s efforts to build unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and (3)
                                              Iraq’s mobile biological laboratories.
                                              1. Claims about Chemical and Biological Weapons
                                              Prior to the war, there were questions within the intelligence community about
                                              whether Iraq in fact possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
                                              Because Iraq previously had such stockpiles, had used them in the past, and had
                                              not adequately demonstrated that all previously produced stockpiles had been
                                              destroyed, the intelligence community made an assessment in the October NIE
                                              that it was likely that Iraq continued to possess them. Because intelligence
                                              agencies had no direct evidence of such stockpiles, however, the conclusions in
                                              the October NIE were cast in the context of an intelligence “estimate.” The NIE
                                              began its sections on chemical and biological weapons with the phrases “we
                                              assess” and “we judge.” The NIE concluded that Iraq “probably” had stockpiled
                                              chemicals and “probably” had genetically engineered biological agents. The NIE
                                              also included major qualifiers, such as: “We lack specific information on many
                                              key aspects of Iraq’s WMD programs.”56
                                              Other intelligence assessments specifically cited the uncertainty surrounding
                                              Iraq’s possession of such stockpiles. In September 2002, the Defense Intelligence
                                              Agency (DIA) issued a report that concluded: “There is no reliable information
                                              on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has
                                              — or will — establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.”57 The
                                              report also observed that “[a] substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare
                                              agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              55 White House Admits CIA Warned It before Speech, supra note 1.
                                              56 National Intelligence Council, supra note 16.
                                              57 Defense Intelligence Agency, Iraq — Key WMD Facilities — An Operational Support Study
                                              (Sept. 2002) (unclassified excerpts are available at www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates
                                              /article.asp?newsID=4928).
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              16
                                              1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United
                                              Nations Special Commission) actions.”58 While the report assessed that Iraq
                                              “probably” retained some “CW agents,” it warned that “we lack any direct
                                              information.”59
                                              Despite these uncertainties among the intelligence officials, the five
                                              Administration officials made 45 misleading statements in 35 appearances about
                                              Iraq’s possession of chemical or biological weapons. Often these statements were
                                              misleading because they projected certainty about their claims. Secretary Powell,
                                              for example, claimed, “there is no doubt in our mind that he still has chemical
                                              weapons stocks.”60 Secretary Rumsfeld stated: “He has at this moment
                                              stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.”61 Vice President Cheney
                                              asserted: “We know they have biological and chemical weapons.”62 And
                                              President Bush said bluntly, “he’s got them.”63
                                              Administration officials sometimes claimed to have specific details about
                                              stockpile locations and movements. In his speech to the United Nations, for
                                              example, Secretary Powell showed photographs of supposed Iraqi chemical
                                              stockpiles, stating: “How do I know that? How can I say that? Let me give you a
                                              closer look. Look at the image on the left. On the left is a close-up of one of the
                                              four chemical bunkers. The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that
                                              the bunkers are storing chemical munitions.”64
                                              Secretary Rumsfeld was even more specific, claiming that the Iraqis were
                                              “moving them to different locations as often as every 12 to 24 hours and placing
                                              them in residential neighborhoods.”65 He also made this statement: “We know
                                              where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west,
                                              south, and north somewhat.”66
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              58 Id.
                                              59 Id.
                                              60 Fox News Sunday, Fox TV (Sept. 8, 2002).
                                              61 Testimony by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, House Armed Services Committee
                                              (Sept. 18, 2002).
                                              62 White House, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney, supra note 3.
                                              63 White House, Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome (Nov. 4, 2002).
                                              64 U.S. Department of State, supra note 39.
                                              65 Department of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers Hold Regular Department of
                                              Defense Briefing (Mar. 11, 2003).
                                              66 This Week With George Stephanopoulos, ABC (Mar. 30, 2003).
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              17
                                              The five officials also drew selectively from individual intelligence sources. In
                                              1995, Hussein Kamel, the Iraqi official who had been in charge of Iraq’s weapons
                                              of mass destruction programs, defected and described how Iraq had violated U.N.
                                              resolutions in the early 1990s.67 Administration officials cited these claims
                                              repeatedly. For example, President Bush said:
                                              In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq’s
                                              military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to
                                              admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other
                                              deadly biological agents. . . . This is a massive stockpile of biological
                                              weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing
                                              millions.68
                                              President Bush failed to disclose, however, that this same defector reported to
                                              U.N. inspectors that Iraq had destroyed all of its chemical and biological weapons
                                              stocks.69
                                              Since the war ended, the Iraq Survey Group has reported that it is unlikely that
                                              chemical or biological stockpiles existed prior to the war. As Dr. Kay concluded:
                                              “I’m personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced
                                              weapons of mass destruction. We don’t find the people, the documents or the
                                              physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on.”70
                                              Dr. Kay reported in October 2003 that “Iraq’s large-scale capability to develop,
                                              produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced — if not entirely destroyed —
                                              during Operation Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN
                                              inspections.”71
                                              Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet echoed these findings: “It also
                                              appears that Iraq had the infrastructure and talent to resume production — but we
                                              have yet to find that it actually did so, nor have we found weapons.”72 His bottom
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              67 How Saddam Happened, Newsweek (Sept. 23, 2002).
                                              68 White House, President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat, supra note 19.
                                              69 The Defector’s Secrets, Newsweek (Mar. 3, 2003); see also What Went Wrong, Newsweek (Feb.
                                              9, 2004).
                                              70 Ex-Inspector Says CIA Missed Disarray in Iraqi Arms Program, New York Times (Jan. 26,
                                              2004).
                                              71 Statement by David Kay, supra note 24.
                                              72 Central Intelligence Agency, supra note 7.
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              18
                                              line was that “we do not know if production took place — and just as clearly —
                                              we have not yet found biological weapons.”73
                                              2. Claims about Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
                                              Prior to the war, Administration officials raised the specter of Iraq using
                                              unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to distribute chemical or biological weapons
                                              directly over the United States. Although there was agreement within the
                                              intelligence community that Iraq had a UAV program, there was a sharp split over
                                              whether these UAVs were designed to deliver chemical or biological weapons.
                                              The October NIE concluded that the UAV program was “probably” intended to
                                              deliver biological weapons. However, the government entity most knowledgeable
                                              about UAVs and their potential applications, the Air Force’s National Air and
                                              Space Intelligence Center, disagreed with this conclusion.74 According to the
                                              NIE, the U.S. Air Force “does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily
                                              intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological (CBW) agents.”
                                              Instead, the Air Force experts asserted that “[t]he small size of Iraq’s new UAV
                                              strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance.”75
                                              The five Administration officials did not acknowledge these doubts in their public
                                              statements, however. Instead, they made misleading assertions regarding the
                                              purpose of the UAVs in 5 statements in 5 public appearances.
                                              For example, on October 7, 2002, just days before the October 10 and October 11,
                                              2002, congressional votes on the Iraqi war resolution, President Bush claimed that
                                              “Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be
                                              used to disperse chemical or biological weapons.” He did not disclose that
                                              experts at the Air Force found such a use improbable. Instead, he highlighted the
                                              fear of Iraq’s UAVs being used “for missions targeting the United States.”76 Such
                                              statements had an impact on members of Congress. For example, Senator Bill
                                              Nelson voted for the Iraq war resolution “precisely because of the
                                              administration’s UAV evidence.”77 He explained:
                                              I was told not only that [Hussein had weapons of mass destruction] and
                                              that he had the means to deliver them through unmanned aerial vehicles,
                                              but that he had the capability of transporting those UAVs outside of Iraq
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              73 Id.
                                              74 Air Force Analysts Feel Vindicated on Iraqi Drones, Washington Post (Sept. 26. 2003).
                                              75 National Intelligence Council, supra note 16.
                                              76 White House, President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat, supra note 19.
                                              77 A Flawed Argument in the Case for War, Washington Post (Feb. 1, 2004).
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              19
                                              and threatening the homeland here in America, specifically by putting
                                              them on ships off the eastern seaboard. . . . I thought there was an
                                              imminent threat.78
                                              In his address to the United Nations, Secretary Powell asserted: “UAVs are well
                                              suited for dispensing chemical and biological weapons. There is ample evidence
                                              that Iraq has dedicated much effort to developing and testing spray devices that
                                              could be adapted for UAVs.”79 In making his presentation to the U.N., Secretary
                                              Powell showed a photo of an “illustrative” UAV, which he suggested was wellsuited
                                              for spraying chemical or biological weapons over the United States.80 This
                                              presentation affected members of Congress. Senator Dianne Feinstein stated that
                                              of the various pieces of evidence presented by Secretary Powell, “the most
                                              compelling to me was the unmanned aerial vehicle and the development of that
                                              with spray tanks. And he kind of laid down the fact that this could be in our
                                              country and there was a possibility that this might be used against the United
                                              States.”81
                                              President Bush later highlighted Secretary Powell’s presentation, claiming: “All
                                              the world has now seen the footage of an Iraqi Mirage aircraft with a fuel tank
                                              modified to spray biological agents over wide areas. . . . A UAV launched from a
                                              vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland.”82
                                              The Iraq Survey Group found little to substantiate these claims. According to Dr.
                                              Kay’s January 28, 2004, testimony, Iraq’s UAV program “was not a strong point”
                                              because it was only “theoretically possible” to have “snuck one of those on a ship
                                              off the East Coast of the United States that might have been able to deliver a small
                                              amount someplace.” He found only that “at least one of those families of UAVs”
                                              was a “descendent” of another model that once had a “spray tank on it.” In his
                                              assessment, there was no “existing deployment capability at that point for any sort
                                              of systematic military attack.”83
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              78 Id.
                                              79 U.S. Department of State, supra note 39.
                                              80 Id.
                                              81 NBC News Special Report: The Case Against Iraq, NBC (Feb. 5, 2003).
                                              82 White House, President Bush: “World Can Rise to This Moment” (Feb. 6, 2003).
                                              83 Testimony of David Kay, supra note 12.
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              20
                                              3. Claims about Mobile Biological Laboratories
                                              In April and early May 2003, military forces found mobile trailers in Iraq.84
                                              Although intelligence experts disputed the purpose of the trailers, Administration
                                              officials repeatedly asserted that they were mobile biological weapons
                                              laboratories. In total, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary
                                              Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice made 34
                                              misleading statements about the trailers in 27 separate public appearances.
                                              Shortly after the trailers were found, the CIA and DIA issued an unclassified
                                              white paper evaluating the trailers.85 The white paper was released without
                                              coordination with other members of the intelligence community, however. It was
                                              disclosed later that engineers from DIA who examined the trailers concluded that
                                              they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.86
                                              A former senior intelligence official reported that “only one of 15 intelligence
                                              analysts assembled from three agencies to discuss the issue in June endorsed the
                                              white paper conclusion.”87
                                              Despite these doubts within the intelligence community, the five officials
                                              repeatedly misled Congress and the public about the trailers by asserting without
                                              qualification that they were proof of Iraq’s biological weapons program.
                                              President Bush made perhaps the most prominent misleading statement on this
                                              matter when he proclaimed:
                                              We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological
                                              laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the
                                              world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build
                                              biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations
                                              resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more
                                              weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the
                                              banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we
                                              found them.88
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              84 Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency, Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare
                                              Agent Production Plants (May 28, 2003) (online at www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraqi_mobile_plants/
                                              paper_w.pdf).
                                              85 Id.
                                              86 Iraqi Trailers Said to Make Hydrogen, Not Biological Arms, New York Times (Aug. 9, 2003).
                                              87 Powell’s Case, a Year Later: Gaps in Picture of Iraq Arms, New York Times (Feb. 1, 2004).
                                              88 White House, Interview of the President by TVP, Poland (May 29, 2003).
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              21
                                              Similarly, Secretary Powell’s comments about the trailers frequently asserted with
                                              certainty that the trailers were biological weapons laboratories. For example:
                                              • On May 21, 2003, Secretary Powell said: “The intelligence community
                                              has really looked hard at these vans, and we can find no other purpose for
                                              them. Although you can’t find actual germs on them, they have been
                                              cleaned and we don’t know whether they have been used for that purpose
                                              or not, but they were certainly designed and constructed for that purpose.
                                              And we have taken our time on this one because we wanted to make sure
                                              we got it right. And the intelligence community, I think, is convinced now
                                              that that’s the purpose they served.”89
                                              • On May 22, 2003, Secretary Powell said, “So far, we have found the
                                              biological weapons vans that I spoke about when I presented the case to
                                              the United Nations on the 5th of February, and there is no doubt in our
                                              minds now that those vans were designed for only one purpose, and that
                                              was to make biological weapons.”90
                                              The doubts about the trailers were confirmed by the work of the Iraq Survey
                                              Group. According to Dr. Kay’s January 28, 2004, testimony, “the consensus
                                              opinion is that when you look at those two trailers, while [they] had capabilities in
                                              many areas, their actual intended use was not for the production of biological
                                              weapons.”91 In a separate interview, Dr. Kay explained that the trailers “were
                                              actually designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons, or perhaps to
                                              produce rocket fuel.”92
                                              D. Statements about Iraq’s Support of al Qaeda
                                              Another key component of the case for going to war against Iraq was the claim
                                              that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda. As was the case with other featured claims,
                                              the al Qaeda claims were disputed by intelligence officials within the
                                              Administration. Yet President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld,
                                              Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice regularly failed to
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              89 U.S. Department of State, Remarks with Bahrain’s Crown Prince Shaikh Salman bin Hamad Al-
                                              Khalifa After Meeting (May 21, 2003).
                                              90 U.S. Department of State, Interview with French Television 1 (May 22, 2003).
                                              91 Testimony of David Kay, supra note 12.
                                              92 Ex-Inspector Says CIA Missed Disarray in Iraqi Arms Program, supra note 70 (paraphrasing
                                              Dr. Kay). According to recent media accounts, United States intelligence officials never actually
                                              interviewed the source who provided the original tip that Iraq had mobile bioweapons trailers.
                                              Experts Say U.S. Never Spoke to Source of Tip on Bioweapons; Information from Iraqi Relayed by
                                              Foreign Agency, CIA Notes, Washington Post (Mar. 5, 2004).
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              22
                                              acknowledge these doubts or the weaknesses in the case linking Iraq and al
                                              Qaeda. They made 61 misleading statements about the strength of the Iraq-al
                                              Qaeda alliance in 52 public appearances.
                                              Well before the war on Iraq, the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate
                                              made clear that the U.S. intelligence community had serious doubts about the
                                              threat of Iraq arming al Qaeda. In its section on “Confidence Levels for Selected
                                              Key Judgements in this Estimate,” the NIE gave a “Low Confidence” rating to the
                                              notion of “Whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological
                                              weapons with Al Qa’ida.” 93 The discussion of this possibility in the NIE
                                              contained highly qualified language: “Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might
                                              decide that only an organization such as al-Qa’ida . . . could perpetuate the type of
                                              terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.”94 The NIE also reported that
                                              “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist
                                              attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure
                                              of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making
                                              war.”95
                                              Director of Central Intelligence Tenet stated in an October 2002 letter that there
                                              were intelligence reports of contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq. At the same
                                              time, however, he asserted clear qualifiers for this information: “Our
                                              understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa’ida is evolving and is
                                              based on sources of varying reliability.”96 Senators who were briefed by
                                              intelligence officials in the fall of 2002 expressed skepticism about the
                                              significance of the link. For example, Senator Jeffords on October 8, 2002,
                                              stated, “While there is talk of cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and I don’t
                                              doubt that there has been some cooperation, I have not seen any hard evidence of
                                              close cooperation.”97 According to another account:
                                              Sen. Richard J. Durbin . . . said some classified information he had seen
                                              did not support the administration’s portrayal of the Iraqi threat. “It’s
                                              troubling to have classified information that contradicts statements made
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              93 National Intelligence Council, supra note 16.
                                              94 Id. (emphasis added).
                                              95 Id.
                                              96 Threats and Responses; CIA Letter to Senate on Baghdad’s Intentions, New York Times (Oct.
                                              9, 2002) (reprinting text of October 7, 2002, letter from Mr. Tenet to Senator Bob Graham, in
                                              which Mr. Tenet says, “We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-
                                              Qa’ida going back a decade,” and “credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa’ida have
                                              discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression”).
                                              97 Statement of Senator Jim Jeffords, Senate Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force against Iraq
                                              (Oct. 8, 2002).
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              23
                                              by the administration,” Durbin said. “There’s more they should share with
                                              the public.” Durbin would not be more specific, but he did say the
                                              committee had received the views of some analysts who do not share the
                                              administration’s conclusion that Iraq was an urgent threat with important
                                              links to al-Qaeda terrorists.98
                                              Journalists also reported that many intelligence officials within the Administration
                                              doubted the significance of reported contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda.
                                              According to one report:
                                              [A]nalysts at the C.I.A. . . . believed that the evidence showed some
                                              contacts between Baghdad and the terrorist organization, but not an
                                              operational alliance. . . . [A]t the C.I.A., many analysts believed that Mr.
                                              bin Laden saw Mr. Hussein as one of the corrupt secular Arab leaders who
                                              should be toppled.99
                                              Despite the doubts of many intelligence analysts, the five Administration officials
                                              regularly asserted that there was a close relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
                                              For example:
                                              • In a November 7, 2002, speech, President Bush stated: Saddam Hussein is
                                              “a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. . . . [A] true threat facing
                                              our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by
                                              Saddam could attack America and not leave one fingerprint.” 100
                                              • In his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address, President Bush stated:
                                              “Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and
                                              statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and
                                              protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without
                                              fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or
                                              help them develop their own.”101
                                              • In his February 5, 2003, remarks to the United Nations, Secretary of State
                                              Colin Powell stated: “what I want to bring to your attention today is the
                                              potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda
                                              terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and
                                              modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              98 Democrats Urge Focus on Terror Instead of Iraq, Philadelphia Inquirer (Oct. 5, 2002).
                                              99 The Struggle for Iraq: Intelligence; Hussein Warned Iraqis to Beware Outside Fighters,
                                              Document Says, New York Times (Jan. 14, 2004).
                                              100 White House, President Outlines Priorities (Nov. 7, 2002).
                                              101 White House, State of the Union, supra note 43.
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              24
                                              headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama
                                              bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.”102
                                              • In remarks on May 1, 2003, announcing the end of major combat
                                              operations in Iraq, President Bush stated: “The battle of Iraq is one
                                              victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and
                                              still goes on. . . . [T]he liberation of Iraq . . . removed an ally of al
                                              Qaeda.”103
                                              Vice President Cheney’s statements on this topic repeatedly cited reports of a
                                              specific alleged Iraq–al Qaeda contact: a meeting between Mohammed Atta, one
                                              of the September 11 hijackers, and a senior Iraqi official in Prague a few months
                                              before September 11, 2001. For example, Vice President Cheney stated on
                                              September 14, 2003:
                                              With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out
                                              there. The Czechs alleged that Mohammed Atta, the lead attacker, met in
                                              Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the
                                              attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in
                                              terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.104
                                              The Vice President’s assertions about this meeting omitted key information. He
                                              did not acknowledge that the CIA and FBI had concluded before the war in Iraq
                                              that “the meeting probably did not take place”;105 that Czech government officials
                                              had developed doubts regarding whether this meeting occurred;106 or that
                                              American records indicate that Mr. Atta was in Virginia Beach, Virginia, at the
                                              time of the purported meeting.107
                                              Assessments following the war further highlighted the tenuous nature of the
                                              Administration’s assertions about an Iraq-al Qaeda alliance. According to the
                                              New York Times, “Since American forces toppled the Hussein government and the
                                              United States gained access to captured Iraqi officials and Iraqi files, the C.I.A.
                                              has not yet uncovered evidence that has altered its prewar assessment concerning
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              102 U.S. Department of State, supra note 39.
                                              103 White House, President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended (May
                                              1, 2003).
                                              104 Meet the Press, supra note 21.
                                              105 A Region Inflamed: Inquiry; Iraqi Agent Denies He Met 9/11 Hijacker in Prague Before
                                              Attacks on the U.S., New York Times (Dec. 13, 2003).
                                              106 Id.
                                              107 Id.
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              25
                                              the connections between Mr. Hussein and Osama bin Laden, the leader of al
                                              Qaeda, officials said.”108
                                              Consistent with this view, during Dr. Kay’s testimony before the Senate Armed
                                              Services Committee on January 28, 2004, the following exchange occurred
                                              between Senator Warner and Dr. Kay:
                                              Senator Warner: Any evidence with regard to participation by either
                                              Saddam Hussein or his principal henchmen in the WMD-sharing with al
                                              Qaeda or any other terrorist organizations?
                                              Dr. Kay: Senator Levin — Senator Warner, there is no evidence that I can
                                              think of that I know of.109
                                              V. MISLEADING STATEMENTS BY INDIVIDUAL OFFICIALS
                                              A. President Bush
                                              President Bush made 55 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq in
                                              27 separate public statements or appearances.
                                              Of the 55 misleading statements by President Bush, 4 claimed that Iraq posed an
                                              urgent threat; 14 exaggerated Iraq’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons; 18
                                              overstated Iraq’s chemical or biological weapons capacity; and 19 misrepresented
                                              Iraq’s links to al Qaeda.
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              108 A Region Inflamed, supra note 105. Last October, Undersecretary for Defense Policy Douglas
                                              J. Feith sent a memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee regarding the connection between Iraq
                                              and al Qaeda. In November, the Weekly Standard published the memo’s classified annex,
                                              claiming that its list of Iraq–al Qaeda contacts proved “an operational relationship from the early
                                              1990s” and that “there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein’s
                                              Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans.” Case Closed,
                                              Weekly Standard (Nov. 24, 2003). The Defense Department, however, immediately issued an
                                              official statement that “[t]he classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the
                                              relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.” U.S. Department of
                                              Defense, News Release: DOD Statement on News Reports of al-Qaeda and Iraq Connections
                                              (Nov. 15, 2003). Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet also recently testified regarding
                                              the Feith memo, stating that the CIA “did not agree with the way the way the data was
                                              characterized in that document.” Testimony of Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet
                                              before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Hearing on National Security Threats (Mar. 9,
                                              2004).
                                              109 Testimony of David Kay, supra note 12.
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              26
                                              On October 7, 2002, just days before the October 10 and October 11, 2002,
                                              congressional votes on the Iraq war resolution, President Bush gave an address in
                                              Cincinnati, Ohio, about the threat posed by Iraq. In this speech, President Bush
                                              made 11 misleading statements about Iraq, the highest number of misleading
                                              statements in any single appearance by any of the five officials. In this single
                                              appearance, President Bush made misleading statements about Iraq’s nuclear
                                              capabilities, Iraq’s efforts to procure aluminum tubes, Iraq’s chemical and
                                              biological capabilities, and Iraq’s connection to al Qaeda.
                                              Some of the misleading statements made by President Bush included the
                                              following:
                                              • “On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . .
                                              It has developed weapons of mass death.”110
                                              • “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
                                              significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”111
                                              • “The liberation of Iraq . . . removed an ally of al Qaeda.”112
                                              • “We found the weapons of mass destruction. . . . [F]or those who say we
                                              haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons,
                                              they’re wrong, we found them.”113
                                              B. Vice President Cheney
                                              Vice President Cheney made 51 misleading statements about the threat posed by
                                              Iraq in 25 separate public statements or appearances.
                                              Of the 51 misleading statements by Vice President Cheney, 1 claimed that Iraq
                                              posed an urgent threat; 22 exaggerated Iraq’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons;
                                              7 overstated Iraq’s chemical or biological weapons capacity; and 21
                                              misrepresented Iraq’s links to al Qaeda.
                                              Some of the misleading statements made by Vice President Cheney included the
                                              following:
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              110 White House, President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, supra note 8.
                                              111 White House, State of the Union, supra note 43.
                                              112 White House, President Bush Announces, supra note 103.
                                              113 White House, Interview of the President, supra note 88.
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              27
                                              • “[W]e do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement
                                              system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to
                                              build a nuclear weapon.”114
                                              • Saddam Hussein “had an established relationship with al Qaeda.”115
                                              • “[W]e believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”116
                                              C. Secretary Rumsfeld
                                              Secretary Rumsfeld made 52 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq
                                              in 23 separate public statements or appearances.
                                              Of the 52 misleading statements by Secretary Rumsfeld; 5 claimed that Iraq posed
                                              an urgent threat; 18 exaggerated Iraq’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons; 21
                                              overstated Iraq’s chemical or biological weapons capacity; and 8 misrepresented
                                              Iraq’s links to al Qaeda.
                                              Some of the misleading statements made by Secretary Rumsfeld included the
                                              following:
                                              • “Now transport yourself forward a year, two years, or a week, or a
                                              month, and if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass
                                              destruction and transfer them, either use himself, or transfer them to
                                              the Al-Qaeda, and somehow the Al-Qaeda were to engage in an attack
                                              on the United States . . . with a weapon of mass destruction you’re not
                                              talking about 300, or 3,000 people potentially being killed, but 30,000,
                                              or 100,000 . . . human beings.”120
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              114 Meet the Press, supra note 38.
                                              115 White House, Remarks by the Vice President to the Heritage Foundation (Oct. 10, 2003).
                                              116 Meet the Press, supra note 20.
                                              117 Meet the Press, supra note 38.
                                              118 White House, Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership
                                              Conference (Dec. 2, 2002).
                                              119 White House, Remarks by the Vice President, supra note 115.
                                              120 U.S. Department of Defense, supra note 11.
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              28
                                              • “[Saddam Hussein’s] regime . . . recently was discovered seeking
                                              significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”121
                                              • “We said they had a nuclear program. That was never any debate.”123
                                              D. Secretary Powell
                                              Secretary Powell made 50 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq in
                                              34 separate public statements or appearances.
                                              Of the 50 misleading statements by Secretary Powell, 1 claimed that Iraq posed an
                                              urgent threat; 10 exaggerated Iraq’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons; 32
                                              overstated Iraq’s chemical or biological weapons capacity; and 7 misrepresented
                                              Iraq’s links to al Qaeda.
                                              Sometimes Secretary Powell used caveats and qualifying language in his public
                                              statements. For example, on March 9, 2003, he said, “Well with respect to the
                                              aluminum tubes, we still believe the case is out. The CIA has done a great deal of
                                              analysis on those tubes. They are not persuaded they were just for rockets. And,
                                              in fact, another nation this week, a European nation, came forward with some
                                              additional information that still, I think, leaves it an open question as to what the
                                              purpose of those tubes was.”124 Secretary Powell’s acknowledgement of
                                              differences in this example was not an unqualified statement that only mentioned
                                              one side of an intelligence debate.
                                              On numerous other occasions, however, Secretary Powell made unconditional
                                              statements about the threats posed by Iraq without disclosing the doubts of
                                              intelligence officials. Some of the misleading statements he made included the
                                              following:
                                              • “Iraq is now concentrating . . . on developing and testing smaller
                                              UAVs. . . . UAVs are well suited for dispensing chemical and biological
                                              weapons.”125
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              121 Press Conference with Donald Rumsfeld, supra note 45.
                                              122 U.S. Department of Defense, supra note 11.
                                              123 This Week With George Stephanopoulos, supra note 23.
                                              124 Meet the Press, NBC (Mar. 9, 2003).
                                              125 U.S. Department of State, supra note 39.
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              29
                                              • “The more we wait, the more chance there is for this dictator with clear
                                              ties to terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, more time for him to pass a
                                              weapon, share a technology, or use these weapons again.”126
                                              • “So far, we have found the biological weapons vans that I spoke about
                                              when I presented the case to the United Nations on the 5th of February,
                                              and there is no doubt in our minds that those vans were designed for only
                                              one purpose, and that was to make biological weapons.”127
                                              E. National Security Advisor Rice
                                              Ms. Rice made 29 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq in 16
                                              separate public statements or appearances.
                                              Of the 29 misleading statements by Ms. Rice, 17 concerned Iraq’s efforts to
                                              develop nuclear weapons; 6 overstated Iraq’s chemical or biological weapons
                                              capacity; and 6 misrepresented Iraq’s links to al Qaeda.
                                              Some of the misleading statements made by Ms. Rice included the following:
                                              • “We do know that [Saddam Hussein] is actively pursuing a nuclear
                                              weapon.”128
                                              • “We do know that there have been shipments going into . . . Iraq, for
                                              instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to — high quality
                                              aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs,
                                              centrifuge programs.”130
                                              • “[T]he declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq’s efforts to get
                                              uranium from abroad.”131
                                              Ms. Rice made significantly more statements that were false — 8 — than any of
                                              the other four officials. Many of these statements came in June and July 2003
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              126 U.S. Department of State, Secretary of State Powell, Remarks at the World Economic Forum
                                              (Jan. 26, 2003).
                                              127 U.S. Department of State, supra note 90.
                                              128 Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, supra note 37.
                                              129 Condoleezza Rice, supra note 44.
                                              130 Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, supra note 37.
                                              131 Condoleezza Rice, supra note 44.
                                              IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
                                              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
                                              30
                                              when questions were being raised about why President Bush asserted in his State
                                              of the Union address that Iraq was seeking to import uranium from Africa. Ms.
                                              Rice repeatedly stated during this period that no one in the White House was
                                              informed of the doubts about this uranium claim. For example, she stated:
                                              • “We did not know at the time — no one knew at the time, in our circles —
                                              maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our
                                              circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a
                                              forgery.”132
                                              • “[H]ad there been even a peep that the agency did not want that sentence
                                              in or that George Tenet did not want that sentence in, that the director of
                                              Central Intelligence did not want it in, it would have been gone.”133
                                              These statements were simply false. As explained above, the CIA had repeatedly
                                              communicated its objections to White House officials, including Ms. Rice.134
                                              VI. CONCLUSION
                                              Because of the gravity of the subject and the President’s unique access to
                                              classified information, members of Congress and the public expect the President
                                              and his senior officials to take special care to be balanced and accurate in
                                              describing national security threats. It does not appear, however, that President
                                              Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and
                                              National Security Advisor Rice met this standard in the case of Iraq. To the
                                              contrary, these five officials repeatedly made misleading statements about the
                                              threat posed by Iraq. In 125 separate appearances, they made 11 misleading
                                              statements about the urgency of Iraq’s threat, 81 misleading statements about
                                              Iraq’s nuclear activities, 84 misleading statements about Iraq’s chemical and
                                              biological capabilities, and 61 misleading statements about Iraq’s relationship
                                              with al Qaeda.
                                              ______________________________________________________________
                                              132 Meet the Press, NBC (June 8, 2003).
                                              133 Face the Nation, CBS (July 11, 2003).
                                              134 See White House, Dan Bartlett and Steve Hadley Hold Press Briefing, supra note 6.
                                    • .
                                      .
                                      offline 39

                                      Re: anyone like nader?

                                      Tue, July 8, 2008 - 11:13 PM
                                      And once again, as all the evidence shows, you know, from the people who actually were there, the consensus within the global intelligence community was there. Why do you think Hans Blix thought there were WMDs, just because a bluebird told him.

                                      you guys are so ignorant of the historical truths its literally nauseating.

                                      I guess all those years in school studying the region, all those years in the Army, all the time at the NDU, and recently at the USAJFKSWCS, there's NO WAY I know what I'm talking about.
            • anyone like nader?

              Mon, July 21, 2008 - 6:12 AM
              Too few here have any idea what they are talking about. Perhaps it would be informative if people actually read about Ralph Nader.

              en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_nader

              This is why there are no progressive politics in the US. A man who has had more beneficial effect on american politics than anyone else except for Malcom X and Martin Luther King since 1960 and no one has anything positive to say about him. The left isn't looking for someone who could actually do something but someone who will do for the left what Reagan did for the right.

              • Re: anyone like nader?

                Mon, July 21, 2008 - 2:50 PM
                wait steve, you know, i did my best fer nader given the topic drift.
                --------------
                The purpose of this thread is to find and explore resources and information relative to these main subjects.

                1. Quantum Mechanics
                2. The Quantum Paradigm as it applies to Paradigm Shift(s)
                3. Implications in terms of communications and relationships
                4. Methodologies and Process for solving high order problems, including getting past mental blocks,
                polarization, propaganda, old paradigms, paradigmal ethnocentrism, cognicentrism, and other psychological obstacles.
                5. Incorporation of such principles into ones own personal life to facilitate happiness, self empowerment, self education,
                prosperity, increased vitality, increased benefit from relationships, and genuine, non denominational spirituality.

                1. Quantum Mechanics
                A; There are two Four forums on this Board devoted to Quantum mechanics. This fist forum is meant as a sort of introduction to the basics,
                and is part of the introduction to the new way of thinking and communicating which will be required to solve problems, rather than merely discuss
                or argue about them.
                B; The Second Forum is specifically exploration of advanced ideas in Quantum thinking and paradigm shifting.
                C; The third Forum is entitled "Quantum Mechanics Macro Level" and is for the specific purpose of exploring the basics of Quantum Mechanics
                without the intervening voice of psychology, sociology, or, sociological concerns or issues.
                D; The fourth Forum is entitled "Quantum Mechanics Micro Level" and Explore the more advanced and purely scientific paradigms
                of Quantum mechanics.
                E; Thus, the first two forums offer context to the entire board in terms of providing a back drop by which we can attempt to work on obtaining new social protocols. They are thus about SOCIAL and personal IMPLICATIONS of Quantum mechanics.
                F; Lest we be accused of pseudo science or lazy thinking, the second two forums are for scientific inquiry without the added complexity of Social, Intellectual, Personal, Or spiritual implications or ramifications.
                G; It is felt by the Boards Architect that this structure will serve very well in facilitating the new mind set and problem solving process which we are looking to create.
                H; Quantum Mechanics is the study of things at the smallest levels of reality.
                I; This includes, but is not limited to, the structure of the atom (and Atoms) Particles, Waves, probablity, Quantum information, entanglement, The four main forces of Nature, Quantum Probability, Properties or sub atomic paricles, Properties of sub sub atomic particles, Quarks, Spin, Quantum Chromodynamics,
                Branes, String Theory, Many Worlds theory, Singularities, Tachyons, Gravitons, Holographic Principle, The Holographic Universe, ....

                2.The Quantum Paradigm as it applies to Paradigm Shift(s)
                A; The Quantum Paradigm now tells us some very interesting things about the nature of reality which, like the lighting struck tower of Tarot, destroy
                the old paradigms and force us to take a very new look at reality, and to build a new and better description of reality.
                B; Cheif Amongst these truth is the Holographic Principle, which tells us that all things are connected via quantum information to each other. There is no
                separation and no difference. Individuality is the illusion created by having a neural net and an animal body. What we actually ARE is a scalar fractal holomorph, played out in this version at the scale of molecular biochemistry. That same Scalar fractal hologram playing out at different scales is responsible for the four forces of nature and the whole universe.
                C; Because everything is inter connected, all conflict is illusion. The animal nature of competition and thus strife, pain, greed, war, and so forth is both a natural outcome of biochemistry, and an illusion which sentience gives us the power to overcome.
                D; The Universe is not full of absolutes or black and whites, or even of rigid rules or absolute structures. Every attempt to pin down laws of the universe has resulted only in creating rules which hold true only at certain scales. For instance, the laws of thermodynamics, or the laws of conservation of mass or energy.
                These laws are very true and very useful at the macro scale of biochemistry which we live at. However, at the quantum level, they break down, as mass and energy both can and are spontaneously created and destroyed, quantum order increases in the reverse of entropy, and certain unusual situations can violate
                the laws of thermodynamics.
                E. Just as matter is only entangled energy, energy is only entangled quantum information. There is no matter, there is no energy, there is just pattern with
                layers of patterns operating at several different scales.
                F. The Materialism and Atheism of early science thus are now being replaced with a more evolved paradigm which has found laws of nature on which genuine
                spirituality can be pinned, if one has the inclination to do so.
                G. Although these laws of nature are very subtle and not apparent at first glance, they still do exist, and just as with more gross forms of technology,
                understanding those laws and choosing to operate within them and to take advantage of them can rapidly yield remarkable results.
                H; The new paradigm is not about one side being right and some other being wrong, it is about finding the algorythm which vindicates both sides, and which uses both to explain each other.
                I; For instance, rational science and rational spirituality have nothing to argue over. An esoteric understanding of the Tanakh in non literalist and symbolic
                Terms can be easily reconciled with modern Science. In fact, take away the rhetoric and the propaganda and the mis translations, and the first two paragraphs of Genesis read very favorably as a primitive and poetic version of big bang theory. "God" can use natural law and natural process to build the universe, thus rendering the supposed argument between science and religion an argument actually between mentally caged dogmatists who on either side
                don't actually know anything of depth about the paradigm that they are supposedly championing.
                J; To reiterate, the Quantum Thought paradigm is about seeing how things FIT TOGETHER, and understanding that the apparent conflicts and paradoxes are due to mis interpretations of the original paradigm.
                This in turn brings PEACE between different previously competing paradigms, and frees up the energy previously wasted as paradigm fought each other to make new and real scientific and spiritual progress.
                K; Current Science is actually progressing at a very slow rate due to the drag created by its arguments with and against spirituality and religion, and due to its
                own attachments to dogma.
                L; Those same energies re-applied towards an integrated new paradigm can created what is called a "Paradigm shift". When that happens, science and spirituality actually merge, and both become hundreds of times more potent and useful and advanced than they currently are now.

                3. Implications in terms of communications and relationships

                A; Almost all social energy in our current culture is wasted in distractions, vices, dogma, and conflict.
                B; Almost all intellectual energy in our current culture is wasted in propaganda, spin, and political conflict.
                C; the protocols of communication which we are habitually adapted to promote conflict over cooperation,
                and, this is by design for the purpose of keeping the masses stupid and thus controlled easily by propaganda.
                D; There is no necessity for an upper caste, elites, or social hierarchies. The reverse is true, those people are by definition social parasites.
                E; Most people believe that their leaders will solve the social problems and that their sole responsibility is to select good leaders. This is a well
                sold delusion. The truth is that the leaders maintain their grip on power only by maintaining the social problems. If the social problems were fixed,
                there would be no market and no place for the problem solvers. Government Ignores the real solutions to our problems and propaganda is created to
                keep the populations from knowing the truth or finding out what solutions science has to offer. The primary purpose of American Government is
                to maintain the status quo of misery and suffering, so that the Elites can continue to profit from that suffering by offering falsely a way out from under
                that suffering.
                F; The "Left" and the "Right" and "Liberal" and "Conservative" are thus two sides of one coin whos true name is orwellian slavery. The real solutions
                exist well outside of that false duality, and the reality of the problems and real problem definitions do not stem from diabolizing, polarizing against, or blaming each other.
                G; The masses are kept enslaved via intellectual and propaganda versions of divide and conquer. By creating "teams" and propaganda warfare, all genuine
                problem solving processes are drowned out of the dominant social conversation or body politic.
                H; True democracy is attainable and rests upon all of us mutually accepting our responsibility and authority to become problem solvers and collaborative
                communicators.
              • Re: anyone like nader?

                Mon, July 21, 2008 - 9:04 PM
                Have to agree with you Steve4. I've actually done a fair bit of reading on Nader and went to see his movie at the Toronto Hot Docs Festival when it came out in '05. I receive his occasional emails (about once a month) on various topics.

                There are so many profound things this man has done that its hard to keep account of all of them. Given his age and the lack of appreciation for all that he has done, I expect we'll see a real love-in on the day he passes away but nothing significant before or after. This is shameful really.

                Even though I'm not an American, I still see him as a real voice in the wilderness. I don't know if you have a civic honour awards program in America. In Canada, Nader would be a Companion of the Order of Canada for outstanding lifetime achievement and merit of the highest degree, especially in service to Canada or to humanity at large.

                Someone ought to nominate him for a high civic honour.
      • .
        .
        offline 39

        Re: anyone like nader?

        Mon, July 7, 2008 - 1:39 PM
        Absolutely we would have been in Iraq if Gore were president.

        All you have to do is examine Clinton's policies in Iraq, and Gore's pre-March 2003 rhetoric on Iraq. There's no indication that Gore would have interpreted the intelligence is a different manner than he had for the previous 8 years, and in any way different than either Clinton's have indicated they read it pre-2003.
        • Re: anyone like nader?

          Wed, July 23, 2008 - 5:22 AM
          Sorry, I haven't looked at this thread for awhile. I'm afraid you are most probably wrong. Perhaps your clairvoyance is better than mine, but I think not. Of course, I stated that I believe we would not have. You state in no uncertain terms the following. "Absolutely we would have been in Iraq if Gore were president [sic]." Perhaps he was lying? Perhaps wishful thinking on your part?

          www.gwu.edu/~action/2004...092302sp.html

          Now Bush, I know lied. And I can state that in no uncertain terms.
          • Re: anyone like nader?

            Wed, July 23, 2008 - 6:12 PM
            who are you adressing, erik?

            my clairvoyance tends to beat all...

            --------------------------

            y Jack Today at 2:46 pm EDT

            Your comment on my 'Idea-Tank' post led me to read what you had written.
            Ironic that we are posting about not being listened to, trying to add new ideas, and it is like shouting down a well.
            At the same time, I am an optimist no matter how many times I am disappointed. I keep on believing that I am just one post away from getting people to pay attention and from then on I will be heard.
            I think that you are the same - an optimist though often disappointed.
            Keep on posting and hoping.
            "The sun will come out tomorrow" as the song goes.

            -----------
            I'm annoyed. I'm frustrated. I'm saddened. I'm Bored.

            Obamas website is captioned as a whole with this;
            "I'm asking you to believe, not just inmy ability to bring about real change in washington,
            I'M ASKING YOU TO BELIEVE IN YOURS."

            And despite Obama himself decrying the distractions, the noise, and the vice of propaganda warfare...
            You are all of you still doing it. You are still falling for it. You are up in an uproar about bullshit
            which will be forgotten in six months, and nobodies talking about how to solve real world problems.

            You are running around like hamsters in a hamster wheel, or chickens with their heads cut off,
            playing as reactionary pawns exactly the game that the people you are so upset at WANT you to play.
            All of these people talking about writing ABC. Who will it be next? Fox News or CNN?
            Enthralled and captivated in these petty distractions of day by day petty propaganda warfare,
            you are being duped into playing the game the evil jerks want you to play,
            SO THAT YOU NEVER GET AROUND TO THE ISSUES OR REAL WORLD PROBLEM SOLVING.

            Obama doesn't need your full investment in more petty bickering, or for you to go begging evil
            Jerks to quit being Evil. In fact, the polls show that evey time they launch another batch of this
            BS at him, his numbers go up and Hillaries go down.

            What Obama DOES need is for us, collectively to begin working on solving these real world probelms.
            Obamas ideas are great. But they are just the very start of the problem solving process. What will be required to
            actually solve these problems in reality is Obamas sense of direction; coupled with the mental work of thousands
            of other people. To put it simply, each of these real world problems is orders of magnitude larger than any one
            single mind can hope to imagine, let alone solve. It will take all of us, collectively, to solve these problems,
            (If we solve them) and that process can start febuary or march of 2009, or it can start RIGHT NOW.

            The propaganda wars have been going on for quite some time. Contrary to assorted delusions, we are not in the age of information,
            we are in the age of propaganda. Propaganda memes in our culture outnumber information memes, are passed around
            hundreds of times more frequently, and eclipse all of the truth and all of the real information which our civilization
            has aquired. The players in this game are the evil jerk Corporate Oligarchs, who want to keep the American Dialogue
            stupid so that it never solves the problems... all of which sooner or later lead back to Corporate Oligarchs.
            AND...
            All of the pawns of the game which include Hillaries supporters, Mccains Supporters, and sadly, the vast majority
            of Obamas supporters.
            When you write a letter to evil jerks and beg them to quit being evil jerks, do you really believe that they care or that
            they are listening to you or that they don't realize that they are being evil jerks?
            Don't you see that all such energy only plays into their game, only wastes your time and energy, and only
            gives them back your power?
            Don't you realize that in your reflexive need to be defensive, that all you are doing is playing into their mental
            trap on one side of the emotionalized polarizations which they created?
            Do you all like to be pawns in their game?

            WAKE UP!.
            Quit letting them yank your chain. Quit letting them define the terms of the game and then being surprised when
            you loose.

            Lets talk about some more real world problems that remain unsolved because you people can't keep your eyes on the ball.
            The Elections are rigged. The Machines that count your votes were built by Republicans, and the programs which run those
            machines are safeguarded away from any prying eyes as "proprietary information."

            www.buzzflash.com/farrell/0...04038.html
            www.oilempire.us/elections.html
            www.whatreallyhappened.com/rigvote.html
            www.blackboxvoting.org/
            www.blackboxvoting.org/toolkit.html
            www.usatoday.com/tech/colu...ntor_x.htm

            So heres your problem. In november, we don't just have to win. We have to win by a sufficient landslide that
            attempts to rig the election would be too transparent to get away with it.

            How are we going to do that? By playing tit for tat with Corporate media as it slams Obama and praises its
            pretty Boy Mccain?
            By playing their game on their terms their way by their rules?
            By running around in circles with the Corporate Media?

            Again, back to this;

            "For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism.
            We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy,
            as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s
            sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only
            question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize
            with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s
            playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general
            election regardless of his policies.
            We can do that.

            But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction.
            And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.


            That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.”
            This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and
            white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want
            to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us
            are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will
            not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time. "
            OBAMA-

            Obama says these things, but even his own people don't seem to get it. Your moving like lab rats from
            one part of the media maze to another, instead of waking up and stepping out of their game and realizing that
            our collective power is to adress the issues. Not play some stupid vile chess game with evil propaganda Jerks.
            When are we going to talk about the probelms and their solutions?

            I've been trying to talk with obamanites for two weeks now. Not one word. Not a single actual point of discussion
            has ensued. The closest I have come is Jack up there, echoing the basic premise of my idea. Other than that,
            I spent a week and a half on TOPIX chewing through trolls, and not one Obamanite answered the threads i posted per platform
            plank. I tried joining an Obama group. They ignore me completely. I try posting on Obamas "blog". And still,
            nothing.

            This is pathetic. Its stupid, its dumb, and its silly. Its also plain crazy.
            Did massive letter writing campaigns against the swift boating of John Kerry have any impact on these media swine?
            No. The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over, getting the same results each time, but expecting
            different results. Well, write your letters then. Be just as distracted as the Corporate Oligarchs want you to be.
            Play their game by their rules. And I can tell you what will happen. The corporate Media will slowly roast Obama
            over an open fire, and then the Corporate owned electoral process will steal your vote and record it as a vote for Mccain.

            Any meme which openly discusses a candidate is a distraction. Any meme which attacks Hillary or Mccain is a distraction.
            Any attacks on corporate News Media, short of authoring a WE THE PEOPLE Emergency petition and bill to
            seize the public media and all of its assets, and then put those assets back into a trust for WE THE PEOPLE...
            Is another distraction. Any meme which talks about anything which will be forgetten in six months or a year is a distrction.
            Any Bullshit which doesn't plug directly into one of these (or some other similar real world problem)

            * Civil Rights
            * Disabilities
            * Economy
            * Education
            * Energy & Environment
            * Ethics
            * Faith
            * Family
            * Fiscal
            * Foreign Policy
            * Healthcare
            * Homeland Security
            * Immigration
            * Iraq
            * Poverty
            * Rural
            * Service
            * Seniors & Social Security
            * Technology
            * Veterans
            * Additional Issues
            * The Blueprint for Change

            Is a distraction.

            Quit being distracted. Quit being fooled. Quit letting them play you as a pawn in their game, and start playing
            against them as adults outside of their game.
            See yourself as an emergency member of a presidential Cabinet. Obama doesn't need you to fight the evil jerks,
            He needs you to work on how to solve real world problems.

            And if we choose collectively to do that, then we will make history and the News, and we will be a force for change
            instead of the dupes of stagnation and Corporate Vampires.

            --------------------

            all around me are familiar faces
            worn out places
            worn out faces
            bright and early for the daily races
            going no where
            going no where
            their tears are filling up their glasses
            no expression
            no expression
            hide my head i wanna drown my sorrow
            no tomorrow
            no tomorrow
            and i find i kind of funny
            i find it kind of sad
            the dreams in which i'm dying are the best i've ever had
            i find it hard to tell you
            i find it hard to take
            when people run in circles its a very very
            mad world
            mad world
            children waiting for the day they feel good
            happy birthday
            happy birthday
            and i feel the way that every child should
            sit and listen
            sit and listen
            went to school and i was very nervous
            no one knew me
            no one new me
            hello teacher tell me what's my lesson
            look right through me
            look right through me
            and i find i kind of funny
            i find it kind of sad
            the dreams in which i'm dying are the best i've ever had
            i find it hard to tell you
            i find it hard to take
            when people run in circles its a very very
            mad world
            mad world
            enlarging your world
            mad world

            www.youtube.com/watch
            www.youtube.com/watch
            www.youtube.com/watch





            ____________
            “The opposite of bravery is not cowardice but conformity.”

            "Out beyond ideas of right-doing and wrong-doing there is a field. I’ll meet you there. "
            -Rumi-

            “The best way to escape from your problem is to solve it.”

            mytalktoday.com/forum/forum.php
            mytalktoday.com/forum/index.php
            • Re: anyone like nader?

              Wed, July 23, 2008 - 7:21 PM
              Prometheus, what in heavens name are you thinking of ??? this is supposed to be a discussion about what we think about nader, but you've kicked into your long drawn out diatribe on your personal opinions. time after time you do this. thank goodness we are only writing on virtual paper, or else you'd be using up a forest each week.... how about trying to stick to the topic being discussed, and think about replying succinctly. you are making these conversations unpleasant for me and i'll bet for others. and you know, i think you are well aware of it and enjoy the negative attention.
              • Re: anyone like nader?

                Wed, July 23, 2008 - 7:35 PM
                I'm sorry that you feel this way.

                my take on it is that nader is an out of the box thinker, and, i am trying to blow up the box with this bit.

                i think its rather funny for you to complain about me going off topic when it was i that led it back on to topic after others drove it off topic.

                again, just because you don't see the connection at first does not mean that there is not one there.


                I find this post to be very on topic and more importantly, to be the kind of thing which drives the conversation to some kind of focus.

                How do we acheive Nader like lucidity in this conversation? how dowe stop the madness of the two party oligarchy?
                by taking personal responsibility to solve problems ourselves instead of chat and bicker.

                ----------------------

                You are running around like hamsters in a hamster wheel, or chickens with their heads cut off,
                playing as reactionary pawns exactly the game that the people you are so upset at WANT you to play.
                All of these people talking about writing ABC. Who will it be next? Fox News or CNN?
                Enthralled and captivated in these petty distractions of day by day petty propaganda warfare,
                you are being duped into playing the game the evil jerks want you to play,
                SO THAT YOU NEVER GET AROUND TO THE ISSUES OR REAL WORLD PROBLEM SOLVING.
                • Re: anyone like nader?

                  Thu, July 24, 2008 - 4:30 AM
                  If you had read my post and noted who I was quoting, you would know.

                  Do you worship at the alter of the god of cut and paste or something? Your posts are so long and often unreadable, that I've pretty much stopped bothering. I just scroll past most of them now.
                • intelligence vs wisdom

                  Thu, July 24, 2008 - 7:11 AM
                  " I'm sorry that you feel this way. "

                  this is a good start, prom.. it shows an effort to communicate with us, not simply lecture us and let us know how stupid we are compared to you. i understand you didn't mean you were sorry for how you came across, only that you were sad i responded the way i did. that's fine. you are still entering into positive discussion.

                  yes, intellect comes easy to you. but communication is the key to sharing your passion. that takes time and effort. if you take all the information you have consumed, digest it, refine it, and when you write it down to share, edit, edit edit.... its easy to write what you understand. it is difficult to really grasp how to communicate it to others concisely so they can and want to understand. [you're much smarter than we, with your 99.9 percentile.. i fall way below you in the 99.5 percentile, so have patience rather than derision for us ignoramuses]

                  your input is extremely valuable to us all, prom. i am looking forward to your responses when they are written in a social, clear, short manner. you have the freedom to start discussions in your own style, but please be kind to us who are trying to unwind after a hard days work with some intelligent political discussion
          • .
            .
            offline 39

            Re: anyone like nader?

            Tue, August 19, 2008 - 12:31 AM
            How can you point to that piece and see anything other than Gore taking a slight oppositional stance to a republican he's supposed to hate?

            "Nevertheless, Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint"

            Basically "Lets make sure we build a strong coalition" - Gore would have been more successful in that endeavor. In no sense was he lying here, and in way does it contradict my point.

            And you can "state" Bush lied all you want - it doesn't make it true.
            • Re: anyone like nader?

              Tue, August 19, 2008 - 5:08 AM
              #
              is tough...

              And, I find it interesting that you call me a "narcisist [sic] pig-ape" as well. Shame on you. First, you plagiarize my words
              ----------
              I plagiarized? oh my, thats a hoot. I caught you in a projection.
              ----------


              Telling others what they should or should not do, does not make you a fascist. Telling them what they must do might. You know, like somebody saying "Don't TELL them." Your words, not mine. Of course, your use of typical fascist diatribe tends to support my reversal of your contention. What is good for the goose and all.
              ------------
              Being forced to kick troll ass in order for humanity to evolve does not change the fundamentals of the truth, it just points out a cultural irony.
              It also might be pointed out that whats necessary is both whupping your ass AND supplying the important truths, and that only doing the former only adds to social entropy; which is what makes the game hard.
              ------------

              "The only point which you should be contemplating is the one on the tip of that knife loki was kind enough to post for you."

              Interesting. I suppose you do know that threats of bodily harm, in fact death threats (and this could easily be construed as such) are against the TOU. Shame on you. Does say something about your intellect though.
              ----------
              There is no implied threat in this. there is only you and your narcisism and the way out of your box.
              Ego death is only symbolic death. that you fail to interpret lokis parable to you only makes you a moron;
              it in no way makes him culpable for what we all hope you might do to alleviate your karmic burden and give you the chance to start over you
              seem to need. If you must insist on staying an infant, go get a new body. Thats not violence, its ecological advice.
              -------------
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: anyone like nader?

          Fri, August 1, 2008 - 5:13 PM
          <All you have to do is examine Clinton's policies in Iraq, and Gore's pre-March 2003 rhetoric on Iraq. There's no indication that Gore would have interpreted the intelligence is a different manner than he had for the previous 8 years, and in any way different than either Clinton's have indicated they read it pre-2003.>

          Yep.
          • Re: anyone like nader?

            Fri, August 1, 2008 - 8:58 PM
            A little food for thought while I'm gone. Nader actually supported the election of Bush. His own words.
            ----------
            But, no references, no quote, no context.
            -------------


            Hence, his supporters are actually the minions of evil. That is you guys.
            -----------
            now the nosedive for the ad hominems.

            While your fuzzy logic is amusing, its also stupid and patently false.
            His supporters are amongst the few who understand that both parties are corrupt and who see reality as it is,
            rather than as it is prepackaged for them. Like your assorted canned arguments.
            ----------

            You know, as the old saying goes. I don't think you are Satan. I think you are the guy who runs into the 7-11 to buy Satan a pack of cigarettes.
            ----------
            Whatever it takes to keep him from going off on another tirade.
            lol.
            Seriously, you of so many interesting and feeble minded logical fallacies, argumentum ad satan?
            dude, grow up.
            -----------
      • Re: anyone like nader?

        Mon, July 28, 2008 - 2:58 PM
        >>The difference in Florida in 2000 was what? <<

        A) Silly to think that those who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore.

        B) The responsibility of the people is to vote for the candidate/s they each think will best serve the common good - NOT the lesser evil, not the person you think is more important than another, not the person who "deserves" office, not the person that is one of only two choices you think have a chance to win.

        C) please look into the specifics of how presidents of the USA are elected, count up those electoral voters, and buy a fucking calculator. It's a little complicated, yes, but it isn't rocket science. Chances are, you already know about the electoral college, but are just too poisoned on spite to remember, "d'ooohhh yeah - guhHUH!" Come on.

        D) Nader bothers me far less than anti-vote dickheadery wagging its finger at people for voting their consciences. If you don't like democracy, don't vote, and certainly don't bitch because a stinking fake-ass Democrat didn't make it into office. The "Nader gave it to Bush" song is tired, stupid, and grossly uninformed as to how presidential elections (ostensibly) work.

        E) you want change? Revolt. Elections are a distraction.
        • Re: anyone like nader?

          Mon, July 28, 2008 - 3:39 PM
          bravo loki
          • Re: anyone like nader?

            Tue, July 29, 2008 - 1:42 AM
            Evolution usually proves itself more efficient and less bloody than revolution. Just look at history. I find your position immoral. Of course, I'm a firm follower of J.S. Mill's precepts, not those of Marx. As far as whether they would have voted for Gore or not? I don't figure most would have voted for Bush. And, if Nader had publicly endorsed Gore? Perhaps that would have made the difference. He could have spent that political capital to buy into a position where he could have made a difference. Rather than making a difference by allowing Bush to get elected. As far as what my responsibility is? My business, not yours.
            • Re: anyone like nader?

              Tue, July 29, 2008 - 10:27 PM
              You aren't aware of my position, so your assessment of my morality is empty. I know that many have been cowed into describing all challenge to authority as "immoral"; I don't necessarily "find your position" cowardly and ignorant, but I do assume you lack the details. Think Ghandi, but remember France.
              • Re: anyone like nader?

                Tue, July 29, 2008 - 11:42 PM
                Your position?

                "E) you want change? Revolt. Elections are a distraction."

                No?
                • Re: anyone like nader?

                  Wed, July 30, 2008 - 1:26 AM
                  Erik is a habitual over simplicist.

                  he likes things un nuanced and always assumes they are.


                  its kind of like ocams razor, but based on presumption, jumping to conclusions, and prejudgments.

                  A lot like con servers, he can't see it if it doesn't conform to his boxing and labeling system, or fit into his fist sized filing cabinet.

                  strange creature really, a perpetually self deluded , pseudo intellectual liberal.

                  he also shares that bent towards crackpotted self righteousness which tends to define con servers.

                  What can you do about political dogmatists?

                  Maybe? ask them to read more books?
                  that one theorist obviously didn't imbue him with any depth or diversity of thought.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: anyone like nader?

                    Wed, July 30, 2008 - 1:29 AM
                    Evolution usually proves itself more efficient and less bloody than revolution.
                    ---------
                    when groupthink and propaganda create such intense stagnation, evolution requires revolution. Its called paradigm shift.
                    • Re: anyone like nader?

                      Wed, July 30, 2008 - 12:45 PM
                      Hahaha. That's pretty simplistic. Please feel free to support your perceptions of me though. Ad hominem attacks not withstanding.

                      At least I don't cut and paste until people become so bored they don't bother reading it.
                      • Re: anyone like nader?

                        Wed, July 30, 2008 - 5:32 PM
                        Hahaha. That's pretty simplistic. Please feel free to support your perceptions of me though.
                        ---------
                        was i talking to you or past you?
                        those are not perceptions, they are statements of fact which are self evident.
                        -----------



                        Ad hominem attacks not withstanding.
                        ----------
                        an ad hominem is calling you an ignorant biased asshat of a pseudo intellectual liberal.

                        Identifying your assorted forms of cognitive dissonance in specificity is not an ad hominem, because its statement of observable fact.
                        ---------

                        At least I don't cut and paste until people become so bored they don't bother reading it.
                        ---------
                        At least my mind isn't so caged that i use lazyness as an excuse to stay comfortably ignorant,
                        while still clinging to an utterly false ideal of self righteousness.
                        • Re: anyone like nader?

                          Wed, July 30, 2008 - 11:07 PM
                          As previously stated, you are welcome to support your biased accusations, couched in ad hominem terms, if you wish. If you think these things are true, but don't bother supporting them with evidence? Intellectual laziness. As exemplified by your cut and pasting.

                          Nader had some political capital. Instead of using it for good, he used it for selfish personal narcissistic aggrandizement. In so doing, he helped elect the worst president in our history. As such, I hold him, and anybody that voted for him (I assume you) at least partially responsible for millions of unnecessary casualties, wasted treasure, and much damage to our environment. Quite a legacy for a Green Party candidate and his minions.


                          • Re: anyone like nader?

                            Wed, July 30, 2008 - 11:14 PM
                            As previously stated, you are welcome to support your biased accusations, couched in ad hominem terms, if you wish. If you think these things are true, but don't bother supporting them with evidence?
                            ----------
                            The evidence is written all over the thread. You not seeing it is comical. For the rest of us. For you its tragic.
                            -----------


                            Intellectual laziness. As exemplified by your cut and pasting.
                            ------------
                            you accusing me of intellectual laziness is hilarious.
                            ---------

                            Nader had some political capital.
                            ---------
                            Well, at least you bring things back to topic.
                            ---------


                            Instead of using it for good, he used it for selfish personal narcissistic aggrandizement.
                            --------
                            Thats one interpretation. The other is that Kerry was just as fascistic, and that those of us watching with intelligence knew
                            that there was a; really no difference, and b; the elections are rigged anyways, and c; kerry was just tapped to be the evil jerk
                            who would not confront the rigging of the elections due to his skull and bones background.
                            ----------
                            In so doing, he helped elect the worst president in our history.
                            ---------
                            If fools like you hadn't voted for Kerry, and fools like ronnie hadn't voted for bush, he could have solved our problems.
                            ---------

                            As such, I hold him, and anybody that voted for him (I assume you)
                            ---------
                            again, of course you do, you are an assumption and jump to conclusion machine.
                            --------


                            at least partially responsible for millions of unnecessary casualties, wasted treasure, and much damage to our environment. Quite a legacy for a Green Party candidate and his minions.
                            --------
                            So, did you read Kerries platform? In what manner are you alleging that he was going to be any different?
                            • Re: anyone like nader?

                              Wed, July 30, 2008 - 11:14 PM
                              >>The difference in Florida in 2000 was what? <<

                              A) Silly to think that those who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore.

                              B) The responsibility of the people is to vote for the candidate/s they each think will best serve the common good - NOT the lesser evil, not the person you think is more important than another, not the person who "deserves" office, not the person that is one of only two choices you think have a chance to win.

                              C) please look into the specifics of how presidents of the USA are elected, count up those electoral voters, and buy a fucking calculator. It's a little complicated, yes, but it isn't rocket science. Chances are, you already know about the electoral college, but are just too poisoned on spite to remember, "d'ooohhh yeah - guhHUH!" Come on.

                              D) Nader bothers me far less than anti-vote dickheadery wagging its finger at people for voting their consciences. If you don't like democracy, don't vote, and certainly don't bitch because a stinking fake-ass Democrat didn't make it into office. The "Nader gave it to Bush" song is tired, stupid, and grossly uninformed as to how presidential elections (ostensibly) work.

                              E) you want change? Revolt. Elections are a distraction.
                              • Re: anyone like nader?

                                Wed, July 30, 2008 - 11:17 PM
                                Revolution
                                From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                                Jump to: navigation, search
                                For other uses, see Revolution (disambiguation).
                                The storming of the Bastille, 14 July 1789 during the French Revolution.
                                The storming of the Bastille, 14 July 1789 during the French Revolution.

                                A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turnaround") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle described two types of political revolution:

                                1. Complete change from one constitution to another
                                2. Modification of an existing constitution.[1]

                                Revolutions have occurred throughout human history and vary widely in terms of methods, duration, and motivating ideology. Their results include major changes in culture, economy, and socio-political institutions.

                                Scholarly debates about what does and does not constitute a revolution center around several issues. Early studies of revolutions primarily analyzed events in European history from a psychological perspective, but more modern examinations include global events and incorporate perspectives from several social sciences, including sociology and political science. Several generations of scholarly thought on revolutions have generated many competing theories and contributed much to the current understanding of this complex phenomenon.
                                Contents
                                [hide]

                                * 1 Political and socioeconomic revolutions
                                * 2 Types of revolutions
                                * 3 List of revolutions
                                * 4 See also
                                * 5 References
                                * 6 Bibliography
                                * 7 External links

                                [edit] Political and socioeconomic revolutions
                                George Washington was a leader in the American Revolution.
                                George Washington was a leader in the American Revolution.
                                Vladimir Lenin was a leader in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.
                                Vladimir Lenin was a leader in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

                                Perhaps most often, the word 'revolution' is employed to denote a change in socio-political institutions.[2][3][4] Jeff Goodwin gives two definitions of a revolution. A broad one, where revolution is "any and all instances in which a state or a political regime is overthrown and thereby transformed by a popular movement in an irregular, extraconstitutional and/or violent fashion"; and a narrow one, in which "revolutions entail not only mass mobilization and regime change, but also more or less rapid and fundamental social, economic and/or cultural change, during or soon after the struggle for state power."[5] Jack Goldstone defines them as

                                an effort to transform the political institutions and the justifications for political authority in society, accompanied by formal or informal mass mobilization and noninstitutionalized actions that undermine authorities.[6]
                                • Re: anyone like nader?

                                  Wed, July 30, 2008 - 11:19 PM
                                  Not all revolutions are violent. Thats your number one false assumption.

                                  Gore couldn't win not because of nader, but because the election was rigged. Thats your number two false assumption.

                                  Kerry and bush are both equally evil. Theres your number 3 false assumption.
                                  • Re: anyone like nader?

                                    Thu, July 31, 2008 - 12:28 AM
                                    Again, cut and paste from wiki? Come on, maybe if you were to just post the link? We'd waste lest time scrolling past your posts. Also, it would be easier for you, keeping in tune with your general tendencies.

                                    I assume none of those things. Hence, they are "assumptions" on your part. Propagating false assumptions to argue against, is the creation of straw men. A very common logical fallacy. Three times in one post. Now that I have informed you of their falsehood, repeating them would make you a liar, rather than merely intellectually lazy.

                                    Oh, by the way, number one on the list of the twenty most common logical fallacies:

                                    1. Ad hominem An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter anothers claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are closed minded.

                                    Several of which you have exhibited in your posts.

                                    By the way, this:

                                    "The evidence is written all over the thread. You not seeing it is comical. For the rest of us. For you its tragic."

                                    ...is known as an argument ad ignorantium. Often used by the faithful to support their particular doctrine. As in, just because you can't see the truth of my belief, doesn't mean it isn't true, I mean nothing else would explain... whatever. What it actually means is that they don't have any evidence to support it, and just take it on faith. Feel free to call me whatever names you wish, but please show the courtesy to back them up with some facts. I have a pretty thick skin. Or, as we used to say in the service, I've got more ass than you have teeth.

                                    That is how many in how many posts? All examples of INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS! So, yes, whether you find it "hilarious" or not is superfluous. You simply are.

                                    Perhaps you should read more, and paste less.
                                    • Re: anyone like nader?

                                      Thu, July 31, 2008 - 12:42 AM
                                      Oh, and by the way, it was Gore, not Kerry. Just another example. Do you edit what you cut, paste and/or write?

                                      As for my assumption that you voted for Nader, at least I stated that it was such. You could have corrected me but, instead, chose what? Another bit of name calling. Another ad hominem.

                                      You, stating that I "voted for Kerry" as a fact? And you came to that conclusion, how? Shame on you. Pot calling the kettle black.
                                      • Re: anyone like nader?

                                        Thu, July 31, 2008 - 4:06 AM
                                        Again, cut and paste from wiki? Come on, maybe if you were to just post the link? We'd waste lest time scrolling past your posts. Also, it would be easier for you, keeping in tune with your general tendencies.
                                        --------
                                        Since you have such cognitive dissonance, its fair to assume you wouldn't go to the link.
                                        ---------

                                        I assume none of those things. Hence, they are "assumptions" on your part. Propagating false assumptions to argue against, is the creation of straw men. A very common logical fallacy. Three times in one post. Now that I have informed you of their falsehood, repeating them would make you a liar, rather than merely intellectually lazy.
                                        ----------
                                        very amusing, but none of it true.
                                        ---------

                                        Oh, by the way, number one on the list of the twenty most common logical fallacies:

                                        1. Ad hominem An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter anothers claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are closed minded.
                                        ---------
                                        Yes, I seem to forever be making this point to other people. In this case, the simple truth is that you made the assumption that lokis "revolt"
                                        was violent. That and other simple facts demonstrate that you jump to conclusions. These and other interactions with you prove your thinking is flatter than a chessboard, and less detailed.
                                        No, those are not ad hominems. Why? Because to be an ad hominem, it also has to be factually false.
                                        -----------



                                        "The evidence is written all over the thread. You not seeing it is comical. For the rest of us. For you its tragic."

                                        ...is known as an argument ad ignorantium. Often used by the faithful to support their particular doctrine.
                                        ----------
                                        I have to give you credit, its not often somebody knows their logical fallacies. For this, you have earned more admiration for you
                                        than the entire rest of the threads i have encountered you on. I'm moving you up in my personal ranking from negative numbers.
                                        ----------


                                        As in, just because you can't see the truth of my belief, doesn't mean it isn't true, I mean nothing else would explain... whatever. What it actually means is that they don't have any evidence to support it, and just take it on faith. Feel free to call me whatever names you wish, but please show the courtesy to back them up with some facts. I have a pretty thick skin. Or, as we used to say in the service, I've got more ass than you have teeth.
                                        -----------
                                        Thats really good, but the problem is, again, if its factually true, its not argument ad ignorantium, its an observation of fact. In this case,
                                        cognitive dissonance. You see only what you want to see. Loki I am sure can tell you that, and tell you its plain as day.


                                        That is how many in how many posts? All examples of INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS!
                                        ---------
                                        intellectual laziness is blaming nader for loosing the election when the truth is Al Gore and the corrupted process did that all on their own,
                                        and Naders trying to fight the corruption.
                                        Intellectual laziness is thinking that "revolt" necessarily entails violence.

                                        Intellectual laziness is one thing you are not going to get to stick. Lack of social graces maybe. Lack of diplomacy maybe. Ad hominem,
                                        thats a stretch. But intellectual laziness? Get real.
                                        ---------



                                        Perhaps you should read more, and paste less.
                                        ----------
                                        I already read ten times more than the average person. I'm a speed reader. In my youth, i read thousands of textbooks. Thats a bit the opposite of intellectual laziness.
                                        ---------

                                        Oh, and by the way, it was Gore, not Kerry. Just another example. Do you edit what you cut, paste and/or write?
                                        ------------
                                        Yes, good catch. No, i don't edit, that would be too much trouble. Unless i am actually writing to somebody important; whom you are not.
                                        ----------


                                        You could have corrected me but, instead, chose what? Another bit of name calling. Another ad hominem.
                                        ----------
                                        another factual observation. We are trying to shock you awake. not that we expect success, but its better than pretending that you can communicate.
                                        ---------

                                        You, stating that I "voted for Kerry" as a fact?
                                        ----------
                                        notice your own question mark.
                                        can you say "rhetorical"?
                                        ----------


                                        And you came to that conclusion, how?
                                        -----------
                                        duh. You say nader is a spoiler and anybody who voted for him is stupid because bush is evil.
                                        Whos left?


                                        look up "process of elimination".
                                        i'll spare you the wikipedia article.
                                        • Re: anyone like nader?

                                          Thu, July 31, 2008 - 10:09 AM
                                          You can assume anything you like. It doesn't make it true, just another ad hominem attack.

                                          "very amusing, but none of it true"

                                          Really? You make statements about my beliefs, with no evidence to support them, and you say they aren't assumptions? Not a rhetorical question, but more ironic, in case you were wondering. I ask you for something to support your contentions, and you say it is obvious. Ad ignorantium. I don't find ignorance very "amusing" though.

                                          "No, those are not ad hominems. Why? Because to be an ad hominem, it also has to be factually false."

                                          Actually, your statement is patently false. You can make pejorative statements about others that are true, and they remain ad hominem attacks. Look it up. I'm sure there is something in Wiki about it. This is a basic concept taught in any undergraduate critical thinking or logic course. The two are not mutually exclusive.

                                          "I have to give you credit, its not often somebody knows their logical fallacies."

                                          Yes. And, I always try to discern them in my own arguments before putting them into print. Also a deflection from the fact of your illogic.

                                          "Thats really good, but the problem is, again, if its factually true, its [sic] not argument ad ignorantium, its [sic] an observation of fact. In this case,
                                          cognitive dissonance. You see only what you want to see. Loki I am sure can tell you that, and tell you its plain as day."

                                          No, it remains such, unless you provide evidence to support your contention. And, again, you follow the same flawed train, stating that it is "...plain as day." Finding others to support your flawed logical position is also superfluous. If it is wrong, it merely means your supporters are wrong too. For instance, there are over a billion Muslims, and nearly a billion Hindus. Their theologies are diametrically opposed. Only one group can be right (I contend they both are wrong, but that is another story), so there is, at a minimum, one group of nearly a billion people who, by definition, support a position that is wrong. My first (of many) professors of logic said, on the first day of class, "...nothing is obvious." She was a wise woman.

                                          "intellectual laziness is blaming nader [sic] for loosing [sic] the election"

                                          No, I blame Nader for not taking the opportunity to help Gore win it while, at the same time, advancing the cause of his party. I believe he did this because he is and arrogant self-important narcissist. I may be wrong. He may simply be stupid, or a closet Republican, or any of an number of other things, but I believe the evidence supports my contention.

                                          "Naders [sic] trying to fight the corruption."

                                          No, Nader says he "is trying to fight the corruption" but, instead, through inaction (for whatever reason) contributed to it.

                                          "Intellectual laziness is thinking that "revolt" necessarily entails violence."

                                          No, I said that evolution tends to be less bloody than revolution. It is you that are again assuming what I think. You are the one, once again, making "simplistic" assumptions about my beliefs. Bloody can also be rhetorical. However, in this case, history shows it to be generally actual.

                                          "Yes, good catch. No, i [sic] don't edit, that would be too much trouble. Unless i am actually writing to somebody important; whom you are not."

                                          No, it wasn't that difficult. You did the same in another post, following it. Interesting, how you end your admission of "intellectual laziness" which I supported with evidence, with an unsupported ad hominem. Anybody wonder why?

                                          "I already read ten times more than the average person. I'm a speed reader. In my youth, i read thousands of textbooks. Thats [sic] a bit the opposite of intellectual laziness."

                                          Really? Actually, the evidence shows that speed reading reduces comprehension by about 50%. Maybe making statements like this make you feel like "somebody important" which, of course, I am not. Here, let me cut and paste a little about it for you:

                                          Reading more, understanding less - research on speed reading and comprehension

                                          Increase your reading speed two tothree times with no loss of comprehension! Is such a claim valid? Psychologists Marcel Just, Patricia A. Carpenter and Michael Masson think not, especially if complex or unfamiliar material is involved. They compared the reading abilities of three groups who read passages presented on a television monitor: eleven people who had completed a seven-week Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics course, 12 who were told to "skim` and 13 others who read at average rates.

                                          Each group read both relatively easy and difficult passages. The readers then briefly summarized the passages and answered 10 general and 10 detailed questions about each one.

                                          Just, Carpenter and Masson report that the speed-readers covered the material quickly, averaging almost 700 words per minute. The skimmers were timed at about 600 wpm and the average readers at 240 wpm. But speed hurt comprehension.

                                          On the relatively easy material, the speed-readers answered only 65 percent of the general and 29 percent of the specific questions correctly. Average readers answered 80 percent of the general and 48 percent of the specific questions correctly. On the more difficult reading, average readers got half of the general questions correct, while speed-readers could manage just one in three. Both groups had trouble with the specific questions in the difficult passages, but the average readers still out-scored the speed-readers 23 percent to 17 percent. On all of the tests, skimmers answered questions about as well as did speed-readers.

                                          The researchers also tracked eye movements to learn how speed-reading works. They found that for both passages, the speed-readers focused on approximately one-third of the words and spent about 230 milliseconds on each, while average readers paused on twice as many words for an average of 330 milliseconds apiece. Skimmers, again, were similar to speed-readers.

                                          Speed-reading may work well with easy or familiar material, the researchers say, but can lead to problems with dense or unfamiliar passages. Also, since speed-readers spend less time on words, they probably stop mulling over some of the more complicated words too soon to comprehend them.

                                          "If you need to fully understand a passage you`re better off reading normally than skimming,` Just says, "and even if you are a trained speed-reader, you might want to read normally, especially on difficult material.`

                                          Marcel Just, Ph.D., and Patricia A.Carpenter, Ph.D., are at Carnegie-Mellon University. They have published some of these results in The Psychology of Reading and Language Comprehension (Allyn & Bacon, 1987). Michael Masson, Ph.D., is at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.

                                          You might want to read that again. Slowly. One should be careful when you toot your own horn. Sometimes people hear it. It doesn't matter how many textbooks you have read. You must actually understand them for them to be of any value.

                                          "another factual observation. We are trying to shock you awake. not that we expect success, but its better than pretending that you can communicate."

                                          What "we" white man? As far as facts go? Again, support them if you can. And, in response to your additional ad hominem, I've been accused of a lot of things, but I've never been accused of not being able to "communicate." Again, maybe it a "comprehension" problem?

                                          "duh. You say nader is a spoiler and anybody who voted for him is stupid because bush is evil.
                                          Whos left?"

                                          Again, ad ignorantium. Nothing is obvious. And, not what I said, either. I said that Nader could have influenced the election for the good and, for whatever reasons (I've offered a few) chose not to. I know several people who voted for Nader, who aren't stupid, so you are again presuming. Finally, I don't actually think "bush [sic] is evil" but stupid. I believe that through his intellectual incapacity he has done evil, and most probably doesn't even know it. Cheney? I've met him, and believe he is a sociopathic puppeteer.

                                          A "process of elimination" only works if you accurately eliminate. You did not.

                                          There is an old American saying, and I'm not sure who I'm quoting. "Never bring a knife to a gunfight son." Maybe you should re-read some of those textbooks, and maybe a little more slowly Mr. Hunting.
























                                          • Re: anyone like nader?

                                            Fri, August 1, 2008 - 12:46 AM
                                            You can make pejorative statements about others that are true, and they remain ad hominem attacks. Look it up. I'm sure there is something in Wiki about it. This is a basic concept taught in any undergraduate critical thinking or logic course. The two are not mutually exclusive.
                                            -------------
                                            If i change the topic from a subject mattter to the person speaking, then its an ad hominem regardless of the truth value.
                                            The problem is, YOU changed the topic from the subject matter to personality traits, so, guess whos the con artist?
                                            -------------

                                            "I have to give you credit, its not often somebody knows their logical fallacies."

                                            Yes. And, I always try to discern them in my own arguments before putting them into print. Also a deflection from the fact of your illogic.
                                            ----------
                                            The illogic here is yours. You can bring all of this into it, but it doesn't change the facts that your reasoning is not only flawed, but based
                                            on propaganda BS that you were sold by the republican apologists.
                                            ---------------

                                            No, it remains such, unless you provide evidence to support your contention.
                                            ---------
                                            The evidence to support my contention is what you yourself have offered case in point. My referring back to it would merely be redundant.
                                            -----------


                                            "intellectual laziness is blaming nader [sic] for loosing [sic] the election"

                                            No, I blame Nader for not taking the opportunity to help Gore win it while, at the same time, advancing the cause of his party. I believe he did this because he is and arrogant self-important narcissist. I may be wrong.
                                            ----------
                                            You blame nader because some cheap bullshit propaganda got shoved down your throat, and you can't tell the difference between
                                            critical thinking and hopping on a moronic bandwagon.
                                            Of course nader is a narcisist, thats a moot issue. But he does what he does because hes fighting a broken and corrupt system.
                                            Its easy to shuck the blame off onto Nader. But why didn't gore fight the rigging of the election? Wheres your contempt for the system?
                                            Wheres your understanding of cause and effect for how the elections were rigged? Why aren't you screaming bloody murder about the supreme court? all you have is a handy emanuel goldstein, and you are sucking it up like a true prole.
                                            ----------


                                            "Naders [sic] trying to fight the corruption."

                                            No, Nader says he "is trying to fight the corruption" but, instead, through inaction (for whatever reason) contributed to it.
                                            ------------
                                            What part of gore lost the election because it was rigged do you not understand?
                                            ------------

                                            "Intellectual laziness is thinking that "revolt" necessarily entails violence."

                                            No, I said that evolution tends to be less bloody than revolution.
                                            ---------
                                            blood then doesn't have anything to do with violence. Were you thinking that the problem was menstruation then?
                                            ---------


                                            It is you that are again assuming what I think. You are the one, once again, making "simplistic" assumptions about my beliefs. Bloody can also be rhetorical. However, in this case, history shows it to be generally actual.
                                            ----------
                                            I'm not making any assumptions about your beliefs, i'm pinning your bad logic and bad thinking up against a wall.
                                            why? because on this issue, nobodies going to jump in to make it a five on one against me, quite the contrary, this time you are out on a
                                            limb of stupid, and i'm going to saw it off.
                                            ----------


                                            Really? Actually, the evidence shows that speed reading reduces comprehension by about 50%.
                                            -----------
                                            More moronic oversimplification. That depends on what methods are used and whos doing the reading. It CAN work that
                                            way, especially if you are using the methods sold by your run of the mill self help book.
                                            -----------

                                            Reading more, understanding less - research on speed reading and comprehension

                                            Increase your reading speed two to three times with no loss of comprehension! Is such a claim valid? Psychologists Marcel Just, Patricia A. Carpenter and Michael Masson think not, especially if complex or unfamiliar material is involved.
                                            ---------
                                            you are boring me with a long winded ad hominem. Lets attack me on the point of how i gather information.

                                            A competent speed reader slows to the speed at which comprehension exists, and is able to tell how well information is
                                            being processed.
                                            An incompetent speed reader is skimming. I have a whole thread on the topic over at psychonautics advanced. And I make the same point
                                            you are making here over there.
                                            ----------

                                            They compared the reading abilities of three groups who read passages presented on a television monitor: eleven people who had completed a seven-week Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics course, 12 who were told to "skim` and 13 others who read at average rates.
                                            -----------
                                            a seven week speed reading course. So, you are going to compare a seven week speed reading course to an aspie, whos speed reading is not derived from low grade self help tricks, but from demonstrable brain function differences. Your full of shit, ad hominems, and
                                            bad reasoning, and bad argument, and you don't have the first clue who i am or what I am doing when i read.
                                            I suggest you go look up aspergers syndrome and get your first real clue in.
                                            ---------



                                            There is an old American saying, and I'm not sure who I'm quoting. "Never bring a knife to a gunfight son." Maybe you should re-read some of those textbooks, and maybe a little more slowly Mr. Hunting.
                                            --------------

                                            thats a mighty clever saying for a guy whos getting his ass pasted to the wall for being a moron.
                • Re: anyone like nader?

                  Fri, August 1, 2008 - 12:58 AM
                  >>
                  "E) you want change? Revolt. Elections are a distraction."

                  No? <<

                  Yes. What's your point? You lack imagination, grasshopper. That

                  is why you fail.

                  Unfortunately, you just can't blame Nader for this one. It's all on you, this time, and not even faulty logic, poor grasp of the mechanics of election as ostensibly applied in US style "democracy", nor even the shenanigans of Hindu can cover it. America has fallen. It wasn't Nader's fault. He tried to save it, but so-called "Democrats" sold us out - and *you* want to elect *another* one?~?~! And cover it by suggesting I'm some kind of killer? On what basis? Poor grasp of language and easily led perceptions on your part are no idictment of my character, mister. Simple, lazy, incurious. All the advantages - wasted.

                  Shame. Shame, shame.

                  You know, it's precisely because people take no interest in the history and management of the country that this execrable and embarrassing state of affairs could have come to pass. Then they have the meanness to actually insist that voting for the candidate of one's choice is somehow a mistake? It's not that you're not intelligent, but you're *lazy*, Erik, and given to habitual recourse to casual and incurious reliance on common misunderstanding (and deliberate ignorance) masquerading as "sense". Logic - as fundamental as it may be - is a very low, and plastic, form of thought. You need *evaluation* and *cognition* to make logic meaningful outside of a closed system (in this case, your mind). When you're only willing to work with simplistic and supplied elements, logic is nothing more than lies made of Lincoln Logs. Cute, maybe, but only useful for making preset little structures that are ineluctably homogeneous, and easily smashed.

                  Shame. Once, there was a kind of American that lived and breathed revolution, that took pride in ruthlessly examining all candidates for elections, that fought and even died to retain control of the government meant to be ever at the service of the people.

                  Accuses true Americans, who took seriously their duty to vote for the common good, of murderousness and a will to inflict suffering?

                  More shame.

                  Read Camus or something, Erik; you need a lot more ammo in this exchange. When you are ready, I will graciously accept your apology, and another on behalf of all those loyal and well-meaning Americans who actually thought it would be nice to have a vote be significant in some small way.

                  Parting shame. And some to grow on.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: anyone like nader?

                    Fri, August 1, 2008 - 1:18 AM
                    Apologize to you? LOL. Talk to the hand. Sorry, you two, I'm afraid I don't have time to feed your egos today. Kinda busy.
                    • Re: anyone like nader?

                      Fri, August 1, 2008 - 1:21 AM
                      Yes; run along and pretend you had some argument to supply that you are now too important to tender. And remember these egos next time you feel like flexing your mid-shelf brains, junior corporate bootlick. Your daddies live here.
                    • Re: anyone like nader?

                      Fri, August 1, 2008 - 1:33 AM
                      never mind feeding our egos. Feed your mind. Step out of your mental cage. Quit blaming a hero for fighting the good fight just because
                      he didn't have the lucidity to see what you think you see with hindsight, and quit pretending your moral superiority and your moral outrage,
                      and grow a conscience.

                      All you have to offer us now is a lame two point ad hominem? after all of your bitching about ad hominems, you reduce lokis kind and gracious words down to tossing pearls before swine.

                      This isn't about you feeding our egos, its about you feeding your ego. And its about a whole lot of hypocrisy.

                      Talk to the hand? and you accuse me of argument from ignorance? You can't see and won't listen, due to cognitive dissonance; rendering
                      your accusation that i am arguing via argumentum ad ignorantium merely another pathetic projection of a man caught in a mental trap of cognitive dissonance. You are the one choosing the pth of ignorance, you are the one stating, openly, that you are not listening, and you are the one whos operating via ad hominem when the going gets tuff and you don't have an argument.

                      What are you busy doing? stroking your ego or licking your wounds?
                      stuffing your mind with more propaganda? running a google search to find more proofs that nader is evil?
                      how busy can you be?

                      Your not busy erik, you are evading and evasive, you are delusional and deluded, you are hiding behind the very same logical fallacies
                      which you would love to make stick on me, and you are feeding your pathetic ego by making yourself superior to nader.

                      Well don't you feel big? In your rush to knock other people down so that you can feel big and strong, you forgot the tiny details of ethics, morals, knowledge, truth, sanity, compassion, and every other ideal which you have such pretensions of.

                      Talk to the hand? No, you listen. Grow up, and quit being exactly the kind of "liberal" that is part of the problem, and every bit as bad
                      as the equally insane con servers complain about.
                      • Re: anyone like nader?

                        Fri, August 1, 2008 - 8:38 AM
                        Sorry, I simply don't have time to stoke your narcissism. I have to hit the road to L'viv for a few days. Feeding my mind and all.

                        A little food for thought while I'm gone. Nader actually supported the election of Bush. His own words. Hence, his supporters are actually the minions of evil. That is you guys. You know, as the old saying goes. I don't think you are Satan. I think you are the guy who runs into the 7-11 to buy Satan a pack of cigarettes.

                        Later.
                        • Re: anyone like nader?

                          Fri, August 8, 2008 - 2:01 AM
                          I didn't vote for Nader -

                          what's your point? Even if I had - what would your point be? People should vote the way you think they should vote?

                          Feh. Cram it. The death of US politics rose from exactly this kind of binary / absolutist "hence his supporters are actually minions of evil" jabber.

                          How can you stand it? How do you justify another second of oxygen theft when literally thousands of perfectly shiny and attractively decorated seppuku knives await a nobility-restoring home in your monarchist, imperialist, corporatist, anti-freedom, lie-worshiping crapulent tummy? Honor awaits.
                          • Unsu...
                             

                            Re: anyone like nader?

                            Fri, August 8, 2008 - 10:30 AM
                            <How do you justify another second of oxygen theft when literally thousands of perfectly shiny and attractively decorated seppuku knives await a nobility-restoring home in your monarchist, imperialist, corporatist, anti-freedom, lie-worshiping crapulent tummy? Honor awaits.>

                            Ha!
                            • Re: anyone like nader?

                              Sun, August 10, 2008 - 4:57 AM
                              Hey, I'm on a borrowed computer. The Russians are fucking with Ukraine's internet access, so it is a little tough to get net access. I was going to try and get into Georgia, but visa's are impossible to get from here right now. I guess I could swim, it being summer and all. No, I think I'll slip back across the Polish border before they decide to punish the Ukrainians for closing their Black Sea ports. Betcha the Polish approve the missile defense "shield" system in a few days.

                              As for Nader? He got his wish. As he publicly indicated, by supporting the up-side of Bush's election. Said it would be good for the environmental movement. Even mentioning that the Sierra Club membership rolls doubled under Reagan/Watt. At what cost to the environment? The Sierra Club said they'd be happy to give up the membership dues to roll back the damage Watt did to the earth.

                              Now, look who is looking forward to Obama getting elected, because of the backlash.

                              www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article

                              LOL. The company you keep. Tools seldom recognize who's toolbox the come out of.

                              If you lie down with dogs, you get fleas.

                              Okay, gotta go. This beautiful Ukrainian woman promised to take her clothes off and pose for me. Wanna get some images before boarding my train. Back in a few days.
  • Re: anyone like nader?

    Sun, August 10, 2008 - 5:39 PM
    No. The King of Dorks.
    • Re: anyone like nader?

      Sun, August 10, 2008 - 5:54 PM
      But of course he's also the holiest of holy sacred cows, whose holy progressive words are trumped by his towering hubris and his tone-deafness to what works in the real world.
      • Re: anyone like nader?

        Mon, August 11, 2008 - 11:12 AM
        "king of dorks".

        Yes, all bow to the high holy king of dorkdom.

        ----------
        But of course he's also the holiest of holy sacred cows, whose holy progressive words are trumped by his towering hubris
        ----------
        I think that you get the innate paradox better than most people. Maybe even me. lol.
        ---------



        and his tone-deafness to what works in the real world.
        ------------
        So far, nothing works in the real world.

        Flights of unpragmatic fancy are at least better than hanging out in the ooze.
        • Re: anyone like nader?

          Thu, August 14, 2008 - 12:12 PM
          Sure enough.

          edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD.../index.html

          Welcome to realpolitik. Nader? Pffft.

          Biggest mistake Moscow has made in years. Let's see. Betcha Ukraine starts messing with their access to Crimean ports next.
          • Re: anyone like nader?

            Thu, August 14, 2008 - 7:28 PM
            Still waiting on your point: should I assume it's that people should vote how you tell them to?

            www.loveleaf.net/ts/image/261-TAO_lg.jpg
            • Re: anyone like nader?

              Fri, August 15, 2008 - 12:45 AM
              Yes, as a matter of fact, I think you should vote how I tell you to. Something wrong with telling someone how they should vote? It's called campaigning. My point? Nader could have, and should have, told his supporters to vote for Gore. Instead, he supported the election of W.
              • Re: anyone like nader?

                Sun, August 17, 2008 - 4:32 PM
                man, thats rich. So now we have fleshed you out, and you have volunteered for us that you are a fascist.
                -------------
                Yes, as a matter of fact, I think you should vote how I tell you to.
                ---------
                Of course you do. You are a narcisist pig-ape.
                The comedy is that you are only tiny fraction as intelligent as loki is, and, if the world voted according to what HE says,
                it would all work out for the best. Whereas voting like YOU say creates an absolute double bind an traps us forever in
                oligarchy.
                ----------


                Something wrong with telling someone how they should vote? It's called campaigning.
                -----------
                The way it is supposed to work is that you ASK people to vote one way or some other. Don't TELL them.
                What this demonstrates about you is that you are truly a fascist evil pig.
                ----------



                My point? Nader could have, and should have, told his supporters to vote for Gore. Instead, he supported the election of W.
                --------
                The only point which you should be contemplating is the one on the tip of that knife loki was kind enough to post for you.

                Despite all of the evidence that Nader had nothing to do with it, and that the election was in any case rigged, you want to blame
                an easy scapegoat- because thats what the system has TOLD you to do.
                pathetic. Zombie-ish.
                sad.