The Campaign For DA


Politics For Dummies

With "Super Tuesday" approaching next week, this is what we have left:

Republicans: Rising from the ashes, is John McCain who is the current crotchety front runner. This is driving the hard-line conservatives crazy since they don't think he is conservative enough. Those hard-liners are supporting Mitt Romney even though he's a Mormon and his wife wears that special underwear (and I'm not talking about those cute thongs that stick up out of the back of her jeans). Former pastor Mike Huckabee is on life support despite winning Liberally Lean's online GOP caucas about four weeks ago. Fred Thompson, who won that same poll last summer, quit campaigning a couple of weeks ago but it was hard to notice any difference. Rudy Giuliani, who had been the favorite of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, quit yesterday after having a campaign that was managed about as well as the Wise County Animal Shelter. Ron Paul was last seen walking the streets of Chico mumbling to himself.

Democrats: It's down to a two person race: Obama and Clinton. Obama has all the momentum but the national polls still show Clinton in the lead. So it's a toss up between a woman and a black man which is pretty neat because, and I'm pretty sure about this, we've never had a woman or a black man as president. Clinton had to tell her husband to shut up this week although he's still her greatest asset. Ted Kennedy endorsement of Obama this week would be a death nail for his campaign in Texas if most Texas rednecks hadn't already written him off for being named "Obama." (Of course, no Democratic presidential candidate will ever carry Texas - at least not for the next 20 years until the certain demographic change occurs.) Trial lawyer John Edwards quit yesterday because everyone hates trial lawyers.

Pop quiz on Friday.


Jarhead said...

Hell, I'd be crotchety too if I spent 5-1/2 years being tortured in a North Vietnamese prison.

rex the wonder dog said...

It's amazing that the dem's are pushing to offer another us another Bill Clinton presidency. Two adavantages I can think of:

$20,000 in stolen table service comes back to the Whitehouse.

Male interns can take a hike and we can have more appealing little ladies running things again.


Anonymous said...

You under estimate the Texas redneck. It's not OreoBammy's name. It's the fact that he is the most liberal senator in Washington, he wants to have a conference with Muslim countries, he wants me to pay for everyone elses health insurance(which begs the question, do you really want the government to tell you when you can see a doctor? Have you ever called the IRS and been put on hold for two hours? Just think about that while you are sick and you are waiting for a government employee to help you get a doctor's appointment.), he wants open borders, and on and on.

Jarhead said...


One disadvantage: how will all of the new Clinton bureaucrats type since they stole all the "w"s off of the computer keyboards when they left in 2001?

rex the wonder dog said...

Jarhead 2:11 - They will again find clerks who don't use the "touch" typing system and go for "hunt'n peckers", just like before.


Kelly said...

Why is no one making a big deal about Obama being a muslim. Didn't he put his hand on the koran when taking his oath and doesn't he turn his back on the American Flag during the National Anthem. The muslim have always claimed they will take our country from the inside and I believe Obama is that inside man. I'm scared.

bulldog said...

Now, that was funny!!

Anonymous said...

Why didn't I think of that title. I could have written a book with that title and sold it to Liberal weenies and became rich. Damnit!!!

Anonymous said...

With idiots like some of you posting on this "Politics for Dummies" blog (and I'm sure there will be more mouth-breathers like y'all reporting in soon) no freaking wonder our country is in the mess it is. You should all have your voter's registration cards taken away.

What kind of undies DOES Mitt's wife wear, Barry?

I've heard of death knell, but I'm not sure what a death nail is.

I had to slap down my dear old 84 year old father yesterday, because he said, although he was impressed with Obama, he could not vote for a Muslim - he wasn't bothered by his skin color, but since he heard a rumor that Obama was a Muslim, yada yada. I set him straight right then, and told him I was taking away his Fox News/Bill O'Reilly shiate. I told him he could only watch Channel 13 news from now on, and then he it in to me about LBJ and Bill Moyers! Holy shiate. I'm sure we'll just cancel each other's votes out this coming election, like we have done all my voting life.

McCain probably wouldn't live through his first term - like Anna Quinlan said, a year in the presidency is measured in dog years. I don't think he'd last 4 dog years. Hell, he has to have help combing his hair now.

Bring it on you neocon sheeple! I'm ready for ya!

gern blansten said...

yeah, as a Conservative I am a little dismayed at our choices; first I wanted Newt Gingrich, who is a Conservative throwback to the Reagan principles, which would still work today. Then he decided to not enter the race.
Then, I eventually got convinced that Fred Thompson might be the next best candidate, and ho HE'S gone. Huckabee is a liberal in Conservative clothing; and probably the best candidate, Ron Paul, doesn't stand a chance.

Anonymous said...

2:49, Didn't your daddy ever tell you to never take a knife to a gun fight?

rex the wonder dog said...

Kelly - Yep ... You got it right about Obama. BTW, didn't Bill put his hand on Paula Jones when he took the oath?


Anonymous said...

Ben laiden is laughing his ass off right now if ya know what I'm sayin.

Anonymous said...

2:49PM here - maybe I googled my own answer.

Does Mitt's wife wear "magic Mormon underwear"?

Good golly, those folks are weird. Dum dum dum dum as the Southpark kids would say.

Joseph Smith ranks right up there with Kenneth Copeland in my book.

einstein on crack said...

studies show that if you take any 10 people at random and assign them a task(any task), 8 of them will do it wrong. Are we so sure democracy is such a good idea?

Anonymous said...

So let's not ask 8 and only ask two and we won't have any problems.

It don't take Eggbert Finestein to figure that out does it.

Anonymous said...

Oh God.

Kelly = idiot (mouth breather). At least check every once in a while so you won't continue to present yourself as a dimwit who has internet access. What bandwidth waste you are. (Hint: It was Keith Ellison.)

Jarhead = hopeless neocon 'roid ragin', speeding, pseudo marine who even if he was a military man was surely a pencil pusher (mouth breather).

Rex the wonder dog = idiot (mouth breather with hanging, drippy tongue). The election judge just called you and they want your voter registration card back NOW. You thought you fooled them, but they finally figured out dogs can't vote.

Einstein, wanna get a beer and do some Rubick's cubes while watching the karaoke singers at Frilly's tonight? I'll buy. (Einstein = not a mouth breather, at least at this point.)

Gern, I heard Ron might run as an independent anyway.

Anonymous said...

Bill Clinton. The gift that keeps on giving. Did you hear his latest quip of wisdom today? "We just have to slow down our economy to fight global warming." Can this man really think we are that stupid? Where to start. I thought our economy was slowing down? Didn't the liberal weenies get the memo? Why then are they trying to jump start it with tax rebates? The economy will absolutely slow down once the pig in a pants suit or the OreO becomes president and raise our taxes. And didn't Billy get the memo that it's not politically correct to call it Global Warming? It's climate change you dumbass. You will be getting a call from Al Bore.

Anonymous said...

Why do wing nutz continue to demonstrate their ignorance ablut Obabama being Muslim? His is not. The bit about the oath of office has him mixed up with the congressman from Minnesota who IS Muslim and did use the Koran. Obama has led the pledge of alligegence in the Senate a number of times (videos available showing him facing the flag).

All of the crap you have seen in emails is debunked on Snopes. Go there and check the facts before you again demonstrate your ignorance.

Anonymous said... labled this post quite accurately.

Anonymous said...

Snopes bugs me. Who holds them accountable? How do we know they have their facts straight? Does anyone check on them?

Anonymous said...

4;26, Try debunking this one. Check Obammy's church. It pledges it's allegiance to Africa.

Anonymous said...

None of yall is making any sense.

Anonymous said...

There is another reason John Edwards dropped out. We don't like being preached to about there being 2 Americas while he is living in a mansion talking about how his father worked in a mill. He got rich off of the backs of doctors. 400 dollar haircuts won't buy my sympathy.

Anonymous said...

Hey 4:26PM, you can join us at Frilly's - we'll be in the "No Mouth Breathing" Section. I'm sure you can find us.

Jarhead said...

Hey! 4:17...

I hardly ever "use" 'roids! I "have" them somthing awful though...

Please do no disparage my time in the Pseudo Marine Corps (USPMC).

I actually won a Congressional Medal of Pencil Pushing for taking shorthand under extreme duress, thankyouverymuch!

And as for my speeding, I don't look at it that way... I'm more of a "glass half full" person ~ everyone else is driving more slowly than I.

...and I would be more than happy to meet you at Frilly's tonight...


Anonymous said...

Death nail is evolving from death knell in the kind of informal writing found in blogs. If you search a little you'll find it also used occasionally in newspaper articles. Probably originated from people with a good ear for vocabulary applying a word they've heard but, rarely or never seen in print. I've also wondered if our twangy sounding voices have affected its use. Unless a person stops and thinks for a second it might also 'sound right' or have a 'familiar ring' to it as a nail in the coffin etc. Sometime soon we'll find if it's going to muscle its way in and replace knell or enough people will disagree with seeing it in in print that it will get straightened out.

Anonymous said...

Death nail is evolving from death knell in the kind of informal writing found in blogs. If you search a little you'll find it also used occasionally in newspaper articles. Probably originated from people with a good ear for vocabulary applying a word they've heard but rarely or never seen in print. I've also wondered if our twangy sounding voices have affected its use. Unless a person stops and thinks for a second it might also 'sound right' or have a 'familiar ring' to it as a nail in the coffin etc. Sometime soon we'll find if it's going to muscle its way in and replace knell or enough people will disagree with seeing it in in print that it will get straightened out.

rex the wonder dog said...

C'mon Bulldog, I guess we had better go turn in our voting cards.
We have been uncovered by the typical liberal genius whose only talent is name calling. No intellect, no brains just blubbering and moaning.

(wondering -- breathing through moutn)

Anonymous said...

I don't care who you are or what you're trying to accomplish,you tell me you wear magic underwear and I'm going to have trouble taking you seriously about anything!

Anonymous said...

For those who want some further verification of email or blog misinformation, try these sites.

On Obama's church: Its web site says that it is a "congregation with a non-negotiable commitment to Africa." That's a commitment - not allegiance. (BTW do you believe or follow everything your church does?)

Shucks, even wordkyle doesn't believe those goofy emails (I think).

Jarhead said...

Actually, the LDS faithful prefer the term "Jesus Jammies" to "Magic Underwear."

Anonymous said...

5;15, So you like Obammy even though his church is committed to Africa? What a lost sheep you are. I don't go to church, sorry.

ander said...

4:17...I'm just sure Kelly is kidding. Please, Lord, let her be kidding.

gern blansten: I'm with you. I really, really, really wish Ron Paul would be the GOP nominee too.....tee hee.

Anonymous said...

Well, since I read somewhere on the internet, just a minute ago, that he was a member of the Trinity Church of Christ, and since I went to the Church of Christ when I was little, and I am now agnostic, I must rethink my intent to vote for Obama.

atvtrlrdr said...

I had a great time readin' this post. Some of you SOBs' are funny.

Good comeback jarhead. I'd like watchin' a pseudo Marine kick some4:17 pseudo smart ass.

USPMC. That cracks me up!

Anonymous said...

I wish some of you Obama supporters would give us clear reasons why he would make a good president. His granny lives in a remote village in Nigeria (I think) and would be a great hostage if he was elected.

ander said...

Obama is a member of the UNITED Church of Christ which is very different from the conservative Church of Christ your probably thinking of.

Anonymous said...

Election night and Obama wins. I see Gabby Johnson at the top of the courthouse yelling down to a throng of nervous conservatives ... "Nuh fnew mmmresident is a nahhh...nammm...fnnneeeer!"

mzchief said...

Barack Obama has a grandmother, uncle and SEVERAL other relatives all of whom are Muslim and live in Kogelo, a village in western Kenyan approximately 50 miles from a town where more than 500 people have been murdered due to the continued civil unrest resulting from the 27 December 2007 election of Kenya, President Mwai Kibaki. The political dispute in which nearly 3,000 people have been murded in Kenya within the past 35 days has pitted the Obamas Lou tribe against the Kikuyu tribe of President Mwai Kibak . In essence the family tribe of Barack Obama is at war with an ELECTED president of another country. The Monday prior to the New Hampshire primary Barack Obama spoke via telephone with opposition leader Raila Odinga. OBVIOUSLY, Barack Obama has interjected himself in the political unrest in Kenya. Feel free to read the FACTS at this LINK.

If Obama were to become President and at some point forced to make a decision that would impose hardships on Muslims in Kenya I would hope to Heaven he WOULD have a conflict of interest. Who wants a President who could without remorse impose hardships on half of his family? However, who wants a President who would have a conflict of interest in making ANY decision for the United States with regard to actions to be taken against another nation?

Anonymous said...

Mzchief - PERZAKLY! I think that is why our Constitution requires a natural born president, to prevent one from having allegiances or obligations to a foreign nation. Obama narrowly fits as a natural citizen and his origins suggest at least some vulnerabilities.

Thanks for a useful, in-depth reading on his family ties.

ander said...

mzchief: Thank you for the link to the article on Obama and the conflict in Kenya. It provided a much more balanced and measured accounting of the facts than you indicated in your comment. for instance:

"Odinga, a Luo, told British Broadcasting Corp. radio that Obama's father was his uncle, and that Obama called him "in the midst of his campaigning ... to express his concern and to say that he is also going to call President Kibaki so that Kibaki agrees to find a negotiated, satisfactory solution to this problem."

"Gibbs (spokesman for Obama) said Odinga and Obama's father are from the same tribe, though he was not aware they are related.

"Obama, speaking Tuesday in New Hampshire, said he urged that "all the leaders there, regardless of their position on the election tell their supporters to stand down, to desist with the violence and resolve in a peaceful way in accordance with Kenyan law."

"Obama was coordinating his efforts with the State Department, his advisers said, and has discussed the situation with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

"He has also spoken with South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, calling him during last week's Iowa caucuses in between satellite interviews with local Iowa stations. Tutu has been in Nairobi, the Kenyan capital, trying to secure an end to the violence."

I rather like the idea of a president who is willing to "interject" in area of the world where corruption and conflict have erupted in violence and loss of life and actively seek peaceful solutions through diplomatic solutions. You know, as opposed to just invading and bombing the crap out of them......

Anonymous said...

Ander - You suffer a lot from CONVENIENT MEMORY LOSS! It is so transparent when you resort to such BS to make a point.

No, we dodn't simply "invade and bomb the crap" out of people. Your shortcut propaganda omits the numbers of UN Resolutions and sanctions, going back to the Clinton era, to restrain Saddam Hussein's use of WMD on his own people and his quest for nukes.

So, since you are such a sucker for Obama, why not try a more truthful course and explain why he is such a gift to be president?
Going over his resume', he wouldn't qualify to get a management job in the local Wal Mart.

Sure, he's the "flavor of the month" for the celebrity crowd and wealthy liberals are throwing tons of cash at him, but what has he accomplished in his life? NOTHING! He was elected to the Senate by urban black folks in Illinois and their judgment sure as hell can't be that of the majority of voters across the country.


ander said...

Actually, I haven't decided to be a "sucker for Obama" yet and it remains to be seen whether a majority of voters across the country will elect him into office. Seems to be doing pretty well, so far, for someone who isn't qualified to manage the local Wal-mart.

What I am sure I am not is a sucker for the current president. I'm not alone in believing that the invasion of Iraq hasn't exactly turned out well. It might have been nice to adequately support our troops, taken a bit more care in understanding the factions that exist and the consequences of the inherent conflicts among them and...oh...I don't know...maybe not lied about the existence of WMD in order to invade in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Ander = No WMD in Iraq? Uhh...what did he gas his people with, Right Guard?

ander said...

If you'll recall, we invaded Iraq because they posed an "imminent threat" to the U.S. and possessed WMD that were to be used against us. To quote George Bush, "are they here? Are they there? They must be somewhere!"

rex the wonder dog said...

Yep - The Obama campaign is like a gagantic remake of BLAZING SADDLES. Only this is for the presidency, not for sheriff, and it isn't quite as funny.


ander said...

I can find no value in engaging with someone who chooses to fall back on racist innuendo in an attempt at humor.

Anonymous said...

I think that the democrats are probably passing up the best opportunity in years for their party to lead this nation. In my opinion it is the Dems for taking but they haven't even put up a reasonable candidate nor have the Republicans. As sad as it is to say I think that there are still many many people that will not vote for a certain candidate b/c of race and or gender. I understand that the polls taken have suggested otherwise but wait until those same people get to vote behind closed doors. It is just scary to realize in my opinion that none fo the names in the hat are probably capable of running this nation.

Anonymous said...

Ander 10:53 - It worked in BLAZING SADDLES! I'm sure you boycotted that one.

Anonymous said...

11:21 - You are right. I think the one dem candidate that might have made me jump the republican ship is Bill Richardson. He was abundantly qualified to be president and had the insight and character to lead effectively. Too bad those qualities were lost in the dem $$$ swamp.

wordkyle said...

oh man, how have I stayed out of this one??

"no-one" 2:49 - The jelly-like jab at Fox/O'Reilly ignores the fact that O'Reilly denounced the stupid e-mail about Obama on his show.

Ander, Ander, Ander -- Your air of superiority doesn't fit you well, especially after you've just repeated a thoughtless mantra trying desperately to pass it off as true.

WMD in Iraq: Bush was apparently wrong about this. So were Bill Clinton, the United Nations, Britain, John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and 99% of the free world.

"Being wrong" does not equal "lied." Your repeating the Liberal line does not make it true.

It's easy to second-guess decisions made five years ago with information from last week. Who hasn't wished they could go back in time and know what they know now?

If Bush had decided not to handle Iraq decisively in the face of universal belief of Iraq's threat, and another terrorist attack had occurred in 2004 -- well, then the beatings would have been justified.

Instead, he made the adult, tough, prudent decision to handle Iraq, a decision, by the way, that Clinton refused to make.

ander said...

11:40-"Blazing Saddles" used humor to ridicule racism. It didn't use racism as humor. There is a difference.

ander said...

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."

In the congressional debate over the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, even those voting against it gave credence to the notion that Saddam possessed WMD. Even a leading opponent such as Sen. Bob Graham, then the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who had instigated the production of the NIE, declared in his floor speech on Oct. 12, 2002, "Saddam Hussein's regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capacity." Not a single senator contested otherwise. None of them had an inkling of the Sabri intelligence.
The CIA officers assigned to Sabri still argued within the agency that his information must be taken seriously, but instead the administration preferred to rely on Curveball. Drumheller learned from the German intelligence service that held Curveball that it considered him and his claims about WMD to be highly unreliable. But the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) insisted that Curveball was credible because what he said was supposedly congruent with available public information.
For two months, Drumheller fought against the use of Curveball, raising the red flag that he was likely a fraud, as he turned out to be. "Oh, my! I hope that's not true," said Deputy Director McLaughlin, according to Drumheller's book "On the Brink," published in 2006. When Curveball's information was put into Bush's Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address, McLaughlin and Tenet allowed it to pass into the speech. "From three Iraqi defectors," Bush declared, "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs ... Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them." In fact, there was only one Iraqi source -- Curveball -- and there were no labs.
When the mobile weapons labs were inserted into the draft of Powell's United Nations speech, Drumheller strongly objected again and believed that the error had been removed. He was shocked watching Powell's speech. "We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails," Powell announced. Without the reference to the mobile weapons labs, there was no image of a threat.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff, and Powell himself later lamented that they had not been warned about Curveball. And McLaughlin told the Washington Post in 2006, "If someone had made these doubts clear to me, I would not have permitted the reporting to be used in Secretary Powell's speech." But, in fact, Drumheller's caution was ignored.
As war appeared imminent, the CIA officers on the Sabri case tried to arrange his defection in order to demonstrate that he stood by his information. But he would not leave without bringing out his entire family. "He dithered," said one former CIA officer. And the war came before his escape could be handled.
Tellingly, Sabri's picture was never put on the deck of playing cards of former Saddam officials to be hunted down, a tacit acknowledgment of his covert relationship with the CIA. Today, Sabri lives in Qatar.
In 2005, the Silberman-Robb commission investigating intelligence in the Iraq war failed to interview the case officer directly involved with Sabri; instead its report blamed the entire WMD fiasco on "groupthink" at the CIA. "They didn't want to trace this back to the White House," said the officer.
On Feb. 5, 2004, Tenet delivered a speech at Georgetown University that alluded to Sabri and defended his position on the existence of WMD, which, even then, he contended would still be found. "Several sensitive reports crossed my desk from two sources characterized by our foreign partners as established and reliable," he said. "The first from a source who had direct access to Saddam and his inner circle" -- Naji Sabri -- "said Iraq was not in the possession of a nuclear weapon. However, Iraq was aggressively and covertly developing such a weapon." Then Tenet claimed with assurance, "The same source said that Iraq was stockpiling chemical weapons." He explained that this intelligence had been central to his belief in the reason for war. "As this information and other sensitive information came across my desk, it solidified and reinforced the judgments that we had reached in my own view of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein and I conveyed this view to our nation's leaders." (Tenet doesn't mention Sabri in his recently published memoir, "At the Center of the Storm.")
But where were the WMD? "Now, I'm sure you're all asking, 'Why haven't we found the weapons?' I've told you the search must continue and it will be difficult."
On Sept. 8, 2006, three Republican senators on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence -- Orrin Hatch, Saxby Chambliss and Pat Roberts -- signed a letter attempting to counter Drumheller's revelation about Sabri on "60 Minutes": "All of the information about this case so far indicates that the information from this source was that Iraq did have WMD programs." The Republicans also quoted Tenet, who had testified before the committee in July 2006 that Drumheller had "mischaracterized" the intelligence. Still, Drumheller stuck to his guns, telling Reuters, "We have differing interpretations, and I think mine's right."
One of the former senior CIA officers told me that despite the certitude of the three Republican senators, the Senate committee never had the original memo on Sabri. "The committee never got that report," he said. "The material was hidden or lost, and because it was a restricted case, a lot of it was done in hard copy. The whole thing was fogged up, like Curveball."
While one Iraqi source told the CIA that there were no WMD, information that was true but distorted to prove the opposite, another Iraqi source was a fabricator whose lies were eagerly embraced. "The real tragedy is that they had a good source that they misused," said one of the former CIA officers. "The fact is there was nothing there, no threat. But Bush wanted to hear what he wanted to hear."

ander said...

Sorry, forgot to attribute the text above: Sidney Blumenthal

Anonymous said...

Andy, You didn't need to mention blumenthal, the guy that has his nose so far up Hillbillies ass. We all know it's liberal weenie spin. Next.

Anonymous said...

And the weapons he used to kill his own people will filled with hair spray. Ok ... we weren't able to penetrate Saddam's bluff. So what?

Associated Press

NEW YORK -- Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction to deter rival Iran and did not think the United States would stage a major invasion, according to an FBI interrogator who questioned the Iraqi leader after his capture.

Hussein expected only a limited aerial attack by the United States and thought he could remain in control, the FBI special agent, George Piro, told CBS' "60 Minutes" program in an interview to be broadcast Sunday.

"He told me he initially miscalculated ... President Bush's intentions," said Piro. "He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack."

ander said...

Right. I think I'll file that intellectually lazy response under "blame the messenger".

ander said...

1:58-I see nothing in your comment that addresses Bush's lies, only Hussein's miscalculation.

wordkyle said...

" a Dec. 21, 2002, briefing with President Bush, Tenet and his top deputy. John McLaughlin, presented satellite photographs and intercepts from Iraq. According to Woodward, the President asked them, "This is the best you've got?"

"Then, as the story goes, Tenet told the President, "It's a slam dunk case" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction." Bob Woodward, PLAN OF ATTACK

" I think we will find caches of weapons of mass destruction, absolutely.” -- George Tenet, in a February 11, 2003 committee hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

ander said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ander said...

Speaking of "Plan of Attack":

Bush made his decision to go to war without consulting Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld or Secretary of State Colin Powell, Woodward's book says.

Powell was not even told until after the Saudi ambassador was allowed to review top-secret war plans in an effort to enlist his country's support for the invasion, according to Woodward, who has written or co-written several best-selling books on Washington politics, including "All the President's Men" with Carl Bernstein.

The book also reports that in the summer of 2002, $700 million was diverted from a congressional appropriation for the war in Afghanistan to develop a war plan for Iraq.

Woodward suggests the diversion may have been illegal, and that Congress was deliberately kept in the dark about what had been done.

wordkyle said...

ander - The quick change of subject would indicate that your long-winded post regarding Tenet is now null and void.

It's each person's choice, but I put more faith in Tenet's statements made at the time rather than anything he says in CYA bureaucrat fashion after the fact.

How is it that when one of your "points" is knocked down, you simply move to something else, as though your original (debunked) claim was never said?

Bush-haters never run out of reasons to hate. It's been the same song ever since 2000.

ander said...

I hadn't noticed a change of subject. Weren't we talking about the rationale for the war in Iraq? Where, exactly, did you debunk the original "long-winded" comment? Why would you place more faith in George Tenet's claims at the time the war was instigated than in what has since come to light?

wordkyle said...

You based the largest part of your post on Tenet's comments. Since I answered those comments, and your next post ignored Tenet, I interpreted it as "change of subject."

Re-read my comment regarding bureaucrats and CYA. That's about as plain as I can make it.

Anonymous said...

The bombing raid executed by Israel (with assistance from the US) in the latter part of 2007 destroyed WMD's moved from Iraq to Syria. Damascus denied all of the reports for almost 2 months and then claimed Israel only bombed an empty warehouse. Putin was pissed to find the anti-aircraft radar he sold to Syria was penetrated so easily. Why has the mainstream media ignored this? It just doesn't go with their "Bush Lied" mantra.

Anonymous said...

I doubt many will read this far down the chain (or all of Ander’s post), but recall that Bush awarded the top civilian medal to Tenant, General Franks and Paul Bremer. All 3 screwed up the pre-war and post-war in Iraq (the military performed well but were unprepared for the occupation). The medals were meant to cover up Bush's flawed reasons for war and the really screwed up post invasion.

Tenet made many errors that have been well document in several books. His "slam dunk" comment will live in infamy.

Anonymous said...

The Iraqi WMD stockpile has long been over hyped. Yes, he had WMD (mainly gas). We knew he had it because most of it was given to him by US. However, he last used it about 1988. Those weapons are not permanent - they decompose over time. It is unlikely that old gas would still be very effective some 12 years later. In any event, Saddam had eliminated these supplies in secret to keep the Iranians guessing. The UN inspectors also had a hand in removing his supplies. This is why it was difficult for Saddam to "prove" he no longer had the stuff (it's hard to prove a negative) especially when he wanted Iran to think he still had CBW.

rex the wonder dog said...

Ander - Combat intelligence is based on ESTIMATES of an enemy's strengths, weaknesses, capabilities and INTENTIONS. It is very hard to get into the head of a maniac like Hussein but he could be judged on his previous actions. Evaluations of his intentions was based on threats over and over again, genocide in his own country, as well as his war with Iran and his invasion of Kuwait.

No gathering of intelligence information can ever be perfect because "counter-intelligence" is set up to interfere or deny it to an adversary.

Hussein ran a bluff about having nukes but was in the market for them from China, Russia and Pakistan. There was no way to know for sure he was bluffing and it was not a reasonable risk to ignore it any longer. Diplomatic intervention failed forever.

Our intelligence people went with the best information they had and expressed their ESTIMATES to the president. and he acted. Yes, our national interests were threatened, e.g. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Kuwait and freedom of shipping on the Persian Gulf. We have an oil dependency out there allong with many of our allies.

The Saudies were contacted prior to military action because we did not want any threats from them resulting from a surprise movement in the region. The JCS had drawers full of action plans to attack Iraq. Colin Powell was notified in enough time to pick one out and set it in motion. That was his job. He didn't need to advise the president "whether or not", he had only to follow the orders of his boss.

The president was given the best ESTIMATES available from trusted sources and one thing proven ever since is that Iraq was, still is, a major source of Al Qaida teerrorism in the region.

We went to war with faulty intelligence. So be it. Just because you hate Bush, don't act like that was the first time, first president who ever did that. Saddam bluffed, we called it and he lost. Iraq, Middle-East and the rest of the world is a helluva lot better off with him dead.

Yes, we lose soldiers in warfare. How well I know...been there. But we should never take away from their sacrifices in Iraq or Afghanistan that have given us one thing for sure ....We aren't battling Al Qaida on our home turf...yet.


Anonymous said...

Rex, just a couple of points:
1. Bush and his advisors selected what intelligence they chose to believe. Counter information was discarded or suppressed. By whom? I don't know but there were (minority) dissenting opinions in the intelligence community counter to those put forward by Bush.
2. Don't know why you identify Colin Powell as the one to select war plans. He was Secretary of State - not Defense. His reputation has been severely damaged by his participation in the whole affair. He has said that he is very sorry he was not more critical and questioning of the progress to war with questionable information.

rex the wonder dog said...

6:09 - You are correct about Colin Powell. I was confusing his role with the liberation of Kuwait.

Yes, we may never get to the bottom of how our intelligence advisors may have been manipulated by people outside the ranks. It is a blemish that will not go away from Bush's legacy.

Thanks for your points.


Whydoilivehere? said...

You guys are just like Romney and McCain, fighting over little things. Where is the money for this war coming from? We pay more for oil now and they said that the war would be paid for by it. That was obviously wrong. Besides, it's Wise County, the majority of the people here will believe anything they hear on TV, therefore I am going to stop arguing.