« Diplomatic ball | Main | Global warming column »

February 28, 2007

About protecting Americans

Missouri Sen. Kit Bond and West Virginia’s Jay Rockefeller are gushing about a bipartisan approach to intelligence (2/19, A-1, “Senators change intelligence panel’s mind-set”).
Intelligence should never be a partisan issue, but Democrats made it so over the past five years. They viewed the same data the president and the Republicans did and then, after the war started, turned on the president and our military. Now that they are in the driver’s seat, they call for bipartisanship. They’ll get it because Republicans are more concerned about protecting American than they are about winning elections. Would that the same could be said for the slim Democrat majority.
Ron Freeman
Grandview

Comments

Arminius

CRD:

"Armi, take your pills. You're retreating into fantasyland again."

I guess if I couldn't argue the facts, I might be tempted to engage in ad hominem attacks as well. If you can cite an example of a fantasy, I challenge you to share it here.

Arminius

irishguy:

"Armi, one of those presidents invaded Iraq, the other one didn't."

Clinton launched a major preemptive attack in 1998 because he said Saddam had WMD.

"The evidence is now pretty clear that Iraq's WMD program was pretty much wiped out in the first Gulf war, and that Saddam's attempts to rebuild it was destroyed in the December 1998 bombing raids that rightwinger screamed "Wag the Dog" about."

If that's the case, why were Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke still claiming Saddam had WMD as late as January 2001?
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1010801.htm
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1011102.htm

"I also do not recall Bill Clinton ever claiming that bin Laden and Saddam had an operational relationship. Did you get that from Newsmax or Drudge?"

I have to admit that my source is less credible than Newsmax or Drudge. It happens to be the Clinton administration itself. When the Clinton Justice Department issued an indictment (!) against bin Laden in 1998, it made this claim:

"Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

It was this claim that led to the bombing of the al Shifa aspirin factory in Sudan in August 1998.

I think you need to brush up on this topic before you attempt to debate it further. Here's a good place to start:
http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/

Arminius

areebeo:

Did the Clinton administration alo lie about Saddam's WMD?
http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/iraqthreat.html

NavyMan

Engineer: "Any documentation?"

Are you incapable of finding the truth. Try watching CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS instead of FOXNews (the greatest source of misinformation). If you did you would have seen Republican senators Hagel and Specter join the Democrats who said they didn't receive the same information as the president. Many things were left out.

If Freeman and Engineer, and Robertson would be specific and say that Congress received the portions of the intelligence that had been filtered by the Bush Administration, you'd be correct.

arebeeo

arminius: There have been many reasons given for this war. The main one was the WMD's of course. They lied about that one. They lied about the link between Saddam and Al Queda so they could link that to 911. Let me think what else have they used. Spreading democracy? They care little for the Iraqi people. Too many of them have been killed for that to be the case. Oh, yes. Saddam was a bad guy. That is true but again just another phony reason for starting a war. They picked Iraq to have a war with because they thought it would be an easy one. There are many bad guys to pick from. And I can just hear Darth Cheney musing, "And once we knock everything down Halliburton can make a lot of money pretending to put it back up".

NavyMan

This is just too easy. Engineer say, "There is probably plenty of blame to go around. However, Bill Clinton was President when the Army was cut from 20 to 10 Divisions."

Republican controlled Congress decided on what and who and where the military was to be cut. Clinton didn't veto the Republican cuts.

I know Engineer tries vainly to blame Clinton for everything, but that dog won't hunt.

irishguy

Armi, one of those presidents invaded Iraq, the other one didn't.

The evidence is now pretty clear that Iraq's WMD program was pretty much wiped out in the first Gulf war, and that Saddam's attempts to rebuild it was destroyed in the December 1998 bombing raids that rightwinger screamed "Wag the Dog" about.

I also do not recall Bill Clinton ever claiming that bin Laden and Saddam had an operational relationship. Did you get that from Newsmax or Drudge?

CRD

Armi, take your pills. You're retreating into fantasyland again.

Arminius

viet-vet:

"To justify the war, they exaggerated some intelligence, ignored other data and lied when it suited them."

Given that the Clinton administration said the same thing about Iraq (and went a bit further when it said Saddam and al Qaeda had an operational relatioship), do you believe the Clinton administration also lied about intelligence?

Arminius

arebeeo:

"Not to their credit most Americans and Democrats fell for the phony reasons for the war and only in the last year did they 'turn' on this President."

Tell us which reasons were phony.

Arminius

CRD:

"Bullshit. The Democrats never "turned on" the military. They turned against the war when it came out that the intelligence presented to us all by the Bush Administration was falsified and cherry picked."

You're lying again. What the Bush administration said about Iraq was no different from what the Clinton administration said about Iraq.
http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/iraqthreat.html

We had a bipartisan consensus concerning Iraq from 1990 to 2003. The Democrats then abandoned that consensus for partisan advantage. And, yes, they have turned on our troops.

Engineer

NavyMan
There is probably plenty of blame to go around. However, Bill Clinton was President when the Army was cut from 20 to 10 Divisions.

Engineer

MavyMan
Any documentation?

NavyMan

Ron Freeman states, "They (Democrats) viewed the same data the president and the Republicans did ..." Many senators and congressmen on both sides of the aisle have contended that they did not get the SAME information that the president did.

In particular, the caveats added by the intelligence agency presenting the intelligence were removed from the intelligence documents presented to the Congress by the Bush administration.

Some of the declassified IEs contained notations about the doubts of the validity of the "testimony" of unvetted sources.

One intelligence agency report contained a debunking of the aluminum tubes for nuclear centrifuges. That was known by Colin Powell, but Cheney and Tenet assured Powell that the report was wrong. That was not presented to the Congress nor the U.N.

Now all of these stories might be wrong and Freeman and his ilk may be right. Based uopon all the evidence that I've seen I'd be willing to bet any money that Ron Freeman is flat WRONG about his statement that Congress got ALL the SAME information that the president did.

And by SAME I mean identical! Any bet takers? I didn't think so.

That's why we need investigations. So we can see exactly what everyone knew. No more BS. Swear on the Bible, on threat of perjury. Stop the lying.

I want Mark Robertson to swear an oath that he knows absolutely that Ron Freeman's contention is true. I won't hold my breath.

jack

I never nit-pick. But sometimes I do pick nits. So there!

As to this new found bi-partisanship, how does anyone claim the Reps were cooperating while in control? Aren't they the same people that bragged about not bothering to talk to the opposition right up until the last election? Makes me wonder if the writer has been living in the same hole as Mark.

As to the Dems now "turning on" the Prez, to me it is too bad they didn't have the guts to stand up BEFORE we invaded. Of course, if they had their patriotism would have been questioned by the Party of new found bi-partisanship.

They are all politicians folks. And there for ALL are scurvy, crooked, blood sucking, pigs. Every last one of them. Yes, that includes those who claim to be "Christians" and those who don't. That includes the House, Senate and White House.

Put "honest" and "politician" in the same sentence without gagging. If you can, you are deluded.

Engineer

viet-vet
And you, on the other hand? But, touche, you are right. This is an opinion blog, more or less intended for just that. By contesting with, say, CRD, I review my own opinions. I would claim that I am not alone in "nit picking". And I do always try to give my reasons.

Mark Robertson

Right on Ron. Great letter. You even caused one of the lunatic left to use foul language. The truth usually does ruffle feathers.

Mark Robertson
Independence

viet-vet1970

Eng, I look forward to reading your posts advancing "understanding or cooperation," but based on past performance you are more likely to pick nits with people whose views are contrary to yours.

Engineer

Let's hope that Ron Freeman is right and we will see some "non-partisam" action in Congress. As to the sophmoric rants about the Bush Administration that some seemed called upon to reiterate ad nauseam at every oportunity, this practice certaintly does not advance either understanding or dooperation.

CRD

"I suspect they turned against the war when it became politically expedient for them to do so, and not a minute sooner."

You know, I agree with that. Even though we didn't find out the full extent by which the facts were monkeyed with by the Bush administration until after the invasion, there were plenty of reasons for both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to question the Executive Branch's rush to invade Iraq.

It's the difference between a sin of comission and a sin of omission, but those legislators all share a portion of the responsibility for the mess we're in today, even though the brunt of it lies on the shoulders of the Bush administration.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright