I concur that the “The Bush Administration got it wrong”

But, you’re loosing focus again! There is a greater, clearer and more dangerous threat too our party that will shortly perpetrate our air-waves on ABC’s “The Path to 9/11”

These traitors at ABC are betrayers of our new mother land. Where I come from, this Robert A. Iger would be dragged through the streets in front of the tomb of our glorious leader Vladimir Lenin and shot in public. The producers, directors, writers and anyone associated with this propaganda would be picked up in the early hours of the morning by our State Security Chief Lavrenty Beria (The Black Hand) and taken to a Siberian labor camp never too be heard from again.

For many years I have been loyal to ABC and the Pravda (truth) that our Socialist Liberal ally has put forth in order to progress our ultimate goal; the decline and absolute destruction of America and the capitalist traitorous pig’s like ABC.

I ask you Mr. Robert A. Iger, “Have you no shame Sir”?

Comrades, we must not give up the fight. It has taken us many years to groom you and your elected leaders.

Remember what our great leader Nikita Khrushchev said:

“ We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism ”

It’s more important now then ever before that we stand together and stay focused! We can not allow this abomination of propaganda to go forward.

We must do whatever it takes to keep this film from airing on Sunday the 10th, 2006, we only have a few hours left.

It is your duty as loyal Liberal Socialist Democrats to rise up in solidarity and put a stop to this immediately!

Senator Harry Reid, one of our courageous and distinguished Senatorial leaders from the state of Nevada, reminded the capitalist traitorous pigs at ABC of their license from the FCC. Please Senator Reid, we’re your loyal comrades in arms and begging you to use all the glorious power you possess. You must stop this film! You must push forward with an iron fist and crush this despicable display of propaganda.

If this film isn’t stopped from airing on ABC, Sunday night, I’m afraid all our efforts since the cold war and the aspirations of our great leaders from glorious years past and Nikita Khrushchev’s dreams and predictions will have been lost.

If we loose now, the great Liberal Socialist Democratic Party, we have nurtured, will decline into the ash heaps of history never too be heard from again.

Where are our great defenders the A.C.L.U.? There silence is deafening. Their founder; Roger Nash Baldwin a supporter of the Communist Party would not let this despicable propaganda go unchallenged.

Remember comrades, we destroyed Senator Joseph R. McCarthy in the 1950’s while attempting to exploit and expose us.

This should be an easy task. We already have many supporters in positions of power. If we wish to control this country, then we must be more diligent in our efforts to stop this ABC film.

You must!…. I repeat, you must contact our comrades in arms at their offices in Washington.

Now I’ve done all the work all you have to do is contact our “elected officials” below by e-mail or call:

Clinton, Hillary Rodham- (D – NY) Class I
476 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4451
Web Form: clinton.senate.gov/contact

Reid, Harry- (D – NV) Class III
528 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3542
Web Form: reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm

Kerry, John F.- (D – MA) Class II
304 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2742
Web Form: kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/email.html

Landrieu, Mary L.- (D – LA) Class II
724 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5824
Web Form: landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Levin, Carl- (D – MI) Class II
269 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6221
Web Form: levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Rockefeller, John D., IV- (D – WV) Class II
531 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6472
Web Form: rockefeller.senate.gov/services/email.cfm

Schumer, Charles E.- (D – NY) Class III
313 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6542
Web Form: schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/contact/webform.cfm

Kennedy, Edward M.- (D – MA) Class I
317 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4543
Web Form: kennedy.senate.gov/senator/contact.cfm

Feinstein, Dianne- (D – CA) Class I
331 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3841
Web Form: feinstein.senate.gov/email.html

Leahy, Patrick J.- (D – VT) Class III
433 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4242
E-mail: senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov

Stabenow, Debbie- (D – MI) Class I
133 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4822
Web Form: stabenow.senate.gov/email.htm

Durbin, Richard- (D – IL) Class II
332 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2152
Web Form: durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Lincoln, Blanche L.- (D – AR) Class III
355 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4843
Web Form: lincoln.senate.gov/webform.html

Feingold, Russell D.- (D – WI) Class III
506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5323
E-mail: russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov

Harkin, Tom- (D – IA) Class II
731 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3254
Web Form: harkin.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm

Bayh, Evan- (D – IN) Class III
463 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5623
Web Form: bayh.senate.gov/WebMail1.htm

Biden, Joseph R., Jr.- (D – DE) Class II
201 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5042
E-mail: senator@biden.senate.gov

Boxer, Barbara- (D – CA) Class III
112 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3553
Web Form: boxer.senate.gov/contact

Menendez, Robert- (D – NJ) Class I
502 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4744
Web Form: menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm

Nelson, Bill- (D – FL) Class I
716 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5274
Web Form: billnelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Obama, Barack- (D – IL) Class III
713 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2854
Web Form: obama.senate.gov/contact/

Byrd, Robert C.- (D – WV) Class I
311 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3954
Web Form: byrd.senate.gov/byrd_email.html

Cantwell, Maria- (D – WA) Class I
717 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3441
Web Form: cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.html

Conrad, Kent- (D – ND) Class I
530 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2043
Web Form: conrad.senate.gov/webform.html

Dayton, Mark- (D – MN) Class I
123 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3244
Web Form: dayton.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Dodd, Christopher J.- (D – CT) Class III
448 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2823
Web Form: dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3130

Many agencies, countries and experts–including me and my colleagues then at the Carnegie Endowment–were concerned that without inspections it was possible, even likely, that Saddam still had tons of weapons agents. We also worried that he could be continuing a clandestine nuclear weapons research program. These concerns were largely based on the materials unaccounted for at the time the UNSCOM inspectors had to leave Iraq at the end of 1998. We made estimates of the possible.

Here\’s the difference: In late 2002, inspectors went back in. We started getting new intelligence. Dozens of inspectors went to hundreds of sites. The inspectors visited the former nuclear facilities at which US satellites detected suspicious activies. They could now look under the roofs, swipe for radiological traces, interview technicians, audit accounts. They found the facilites in a worse state of repair than when the had left. There was absolutley no evidence of any renewed nuclear activity. The same for chemical and biological programs. We could now make new, more accurate estimates based on this new intelligence.

In other words, it was never a choice between war and nothing; between taking action and trusting Saddam. We had in place the most coercive inspection regime ever imposed on an independent nation. And it was working. Saddam was in an iron box, surrounded by thousands of troops, his political base deteriorating. David Kay said later that Saddam\’s regime was in \”a death spiral.\” The concerns expressed at the time of the difficulties in keeping troops in the area through the summer to allow inspections to continue seem ludicrous in light of the 2500 US troops killed, 15,000 maimed and $300 billion squandered.

But it is even worse. US officials intentionally disparaged the inspectors and ignored their intelligence. They were bent on war and nothing, certainly not UN inspectors, was going to stop them. I spoke to inspectors after Secretary Powell\’s UN presenation. I asked them how they felt to be told that the Iraqis were moving chemical weapons from sites just before their inspections. They said they knew the Secretary was wrong. I asked about the decontamination trucks that the Secretary pointed out using overhead photos. They said that those were not decontamination trucks–they were water trucks. They knew this because they had been at the site and seen them. They also told the Americans this, they said, but they were ignored.

No, it was not for lack of intelligence that we invaded Iraq. It was not because the intelligence analysts misled us. The betrayal happened at a far higher level. The entire nation will pay the price for a generation.

–Joseph Cirincione, Senior Vice President for National Security and International Policy, Center for American Progress

“I knew Iraq couldn’t have WMDs to any threatening degree, from reading blogs, the International Atomic Energy’s reports, Hans Blix’s reports, Scott Ritter’s reports, etc.,”

You didn’t know that you were right any more than we thought we were wrong. LOL! You chose to believe what you wanted to, i.e. there was evidence on both sides of the argument and you went with one. You can’t look in hindsight and now CLAIM you knew that Saddam didn’t have any WMDs. Please don’t claim that you knew for a fact the Saddam didn’t have any WMDs in his possession considering you are not in the intelligence community.

GAZA, June 28 — Israel sent troops into southern Gaza, and its planes attacked three bridges and a power station early this morning, in an effort to prevent militants from moving a wounded Israeli soldier they abducted on Sunday, Israeli Army officials said.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that Israel would not hesitate to use “extreme steps” in its effort to rescue the soldier, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, 19.

Our thoughts are with Cpl. Gilad Shalit, his family, and the Israeli troops going into battle with the terrorist.

WOW!!! This is a surprising and shocking expose from a Carnegie Peace Tank mouthpiece!!

The committee also should review this end of things.

No, they said that they could, not would.

2. Administration officials routinely dropped caveats and uncertainty present in intelligence assessments. E.g. Cheney said he knew with “absolute certainty” Iraq was developing its nuclear program. Powell said there was “no doubt” that Iraq had biological weapons.

When you see people quoting others with only a few words, alarm bells should start ringing. In this case, Mr. Cirincione is acting dishonestly by taking Cheney out of context. This is Cheney’s full statement:

“We 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.” Cheney was referring to the aluminum tubes that some analysts believed could be used for a centrifuge to help make nuclear materials; others believed they were for an antiaircraft rocket.

Cheney was saying they were absolutely certain he was procuring equipment, not that he was absolutely certain they were building nuclear weapons. Iraq was procuring dual-use equipment that could be used in a nuclear weapons program.

For Powell, Mr. Cirincione is less deceiving, but still Powell said this:

There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.

Certainly saying there “can be no doubt” is not the same as saying there “is no doubt”.

3. Administration officials misrepresented the findings made by UN inspectors. Bush said prior to the war that U.N. inspectors concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times anthrax that had been found, but inspectors never said they actually had produced such materials.

I think the words in bold speak for themselves.

What Joe Wilson or anyone else believed back in the 90s is irrelevant today. Their beliefs turned out to be INCORRECT. The intelligence turned out to be UNRELIABLE. They were WRONG then, and Joe Wilson and others have been adult enough to admit this. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you are wrong; this shows maturity. Then you move on to act on later and more correct information.

So the important thing to do now is truly investigate the failures in intelligence gathering or interpretation, and figure out ways to do better in the future. Those failures have cost 2500+ American lives and who knows how many 1000s of Iraqi lives. What people believed in the past is relevant only insofar as it helps to figure out how not to have incorrect beliefs to inform future actions.

That said, I do wish that some of the Democrats who voted to authorize Bush to take action with regard to Iraq, would stand up and be adults and admit that they were wrong. To admit that they should have studied the issues more thoroughly. Yes, Bush went beyond their authorization. But they should have voted NO to start with, as some of the most courageous of them did.

Probably some rightwinger will now reply that we ALL thought Iraq had WMDs. No, not ALL. I knew Iraq couldn’t have WMDs to any threatening degree, from reading blogs, the International Atomic Energy’s reports, Hans Blix’s reports, Scott Ritter’s reports, etc., and I wrote against going to war to all of Arizona’s congress people in Sept. 2002 urging that they not vote to go to war. And I’m a nobody without access to classified intelligence. But I and many other people knew that someone was, to put it most charitably, exaggerating.

Keep up with your posts, rightwingers. You were wrong then and we were right. You only make yourselves look silly by clinging to outmoded information.

What Joe Wilson or anyone else believed back in the 90s is irrelevant today. Their beliefs turned out to be INCORRECT. The intelligence turned out to be UNRELIABLE. They were WRONG then, and Joe Wilson and others have been adult enough to admit this. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you are wrong; this shows maturity. Then you move on to act on later and more correct information.

So the important thing to do now is truly investigate the failures in intelligence gathering or interpretation, and figure out ways to do better in the future. Those failures have cost 2500+ American lives and who knows how many 1000s of Iraqi lives. What people believed in the past is relevant only insofar as it helps to figure out how not to have incorrect beliefs to inform future actions.

That said, I do wish that some of the Democrats who voted to authorize Bush to take action with regard to Iraq, would stand up and be adults and admit that they were wrong. To admit that they should have studied the issues more thoroughly. Yes, Bush went beyond their authorization. But they should have voted NO to start with, as some of the most courageous of them did.

Probably some rightwinger will now reply that we ALL thought Iraq had WMDs. No, not ALL. I knew Iraq couldn’t have WMDs to any threatening degree, from reading blogs, the International Atomic Energy’s reports, Hans Blix’s reports, Scott Ritter’s reports, etc., and I wrote against going to war to all of Arizona’s congress people in Sept. 2002 urging that they not vote to go to war. And I’m a nobody without access to classified intelligence. But I and many other people knew that someone was, to put it most charitably, exaggerating.

Keep up with your posts, rightwingers. You were wrong then and we were right. You only make yourselves look silly but clinging to outmoded information.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=258
Saddam Wins Again, Jan 4 1999

And since the ostensible trigger for the attack was Saddam’s refusal to give up his quest for chemical and biological weapons, targeting his limited conventional capabilities would seem rather beside the point. On the question of what it proposed to do about Saddam’s chemical and biological weapons, the administration’s answer was a cacophony of contradictions. When the strikes began Secretary Cohen declared that the “objective of the attack is to go after those chemical, biological or weapons of mass destruction sites to the extent that we can.” This proved to be an artful and misleading claim. When the strikes ended, we learned that military planners had decided not to target weapons-production facilities after all because they were concerned about exposing innocent civilians to chemical and biological agents. According to senior Pentagon officials, they also avoided targeting facilities, like pharmaceutical plants, that might have civilian as well as military uses. But these decisions raise some questions. Why, for instance, was it legitimate to target a dual-use pharmaceutical plant in Sudan last August but not legitimate to hit similar facilities in Iraq? And if it really is the administration’s policy to avoid hitting production facilities in Iraq, what does that say about any future effort to “contain” Saddam’s weapons programs?

Over the past year, before every threatened use of military strikes against Iraq, the Pentagon claimed that one of the goals would be to hit those sites where Iraq was producing weapons of mass destruction. This was always a dubious proposition, given our limited knowledge of precisely where those sites are, but at least in theory it was a strategy aimed at the heart of the problem. Even after last week’s bombing, administration officials suggested that the United States could contain Saddam by launching missile strikes whenever U.S. intelligence detects a renewal of his weapons programs. But what good will more strikes do if the administration persists in declaring the weapons-production sites themselves untouchable?

Stranger still were the broad hints offered by civilian and military officials that the hidden purpose of the strikes was to spark an Iraqi uprising against Saddam. While Secretary Cohen repeatedly declared when the bombing began that it was “not our objective to remove Saddam from power,” after the strikes ended, the commander of the operation, Gen. Anthony Zinni, said he hoped the strikes had “contributed” to destabilizing Saddam’s regime. He lamely pointed to the fact that while the Republican Guard were not actually in their barracks during the bombing, they would now be without a roof over their heads and had “lost the ability to command and control.” Such musings were especially ironic coming from Gen. Zinni. At the end of October, Zinni had declared that any effort to topple Saddam would be foolish and dangerous, since it would fracture Iraq, create an “Afghanistan-like” condition of warring factions, and destabilize the entire region. What changed Zinni’s mind? Cynics might suggest that it was his need to find a purpose for a mission that had no purpose.

Finally, there was the explanation offered by national security adviser Sandy Berger. “For me,” Berger said, “the most important reason for why we had to do this was that to have failed to do so not only would have lost UNSCOM but would have lost the credible threat of force.” Since UNSCOM is as good as lost anyway, Berger’s point boils down to this: The administration had to use force so that it could maintain the “credible threat of force.” In light of the administration’s earlier bluffs, which Saddam repeatedly called, this credibility problem is no doubt a serious one. But how credible is the “threat” of force if the actual use of force has no discernible impact on the adversary, and serves no purpose?

The Clinton administration is, in short, bereft of a policy toward Iraq, indeed more so today than before the missile strikes. It refuses to consider serious action to remove Saddam by supporting the Iraqi opposition. It won’t even contemplate the idea of sending in U.S. ground forces to do the job. Clinton’s national security team utters vague promises about containment, about keeping Saddam “in his box,” but they cannot begin to explain how they intend to accomplish this. Guess who’s in the box now.

Another Times editorial warned that containment of Hussein was eroding. “The Security Council is wobbly, with Russia and France eager to ease inspections and sanctions.” Any approach “that depends on Security Council unity is destined to be weak.” “Mr. [Kofi] Annan’s resolve seems in doubt.” When Hans Blix was appointed to head the U.N. inspectors, the editors criticized him for “a decade-long failure to detect Iraq’s secret nuclear weapons program before the gulf war” and for a “tendency to credit official assurances from rulers like Mr. Hussein.” His selection was “a disturbing sign that the international community lacks the determination to rebuild an effective arms inspection system.” The “further the world gets from the gulf war, the more it seems willing to let Mr. Hussein revive his deadly weapons projects.” Even “[m]any Americans question the need to maintain pressure on Baghdad and would oppose the use of force. But the threat is too great to give ground to Mr. Hussein. The cost to the world and to the United States of dealing with a belligerent Iraq armed with biological weapons would be far greater than the cost of preventing Baghdad from rearming.”

The Times was not alone, of course. On Jan. 29, 2001, The Post editorialized that “of 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,” including “intelligence photos that show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.”

Iraq’s WMD Arsenal: Deadly But Limited

“UNSCOM repeatedly reported that Iraq had failed to provide a full and correct account of its biological weapon program. UNSCOM remained concerned that Iraq may have retained a stock of biological weapons and related manufacturing capabilities as late as 1997. In the absence of inspections, it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin. There are numerous unconfirmed reports of Iraq’s research into and possible production of other agents.”

“Still, Iraq may have secretly reconstructed some nuclear capabilities. Some experts believe Saddam may have a workable design for a weapon, but no official report claims that he yet has the material to put in it. CIA officials told the Senate in March 2002, that Iraq, unconstrained, would need several years to produce enough material for a nuclear weapon.”

“After the Gulf War, UNSCOM destroyed more than 480,000 liters of chemical agents and 1.8 million liters of chemical precursors in Iraq. Because of the size of the Iraqi program, however, it is widely believed that significant quantities of chemical agents and precursors remain stored in secret depots. U.N. officials have publicly expressed their doubts that the entire Iraqi stockpile of chemical weapons was found. Rough estimates conclude that Iraq may have retained up to 600 metric tons of agents, including VX, mustard gas and sarin. There are thousands of possible chemical munitions still unaccounted for.”

“There is no evidence that Iraq has a nuclear weapon or will soon have one, (although you said otherwise when Clinton was president) unless Saddam is able to get fissile material from some other nation. The greatest threat from a weapon of mass destruction would be from the delivery of a biological agent, probably by non-missile means, that is, by truck or ship or possibly small aircraft. However, it is unclear what such an attack would accomplish and why Saddam would attempt such an attack. If the attack were covert and the assailants unknown, there would be no glory or gain for Iraq; if Iraq were known as the source of the attack-or even suspected as the source-there would undoubtedly be an overwhelming and devastating counter-attack that would eliminate the Iraqi leadership. While there may be thousands of chemical-tipped rockets and bombs still in Iraq, these are primarily short-range weapons. If delivered, dozens or hundreds would die, but not significantly more than would die from conventional military assaults or terrorist attacks on critical infrastructures.”

Joe “The Carp” Cirincioni

I truly hope that a positive resolution can result from this tragedy.

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) poses the single greatest threat to the national security of the United States. As Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has noted, “The greatest threat to our society at the moment are the weapons of mass destruction. Those are the weapons that know no boundaries.”

You thought Iraq was a threat then. What changed you mind? I know, you’re covering your a**. Good job.

High-Risk States:

North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and Libya
have taken steps in the past several years to acquire
nuclear weapons capabilities.

Who do you think you’re foolin’, Joe? Are you going to blame Bush for your statements on Iraq’s WMD’s? Guess what, Bush wasn’t in charge when you claimed Iraq had WMD and was a threat to world security.