New Intel Report: Iraq Escalation Will Not Affect Sectarian Violence Nor Defeat Al Qaeda
New Intel Report: Iraq Escalation Will Not Affect Sectarian Violence Nor Defeat Al Qaeda
Newly-disclosed intelligence reports state that Bush’s escalation is negatively impacting the situation in Iraq and is unlikely to change the level of violence on the ground.
In yesterday’s “war czar” confirmation hearing for Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) revealed the latest “secret intelligence conclusions,” presented by top U.S. intelligence officials during a closed-door session with the Armed Services Committee last month. The conclusions largely tracked the findings of the last National Intelligence Estimate, which found Iraq to be in a state worse than civil war.
Bayh disclosed that in the closed-door hearing, the intelligence officials emphasized that a sustained U.S. presence will not aid political reconciliation nor quell sectarian violence in the near future:
Their overall consensus was that the trend in Iraq is negative. … Their assessment was that the prospect for political steps in Iraq toward meaningful reconciliation among the different parties, that those steps toward reconciliation — the political steps — would be marginal at best through the end of this calendar year. … We were also told that the state of the insurgency — the level of violence and that sort of thing — was in all likelihood going to be about where it is today a year from now.
Watch it:
Bayh quoted “the top CIA expert on radical Islam,” who told him recently that the U.S. presence in Iraq is generating more terrorists:
[I]n his opinion, our presence in Iraq is creating more members of Al Qaida than we are killing in Iraq.
That assessment debunks Bush’s contention that we must stay in Iraq in order to defeat al Qaeda. Lute agreed with all of the intelligence conclusions, stating that “very little progress” has been shown thus far. Explaining that there is no military solution in Iraq, Lute said “we’re not likely to see much difference in the security situation” if political and economic steps are not taken.
Transcript:
BAYH: We had a briefing in the intel world on Iraq last week. And I’d like to share with you the consensus view of the intelligence community and get your reaction to that.
Their overall consensus was that the trend in Iraq is negative, that there are occasional bright spots — for example, some developments in Al Anbar province — but that those positive developments are within the context of an overall negative trend.
Do you share that assessment?
LUTE: I think, Senator, when you consider beyond simply the security setting — but also looking at the opportunities presented to the Iraqi government to make progress on important political and economic measures with the intent of reconciliation — that I share that at best the progress has been uneven.
BAYH: Well, let me follow up on that. There may be some convergence of opinions there.
Their assessment was that the prospect for political steps in Iraq toward meaningful reconciliation among the different parties, that those steps toward reconciliation — the political steps — would be marginal at best through the end of this calendar year.
BAYH: And we all agree that political reconciliation is sort of the key to this ultimately working out. They simply don’t think.
And I was interested in your colloquy with Senator Warner about your belief that they have the right intentions in terms of embracing the benchmarks but don’t have the capacity.
I would encourage you to retain a healthy level of skepticism about that. I mean, these folks were thinking about taking two months off this summer. Now they’ve, you know, gone back on that.
But where’s the sense of urgency? Their country’s at risk of falling apart, and they just don’t seem to grasp the need to move forward here in material ways.
So my question would be, do you share the intelligence community’s assessment that the political steps toward reconciliation are likely to be marginal at best through the end of this calendar year?
LUTE: Senator, my assessment would be that they have a very full agenda and have shown, so far, very little progress.
BAYH: We were also told that the state of the insurgency — the level of violence and that sort of thing — was in all likelihood going to be about where it is today a year from now.
Do you have an opinion about that?
LUTE: Senator, in the absence of the kind of political and economic steps that are before the Iraqi government now, if they don’t make progress on those sorts of reconciliation measures, I’d share the view that we’re not likely to see much difference in the security situation.
BAYH: Well, I would encourage you to focus — and you said our leverage was limited and that, you know, they are, sort of, feeling their way along here.
I think, as Senator Warner pointed out, I think many Americans are deeply concerned about asking our brave soldiers, who I know you care deeply about, to sacrifice themselves while a group of Iraqi political leaders get their act together.
And I think the American people understand the need for some degree of patience and resolve. But where’s the evidence that they’re doing their part? And so I would look — I would encourage you to focus on whatever leverage we have.
And some of us have concluded — you know, I think some of — Senator Warner, perhaps — some of us will take a look at September and that time frame — but that they’re just not doing enough; and that trying to build up their confidence doesn’t seem to have worked too well and that perhaps the opposite strategy of saying, Look, you’re either going to do this or not, but you need to get on with it here, that perhaps that sort of approach might be more fruitful because the other avenue just hadn’t worked.
LUTE: Senator, I’d just add, if I may, that while it’s important for us to focus on the results coming out of the government of Iraq, for the good of Iraq, that whatever those results, the United States, in my view, retains long-term enduring interest in the region, which has us with a national interest in the outcome in Iraq. So we have to balance what’s good for Iraq with what’s good for the United States in the region.
BAYH: Well, I agree with that.
LUTE: And there’s a careful balance there.
BAYH: We have to pursue our interests in the most intelligent way.
(CROSSTALK)
BAYH: And with regard to your colloquy with Senator Lieberman, my dear friend, about Al Qaida and that sort of thing, we cannot let Al Qaida define how most intelligently to pursue our national security interests, which leads me to something else that the CIA’s top expert on radical Islam had to say last week.
And that is, in his opinion, our presence in Iraq is creating more members of Al Qaida than we are killing in Iraq.
Do you have an opinion about that?
LUTE: Well, again, Senator, I think we have to balance those sorts of assessments, which I think have some credibility, with a gross adjustment in the other direction, which might feature leaving Iraq to Al Qaida.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
What a friggin waste of lives,for what?!
June 8th, 2007 at 12:10 pmThis is pathetic!
I weep for those lives we just cast aside for not.
Damn I could have told them that and saved them lots of money wasted on a report > lol.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:10 pmDUH, it’s about the oil, profits and world domination.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:16 pmWe fight them over there and, as a result, give them the capabilities to fight us over here. Heckuvajob, Dumbya!
June 8th, 2007 at 12:16 pmWait….this isn’t what Bill Kristol and Rush and the rest of the leading authorities on the war effort have been telling us. Cheney included. Do you think this indicates we have been getting lied to by these trusted news sources?
June 8th, 2007 at 12:17 pmBush will disagree with this NIE and that will be the end of it.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:17 pmnice of bayh to point that report out. Just one more phony spouting bull. during his commentary he does make it clear that no matter what, he will be voting for lute! Remember that little tidbit folks- no matter what is said, HE IS VOTING FOR LUTE!
June 8th, 2007 at 12:18 pmWhen does this fraud end?
Well if Iraqi terrorists come to the US, they will just fly on commercial jets to Mexico, then walk across the border dressed as migrants looking for jobs.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:20 pmThis entire discussion clearly points to the fact that invading Iraq in the first place represents a strategic blunder even greater than the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, or the US involvement in Vietnam.
Of course this quagmire was intentional, and the lunatics in charge of it have intentionally ensured that no exit is possible without creating a complete power vacuum.
GHW Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, GW Bush, Karl Rove, David Rockefeller and every single neocon who sought to cook-up false intelligence to lie us into this war, to the benefit of the military industrial complex, big oil and Israel, should be tried for Treason.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:20 pmEscalation didn’t work in Vietnam either…unless the objective was to get more Americans in the teens and twenties killed and maimed senselessly…in which case, it worked like a charm.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:20 pmno kidding.
You don’t bring peace to people by waging war on their cities and towns.
you don’t save innocent lives by taking innocent lives.
What are people missing here? American aggression never works.
Some further reading:
“Can America Bring Peace to the World?”
June 8th, 2007 at 12:21 pmhttp://www.populistamerica.com/can_america_bring_peace_to_the_world
billjpa > the Senate is run as a club for the elite. They do nothing for average Americans now.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:21 pmI wonder if these are the same intelligence experts who told us Saddam had WMD. If so, why should we believe them on this? Especially since this is just a projection of what is likely to happen.
Move on to the next flimsy anti-Bush post, TP.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:25 pmComment by prof shropshire — June 8, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
For Profit.
Watch Iraq for Sale.
Note the $100+ million dollar per year compensation for the CEOs of the War Profiteers.
Bush still has the full support of around 30% of the country. It is probably safe to assume he has full support of the ruling class.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
“The CDI’s Ledeen, Amitay and Sobhani were featured speakers at a May 2003 forum on “the future of Iran’ sponsored by AEI, the Hudson Institute and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. The forum, chaired by the Hudson Institute’s Meyrav Wurmser, the Israeli-born wife of David Wurmser (he serves as Cheney’s leading expert on Iran and Syria), included a presentation by Un Lubrani of Israel’s Ministry of Defense.
Summarizing the sentiment of neoconservative ideologues and strategists, Meyrav Wurmser said: “Our fight against Iraq was only a battle in a long war. It would be ill-conceived to think we can deal with Iraq alone. We must move on, and faster.”
JINSA, a neoconservative organization established in 1976 that fosters closer strategic and military ties between the United States and Israel, also has its sights on Iran. At a JINSA policy forum in April 2003 titled “Time to Focus on Iran-The Mother of Modern Terrorism,” Ledeen declared, “The time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon.”
JINSA, along with CSP, serves as one of the main institutional links to the military-industrial complex for neoconservatives. Ledeen served as JINSA’s first executive director and was JINSA’s “Godfather,” according to Amitay. Amitay is a JINSA vice chair. JINSA board members or advisers also include former CIA director James Woolsey, former Rep. Jack Kemp and the AEI’s Joshua Muravchik. After he joined the administration, Feith resigned from JINSA.’s board of advisers, as did Vice President Dick Cheney and Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton.”
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Central_Asia_watch/Is_Iran_Next.html
June 8th, 2007 at 12:26 pmBayh quoted “the top CIA expert on radical Islam,†who told him recently that the U.S. presence in Iraq is generating more terrorists:
Trolls: Do you understand the above statement? This is why we have to get out of there.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:27 pmIf there are 10 terrorists and you kill 5, how many terrorists will there be?
Comment by CaptainVideo — June 8, 2007
If the people we kill in Iraq merely perceive themselves to have been “Patriotic Civilians” fighting to remove an occupying force from their land and save their families, then what? The real terrorists are in the White House. Cheney ran the entire operation on 9/11. Ask Norm Mineta.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:30 pm“secret intelligence conclusions,†presented by top U.S. intelligence officials…
By God who allowed “top intelligence officials” to depart from the party line? More heads are gonna roll!
June 8th, 2007 at 12:32 pmSheeeeesh it’s so damn difficult getting everyone on the same page. Ah hell maybe I’ll just knock back a few German beers and let the clock run out.
Comment by CaptainVideo — June 8, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
50. For each terrorist killed, 10 people who were not terrorists become terrorists so as to seek revenge for the death of their loved one.
What you fail to realize is that these people you call terrorists are first and foremost people, who have been driven to extreme measures by the oppressive actions of governments.
If you truly want to eliminate terrorism, you must eliminate oppressive governments and treat all people according to the rule of law.
Instead, we have oppressive governments, to which terrorism is a natural and opposite reaction, to which more oppression by governments is a natural and opposite reaction, until either revolution overthrows the government, or the government commits genocide.
South Africa, of all places, has shown the world a different path. We would be wise to follow their lead.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:32 pmCaptainVideo,
Probably 25 terrorists in reality.
If someone kills a son, father or friend and the killers are still here as an obvious target, I would go out of my way to smoke their ass. If I lost a family member as “collateral damage”, I would be the first volunteer to fly that suitcase to New York. Revenge is a powerful recruiting aid.
That’s the way it would happen here, I don’t think the Iraqis are much different.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:32 pmIf there are 10 terrorists and you kill 5, how many terrorists will there be?
Comment by CaptainVideo
Well, by all accounts, 10-5=one hellofalotmore.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:33 pm“I wonder if these are the same intelligence experts who told us Saddam had WMD. If so, why should we believe them on this? Especially since this is just a projection of what is likely to happen.
Move on to the next flimsy anti-Bush post, TP.
Comment by Cynicon Implant — June 8, 2007 @ 12:25 pm”
First….. They NEVER said that he had WMD’s, except our president. They believed he might still have some because he ONCE had some.
Second….. The evidence is MORE clear on this issue than on the WMD’s so your ignorant rant is just that.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:34 pmWe need a war czar czar for this…
June 8th, 2007 at 12:34 pmPlease Watch This Video!!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3083052001159394679&hl=en
Liberty is lost!
June 8th, 2007 at 12:34 pmEveryone knows that throwing accelerant on a raging fire is the best way to get the fire under control.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:34 pmWhat a goddamned bunch of nitwits.
CI,
It’s tough at the top, what with all the teeth gnashing and hangovers.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:35 pmCynicon, show us all the positives. Show us short and long term projections on the benifits. Give concrete reasons to stay behind this.
The sources quoted here have a very different opinion from yours so please direct me to where the truth is.
Ace points to something much darker than what our officials are telling us and, at every turn, we seem to be moving toward larger conflicts without justification.
Do you accept being missled and the next 4 or 5 generations fighting wars for the neocons?
June 8th, 2007 at 12:36 pmHere is the other side to be fair and balanced of the last post!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK8UZU_2GmE
June 8th, 2007 at 12:37 pm19 – this clock?
June 8th, 2007 at 12:38 pm#30 ~ how about this clock
June 8th, 2007 at 12:44 pmhttp://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
freedomrings,
Could you please indicate what is in the video. I have dial up and it took me five minutes to get through the uhms, uhs, ands, ands, driveways,and uhms.
Really though, worth the time to watch?
And yes I am the last person in Amreika with dial-up
June 8th, 2007 at 12:48 pmEd Brown and his wife are Plainsfield, NH residents convicted of tax evasion who refuse to surrender to authorities.
They demanded that the government show them the law in writing that they broke and the government could not.
The first video is of a man who walked Ed’s dog today and was shot at, tazered and detained.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3083052001159394679&hl=en
The second is a press conference where the US Marshalls don’t mention anything about shooting or tazering this man who offered to walk a dog.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK8UZU_2GmE
The Marshalls insist they will arrest anyone attempting to help Ed in any way.
Many people on the web are now pointing to this as the watershed moment of a popular uprising in the USA.
Sorry you have dial up but this is worth watching! There is a great deal more to discuss and TP should start a thread about this!
June 8th, 2007 at 1:02 pmZooey has dial-up too.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:07 pmIf there are 10 terrorists and you kill 5, how many terrorists will there be?
Comment by CaptainVideo — June 8, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
———
OK. We give up. How many?
June 8th, 2007 at 1:08 pmThere is no law that says we all have to pay taxes. Dirty little secrets.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:09 pmIf there are 10 terrorists and you kill 5, how many terrorists will there be?
Comment by CaptainVideo — June 8, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
10 since terrorists kill civillians
June 8th, 2007 at 1:13 pmWow a Starbucks endorsement by a US Senator while verifying hot new Intel docs contrary to the White House’s lines. Imagine the hang time for that one. Man talk about placement. He should get a check huh?
June 8th, 2007 at 1:14 pmAnd yes I am the last person in Amreika with dial-up
Comment by Texas Democrat
Nuh uh, I’ve got dial up. :)
We dial-uppers must unite and demand transcripts!
June 8th, 2007 at 1:16 pm“There is no law that says we all have to pay taxes. Dirty little secrets.
Comment by ForTruth — June 8, 2007 @ 1:09 pm”
Correct!!!!
We VOLUNTEER to pay them. The Constitution says that taxes can only be layed on certain things, and PERSONAL INCOME IS NOT one of them.
Yet, many people will argue that it is.
I even sent an email to my Congress reps and asked them to provide the specific law, and not some IRS statue, that states that I am required to pay taxes and all i got was some form letter back.
If the American people woke up to this fact, then all thier play money would be gone…….
They will fight tooth and nail to keep Americans under their slavery…..
June 8th, 2007 at 1:19 pmNewer Intel Report: Yes It will, now shut up, bitches.
See ya after RNC Summer Camp.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:21 pmSincerly,
The Mothafuking President of the Mothafuking United States of Mothafuking America
Two things:
1. Thanks freedomrings for the rundown, what a sad event. Make no mistake, police in this country in any uniform have incredible power.
2. Mr. P the best part of you ran down the bedsheets.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:34 pmIraq Occupation Coming to a Head Over Oil
By Kevin Zeese 6/07 via afterdowningstreet dot com
The situation in Iraq is coming to a head. Oil workers have been on strike for three days and are being threatened by the Iraqi government and surrounded by the Iraqi military. The Parliament passed a resolution urging an end to the U.S. occupation and has refused to act on the oil law the U.S. is demanding. Both the Democrats in Congress and the Bush Administration have united around the passage of the oil law as the top benchmark for the Iraqi government.
If these trends continue it will become evident to the world what this war was about all along – oil. Even the U.S. media will have to publish an honest analysis of the Iraq oil law and why Iraqis are resisting it.
…Members of (Iraq’s Oil Union) …have been on strike since Monday 4th June. Among the union’s demands is consultation on the proposed oil law, which the union opposes. On Tuesday, al-Maliki warned that he would meet threats to oil production “with an iron fist.†Maliki issued arrest warrants for leaders of the union on a charge of “sabotaging the economy.â€
It (is) becoming obvious that he (Maliki) is willing to turn over Iraq’s oil to western oil companies rather than meet the needs of the Iraqi people. His already fragile government will lose support and may fall…The oil law may unite the resistance and focus their energy on the occupation.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:40 pmBut wait, this can’t be right. General Betrayus said that the results are “stunning”. I guess what he really meant was that things were “stunningly bad”.
Hopefully the Democrats will read this entire intelligence report and get off their duffs and do something about getting us out of this occupation.
It’s going to be very interesting to see what Bush is going to do once the Iraqi Parliament votes to ask us to leave. Anyone want to bet that he goes back on his promise to leave Iraq if asked to do so by the Iraqi government. Oh, know, he won’t recognize the Iraqi Parliament as the “government”. He will only recognize his hand-picked stooges as the government.
Every day stuff like this comes to light the Republics lose another former supporter. At this rate there will only be 28% of this country still calling themselves Republics by the time we vote in 2008.
Good for the Democrats, bad for this country because they can do an immense amount of harm in the next 18 months.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:05 pmI wonder if these are the same intelligence experts who told us Saddam had WMD. If so, why should we believe them on this? Especially since this is just a projection of what is likely to happen.
Move on to the next flimsy anti-Bush post, TP.
Comment by Cynicon Implant — June 8, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
—————–
Probably the same experts who presented intelligence to Colin Powell and Condi Rice which led them to state in 2001 that Iraq was not a threat to the U.S., was not a threat to their neighbors, had been contained, did not have the capability of restarting any WMD programs, and the sanctions against Iran had worked as planned and had actually been reworked in order to remain effective.
Nevertheless, we’ll never know what the true status of his WMDs was, seeing as how the inspectors were removed before they could finish their job:
June 8th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
“If there are 10 terrorists and you kill 5, how many terrorists will there be?”
25. There is the remaining 5 terrorists and 4 family members each of the five terrorists who were killed who become terrorists when they learn about the killing of their loved one.
Then you have to consider how many terrorists we are creating every time we kill an innocent civilian.
There is no way this country is safer today than it was before 911.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:10 pmIt’s going to be very interesting to see what Bush is going to do once the Iraqi Parliament votes to ask us to leave. Anyone want to bet that he goes back on his promise to leave Iraq if asked to do so by the Iraqi government. Oh, know, he won’t recognize the Iraqi Parliament as the “governmentâ€. He will only recognize his hand-picked stooges as the government.
Comment by Katie — June 8, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
————
Count on it. He’ll likely declare that he doesn’t recognize ANY government in Iraq since it is outside U.S. borders, in the same way he denies habeas corpus to unlawful combatants simply because they are not U.S. citizens.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:12 pm#43 Comment by Larry from C — June 8, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
Thanks for the info. I missed this unfolding situation. In as much as BushCo will not leave Iraq voluntarily, I will cheer on the resistance to the usurption of soverign Iraqi oil. However, this statement is really pie in the sky:
“Even the U.S. media will have to publish an honest analysis of the Iraq oil law and why Iraqis are resisting it.”
This will only happen outside the MSM, on blogs and foreign media.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:18 pmYou’ve gotta be kidding TP. You removed my post that was up for a good ten minutes. This is the fifth time you’ve removed it today.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:19 pmWhat happened to comment #43? If it was removed, why? It appears to be gone. Makes my comment #47 hang out there doesn’t it?
June 8th, 2007 at 2:22 pm#47 Thank you Merlin. TP has taken down that post five times today. But at least you got to read the truth. Now go tell everyone you know.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:23 pmWhat does it tell the world when only 30% of us approve of all this g going on and 70% disapprove? Yet it still goes on and on and on……..
June 8th, 2007 at 2:24 pmTP Is there something I should know about my post being removed? I would appreciate you informing me so I will understand your position. I saw nothing wrong with what I had posted.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:29 pmOn May 23 2007 Dennis Kucinich spent an HOUR on the House floor presenting overhwhelming evidence that Bush will not leave Iraq until they pass the Hydrocarbon law.
This is the only BENCHMARK Bush truly wants to achieve.
The Hydrocarbon law will give 70% of the profits from Iraq’s untapped oil to Exxon, BP Chevron etc. The estimate is $220 TRILLION in untapped oil in the Iraq ground. 70% of that is approx. $180 TRILLION.
Bush threatened Iraq by telling them that we will not deliver billions in reconstruction aid UNLESS Iraq agrees to the Hydrocarbon law. In my world this is called a EXTORTION. This is outrageous considering we knocked down most of the buildings that need to be reconstructed.
Thank GOD for Dennis Kucinich, a man with a spine and a conscience. Dennis is LEADING while Hillary and Barack are whimpering.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:30 pmSo the new Chair of the Joint Chiefs has just been shown be another liar and toady for the Bush Crime Family. What is going on with the military? Have the honest men and women all resigned? Or does Cheney call ‘em in and say, “Do it our way and you’ll be promoted; tell the truth and we’ll screw with your career.” Or do they just see what is going on and offer to sell their honor? Broken military, indeed.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:31 pmKeep in mind that the crew responsible for this spectacular fiasco are the same ones who couldn’t see a hurricane headed for New Orleans, who have driven the U.S. into debt beyond all imagination, and who most recently have engineered a passport cockup that is causing considerable anxiety and expense for thousands and thousands of citizens.
None of that and so much more should be in the least surprising. Elect the arrogant and grossly incompetent and what do you get? Arrogant gross incompetence.
June 8th, 2007 at 3:22 pmJust how controlled is the corporate media in our country? Just take a look at the last two days:
General Peter Pace bows out of being Joint Chief because he’s afraid of being asked questions about the Iraq occupation. The media lets this very telling story slide.
Bush, the ex-alcoholic, is spotted drinking a beer yesterday and calls in sick TODAY reportedly with a stomache ache. The media does NOT connect the dots.
Iraq Oil workers enter third day of strike. They refuse to work due to opposition to the Iraq Hydrocarbon Law which would give almost all Iraq’s oil profits to BP, Chevron etc. Media will not touch this story with a ten foot stick.
Paris Hilton has a rash or a nervous breakdown and gets out of jail free. Media covers every step she takes.
The Corporate Media is not stupid. They are complicit in protecting this fascist administration.
June 8th, 2007 at 3:40 pmRight on Larry – “What So-called Librul Media?”
June 8th, 2007 at 4:30 pmUh oh…
…somebody had better get the word to…
…General Betraeus…
June 8th, 2007 at 5:41 pmWhat happened to comment #43? If it was removed, why? It appears to be gone. Makes my comment #47 hang out there doesn’t it?
Comment by Merlin — June 8, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
TP Is there something I should know about my post being removed? I would appreciate you informing me so I will understand your position. I saw nothing wrong with what I had posted.
Comment by Merlin — June 8, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
June 8th, 2007 at 8:06 pm>I wonder if these are the same intelligence experts
> who told us Saddam had WMD.
> If so, why should we believe them on this?
Hahahah. CI you crack me up. Using your own past screw ups to justify not listening to current intelligence. But, what you dont seem to understand is there there was LOTS of intelligence out there, previously quoted by Powell and Rice, that saddam was contained and had no WMD. Its just that YOUR boys cherry picked all the info they wanted to hear and ignore the rest. So….since this intelligence was very unlikely cherry picked by mr. “we know where the weapons are” cheney, I dont think it should be assumed its all dubious as all the past info they used to support their case.
Both the past and the future are a continual and perpetual source of proof that the things you and your heroes believe about iraq are wholly and completely wrong.
June 9th, 2007 at 2:48 am