Please unrec this Thing! I talk bad about Bush, and good about the Obama! It's not the "IN" Thing!

[FrenchieCat]

Please read this article, and tell me if you notice anything odd.
you are looking for a Democratic elected official, and what he has to say about the matter)



Top Bush officials push case against Saddam
September 8, 2002 Posted: 8:46 PM EDT (0046 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Top officials in the Bush administration took to the Sunday television talk shows to argue the president's case that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is a global threat and must go.

With a former U.N. weapons inspector in Baghdad saying the U.S. position on Iraq is overstated, the vice president, two Cabinet secretaries, the national security adviser and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff pressed the point that a military intervention could be the only way to topple Saddam's regime.

"There simply isn't a case that this is a peace-loving man who wants to be left alone," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on CNN's "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer."

On NBC's "Meet the Press," Vice President Dick Cheney accused Saddam of moving aggressively to develop nuclear weapons over the past 14 months to add to his stockpile of chemical and biological arms.

"Increasingly, we believe that the United States may well become the target of those activities," Cheney said.

"And what we've seen recently that has raised our level of concern to the current state of unrest ... is that he now is trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium -- specifically, aluminum tubes," Cheney said, referring to one of the elements for making nuclear weapons.

Citing Bush administration officials, The New York Times reported Sunday that Iraq tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes.

The tubes, Rice said, "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."

Centrifuges are one way to separate weapons-grade uranium from natural uranium.

White House sources also tell CNN that Saddam has in recent months met several times with Iraq's top nuclear scientists and encouraged them to continue their work.

Sources say Iraqi defectors who used to work for Iraq's nuclear weapons "industry" tell administration officials Iraq's top priority is acquiring nuclear arms.

Rice acknowledged that "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

A senior administration official involved in Iraq policy tells CNN classified briefings to congressional leaders in recent days included evidence of "procurement issues" relating to Iraq's nuclear programs, including the aluminum tubes.

The official said the evidence is likely to be included in briefings the president promised to the leaders of Russia, China and France as the White House seeks U.N. Security Council support for a tougher posture toward Iraq, and a clear understanding with the United Nations that if weapons inspectors do return to Iraq that the Bush administration would view any interference from Baghdad as grounds for immediate military strikes.

But Bush -- who will address the U.N. General Assembly about Iraq on Thursday -- has not decided whether to use military force, Rice said. "The one thing he has determined is we simply cannot afford to do nothing," she added.

General: 'We have the forces'
Cheney also said the president has made no decision, but he and other officials leaned in that direction as they stressed Saddam's failure to obey U.N. resolutions, Iraq's attacks on its neighbors and the development of weapons of mass destruction they fear could be used against the United States.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers said the U.S. military was ready if called upon to strike Iraq.

"U.S. armed forces and our allies will prevail," Myers said on ABC's "This Week." "... We have the forces; we have the readiness."

As for the Iraqis, Myers said military analysts "think their capabilities are much less than they were in Desert Storm. We think is much weakened militarily."

After Iraq's defeat in the Persian Gulf War in 1991, U.N. weapons inspectors entered the country with a mission to certify that it had destroyed its weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations ordered the inspectors out in late 1998 -- just before U.S.-British airstrikes -- with U.N. and U.S. officials contending Iraq was uncooperative.

In the four years since inspectors left, officials said Iraq had been trying to expand its chemical and biological weapons and acquire materials needed to develop nuclear weapons.

But Scott Ritter, a former U.S. Marine intelligence officer and chief weapons inspector in Iraq, said that inspectors had certified the country was 90 percent to 95 percent disarmed when they left.

"So if Iraq has weapons today like President Bush says, clearly they would have had to reconstitute this capability since December 1998," Ritter said. "This is something the Bush administration needs to make a better case for, especially before we talk about going to war." (CNN Access)

Rumsfeld: Inaction not a choice
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insisted that the United States can't underestimate Iraq's weapons activities.

"After the Iraq war, Desert Storm, after they invaded Kuwait ... we went in and were able to find out that they were within six months to a year away from developing a nuclear weapon," Rumsfeld told CBS' "Face the Nation."

He said intelligence estimates at the time indicated Iraq was at least two, and as many as six, years away from possessing nuclear capabilities.

"Until you're down on the ground, you can't know precisely," Rumsfeld said. "The intelligence we have is clearly sufficient for the president to say that he believes the world has to recognize the Iraqis have repeatedly violated these U.N. resolutions."

If inspections were resumed, they must be "intrusive" enough so at the end, the inspectors can say, "He's disarmed," Rumsfeld said.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking on "Fox News Sunday," said skepticism about the usefulness of weapons inspectors is "well-deserved."

"They did quite a bit of good work, but we also discovered that once defectors came out, they told us more information than the inspectors ever had found," Powell said.

Ultimately, the secretary said, the Bush administration believes that the best way to disarm Iraq "is with a regime change."

Cheney said he hopes Congress votes before it recesses in October on whatever option Bush chooses.

"We're at the point where we think time is not on our side," Cheney said.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/


see if you find the same thing in this one.....


War Cabinet Argues for Iraq Attack
Bush Advisers Cite U.S. Danger

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 9, 2002; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54988-2002Sep8?language=printer



What about in this one?


Friday, June 7, 2002. Posted: 16:26:54 (AEDT)
Cheney targets Iraq over weapons of mass destruction
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200206/s576586.htm


I ask this because someone posted a story about ABC stating that there were
but 100 AQ members in Afghanistan today, and folks at DU actually
want to believe ABC.


So my question is, who you gonna believe?
The Media? :shrug:

[saracat]

1. I guess you are trying to indicate ABC is biased? But your links do nothing to

prove them wrong about the number of AQ in Afghanistan.

[Cha]

2. The media didn't give a shit about asking

Demoractic leaders about the war on Iraq.

We all know the media is a cesspool. The links are brought on DU if they have some negative crap to do with the admin.

And, this can go on and on and on..but, the Obama admin will do what they have to do with laser focus and all those who forget that the mediawhores brought us bushcheney in 2001-2008 and the war on Iraq with their manipulation and manufacturing of the news are doomed suck up the propganda redux.

[Cha]

3. What you're talking about is sense..

and I hope some others get on here tomorrow.

The media was lapdogging the misbegotten war on Iraq and now they're crapping all over the President winding up the war in Afghanistan.

They sure as hell better not commit treason and give any of the military strategy and soldiers' positions away..I wouldn't put it past them.

[FrenchieCat]

4. They are already demanding the war plans......

"he wasn't specific" they say.

Why should he be? The Taliban and AQ watch the fucking TV too!

Is he still wearing his flagpin, cause that will be next!

[saracat]

7. My . My , My . That sounds very Bushie like. Next you will say" we must support our president in

a time of war" and to question him is "treason".
Seems to me I remember Geraldo giving away troop locations in Iraq as well and David Gregory and Helen Thomas constantly asking for specifics from the Bush WH, not that it did them any good.

[Cha]

29. b.o.b.

[timeforpeace]

31. We need a "this thread backfired" smiley.

[Cha]

43. Yeah, use it for all the propaganda

shilling on DU.

This is a well thought out OP by Frenchie.

[KakistocracyHater]

5. kill the war

mainstreet is our responsibility, it's something of an insult to say we have to give Afghanis "civilization", as well as 'train' Iraqi police, they did fine by themselves before.

Bush FAILED to stop that attack that was mentioned in some memo, something about threats within our borders & thusly our jurisdiction. Since Bush place Iraq & Afghanistan OUT of U.S. juridiction before invading.......

America is crumbling, when will it stop?

[FrenchieCat]

6. It will stop.....

but the afershocks are still with us.
That's the way it works.
Nothing stops instantly....not even for America.
sorry.

[KakistocracyHater]

41. it must be made to stop, or it will continue until there is no middle class

this has happened somewhat to the British Empire, in the late 19th/early 20th century. I don't want that for America.

[LooseWilly]

8. So... your argument is that ABC shouldn't be trusted... but the Obama administration should be?

Despite the fact that you're not presenting any links to disputations by the administration of the ABC number of 100 or so al Qa'eda members in Afghanistan?

The media says so, so it must be false, even without any information to the contrary?

At least the Bushies would do us idiots in the public the service of fabricating falsehoods to counter anything the media when they wanted us to "realize" that the media was lying to us. But you would have us disbelieve the ABC story, simply because it's an ABC story, even without any contradictory evidence from the administration?

Really? Is this what's known as a "faith based initiative"?

Ohh, just out of curiosity, I did an off-the-cuff googling. "CIA assessment of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan 2009".

Found this (for whatever it's worth)

http://story.argentinastar.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/c08dd24cec417021/id/572781/cs/1/

Responding to an ABC News story that mentioned to the intelligence community estimate on the number of Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan, US intelligence officials described the story as an irresponsible assessment.

The officials have argued that even though the al-Qaeda numbers are small, their influence with the Taliban makes them far more harmful than their numbers would indicate.

They said while only about one hundred al-Qaeda operatives remain in Afghanistan, their real centre is Pakistan, where their leadership works tightly with leaders of the Afghan Taliban.

The assessment has been referred to in the US as "Obama’s secret," with some media pundits saying the president deliberately omitted mentioning the numbers in his speech on Tuesday night.

So... sure... "US intelligence officials described the story as an irresponsible assessment" ... but, the article goes on to say: "They said while only about one hundred al-Qaeda operatives remain in Afghanistan, their real centre is Pakistan..." So, the "US intelligence officials" are apparently not denying the reports of only about 100 al-Qaeda operatives... they're just arguing the conclusions to be drawn from that number. And they're also pointing out that al-Qaeda is "really" (currently?) centred in Pakistan.

So... looks like they're not disputing the facts of the ABC story's numerical estimation.

Maybe you should consider refraining from doing so by means of innuendo, also.

If you'd like to argue that US forces should move in a full scale incursion into Pakistan in pursuit of the remainder of al-Qaeda forces... by all means make your case. If, on the other hand, you are not going to argue for provoking Pakistan thusly, you might want to consider actually acknowledging that even the US intelligence sources are acknowledging only about 100 al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan.

You might also want to apologize to ABC, who apparently have gotten their shit together enough in the last several years so that they are now actually reporting factual information. A nice change... which they should be commended for. Don't you think?

[saracat]

9. I am betting you don't get a response but I have been wrong before +10000

Excellent response!

[FrenchieCat]

10. That's how I see it, and you are not smarter than me, you just think so....

The media lied us into a war.....(and according to you, maybe 2)
Obama has been telling the truth all along
about what he would do for the past three years,
told the truth about Iraq,
and you, want me to believe the proven liars....

I don't think so.

And FUCK ABC!

They lied us into a war.
They stole the presidency from us for 8 years.
They Questioned this man's patriotism.
The way I see it,
They owe me a fucking apology.

[mstinamotorcity]

12. I got your back

Somewhere down the line it seems as though some dems have forgotten what type of media we had in the Dubya/Shooter years. They could only ask pre screened questions,they were having there phones tapped,illegally i might add,if they didn't give a favorable report they would be placed at the back of the press room or just would not be called on.Anything or anyone who opposed that administration would have there world f--ked around.Look at how we had to get to the truth.by investigated reports from sources that they could not control.mainly the internet.It did not matter what news agency you went to they were trying to control them all. And some of them were so scared they would not dare mess with them. Not to mention those who did suffered greatly under that troll administration.like Ms.valarie p. Media. you can't always trust what comes from their news desk,especially if it is fed lies to feed us.like the fundamentals of the economy are sound.when all the time our current President said through his campaign that they were not.Some things we don't need news reports to tell us if we are living in the midst of the problem.So to all media outlets who took us through those Dubya/shooter years with those fairytales they called news,i am with you f--k em

[FrenchieCat]

13. I'm amazed.......

and then we wonder why the media is laced so thick with propaganda.....
cause they can always find those who can use it for their needs.

Thank you for your post.

[Oregone]

14. "laced so thick with propaganda"

LOL. This is becoming bizaro world.

Obama is a big boy and he can carry his own water.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Do you have a problem with what I said?

Obama is a big "boy"?

Shit, from what I hear from the other side,
he fucking walks on water,
let alone carries it. :sarcasm:

[Oregone]

16. Yes, "big boy". Its an expression for "grown up".

If his policies manifest beneficially, the proof will be in the pudding. In the meantime, we have an echo chamber here filled with people who took less than 8 seconds, despite Obama's 80 day thought process, to adopt and fully support whatever he has said (for no other reason than he said it).

The problem comes down to this...it really stifles a real debate when half the people are convinced of the infallible nature of the president and his policies. This is not necessary for someone to be a Democrat. It is not necessary for someone who "supports" the president. Look...the President will carry his own water, as a politician should, and the echos in this chamber will drown themselves out and fall into nothingness. Along that way, it would be nice if people could find enlightening and intellectual viewpoints instead of rabid defenses of the president and attacks against those who disagree. That does nothing beneficial to culture other's politically.

In the end, directly, I don't think it does the Obama administration a damn bit of good for people to be on DU and rabidly defend him. In fact, it does his administration no harm when people oppose him. Its just an echo chamber of a couple of people. The only people being harmed here are the participants. And as long as the discussion is crowded with baseless attacks, propaganda, and all that other polarizing crap, there is a lot of harm going in.

Obama doesn't need anyone here fooling themselves and others. It has benign effect on him most of all in the long run. So all its really doing is screwing over some thoughtful exchanges.

Thats my two cents. Go buy hooker with em

[FrenchieCat]

17. I believe that you have it mixed up. The problem is that half of the people

believe this President to only fallible, like every single second of the day,
i.e., nothing he does is ever good enough, period. Nada.

I believe you consider this a great big mental match game,
which is why you really don't care what he said during the campaign;
not because it didn't mean anything, but precisely because it did,
but since that gets in the way, you just discard it,
and act like it has no bearing on the matter,
when it sure in the fuck does...

That's your way of handling facts, so that nobody can shake you.
That's the kind of intellectual dishonesty and arrogance,
I don't even want to partake in,
so I'll leave it to you to write your own rules.

At this point, I'm kind of done with you.

[Oregone]

22. "which is why you really don't care what he said during the campaign"

I dont care about what is said during a campaign because it is irrelevant to sound policy.

[saracat]

44. Get real FC.You are done with anyone who does not completely

and uncritically support everything the President does.And no proof to the contrary will ever convince you that the President is wrong about anything.The fact that the state Dept confirms the existence of only about 100 AQ in Afganistan means nothing to you.You will excuse anything done in the name of this Admin. Bernanke? Ok with you. Rahm, the Pres choice, AOK. If Stupak and it senate cousin passes and the President signs HCR, AOK with you.Warren making the invocation, trivial to you.No support of gay marriage? Okay with you.Geithner and Summers? Ok to you.

Many of us can't be that blinded and refuse to support those issues we believe are wrong no matter who is in the WH
or who controls Congress.We will protest the basic erosion of out Democratic values whenever and wherever they occur.

[mstinamotorcity]

20. you are welcome

sometimes selective amnesia can get the best of us. But i remember when there was no transparency. Did not hear a word. now that we have about seventy five percent transparency people are screaming everyday all day long. and no your expression of the media is right on point. if Dubya was in office there would still be a media black out to this day.And if our President was to say its raining outside they would want to know what weather man told him, not that he had the ability to look out the window.believe me frenchiecat you all good!!!!!!!

[goclark]

26. I'm with you and Frenchie Cat

This is so crazy to me.

[LooseWilly]

33. You got her back? Fine, I'll "take you out" first. (I just love street imagery)

Your history lesson is all well and nice, not to mention entirely in line with my own perspective. I agree completely with your assessment of past media offenses.

What I'm trying to say, however, isn't to do with then, but rather now. You say: "Media. you can't always trust what comes from their news desk,especially if it is fed lies to feed us.like ..." I don't dispute that one can't always trust what comes from the media, but just because shit has been spouted from their lips in the past, does not mean that all that passes their lips is shit for the infinite future.

To that end, I dug up an article from the Argentina Star, in which administration officials were asked about the ABC number of 100 al Qa'eda. Some relevant text from said article:

The officials have argued that even though the al-Qaeda numbers are small, their influence with the Taliban makes them far more harmful than their numbers would indicate.

They said while only about one hundred al-Qaeda operatives remain in Afghanistan, their real centre is Pakistan, where their leadership works tightly with leaders of the Afghan Taliban.

You'll notice that the second paragraph begins with "They said while only about one hundred al-Qaeda operatives remain in Afghanistan..." In responding this way they are not only not denying, but are in fact confirming the number of 100 al Qa'eda which was provided by ABC.

At this point, with the administration confirming the ABC information, we are now led to the point where we have to make a judgement call. Do we believe that both ABC AND the administration are feeding us bad information? Or, do we judge that, with both of them agreeing, the information is in fact "factual"?

Mind you, if you insist on the judgement that ALL information from the media is false, because the media has misled "us" in the past, then any time that the administration is in agreement with the media, they are also misleading "us". Taking it one step further, extrapolating along the line of thought that the media is always lying because they lied in the past... then the administration is also always lying, as they have agreed with the media in the past, which is tantamount to agreeing with and upholding a lie, which is in turn tantamount to lying, and since any entity that has lied in the past must always be lying in the present and future... the administration is also always lying to "us".

I'm all for absurdity, but are you sure you really want to stick with this line of reasoning?

On the other hand, if the administration can agree with the lying media, but not itself be judged to be lying... then we are arguing that a given factoid can be both true and false at the same time. To do so though, and to assert that it's false when presented by the media, but true when presented by the administration, seems to me to be the beginning of the road of "faith"... like having a god that is three gods and one god and in the case of that god's saying so, 3 = 1, but not in any other case. I'm sure you grasp the implications, and I presume you would prefer to steer clear of that particular neighborhood.

Likewise, to assert that the media is lying whenever they present factoids that make the administration look bad or foolish, but telling the truth whenever they present factoids that make the administration look good (the stimulus is working, polls say the world loves us, bank bailouts averted a financial meltdown...) - in the absence of any corroborative sources, and indeed without the requirement of or desire for, corroborative sources... is tantamount to defining "reality" for oneself based upon an axiom of 'Administration = Good', which can be theoretically done, but is about as sensible as defining the Earth as being at the center of the universe, and forcing "reality" to behave according to a set of physical laws that are so complicated as to be completely incomprehensible and non-sensical.

Do you really want to go there?

[goclark]

25. Thank you Frenchie Cat

I hope you can refresh some memories here at DU ,they really need to be refreshed!


One thing I can say about Rethugs, they stick together and now they are happy as they can be because they are watching the Democrats destroy each other!

Some Democrats are acting like Abused Children and can't see what the MSM is doing to our Party!

[LooseWilly]

34. I never said I was smarter than you, you just think I said that.

I never asked you to believe the "proven liars" on faith. I did, however, produce a link to a non-ABC source that included responses from the administration that corroborated this particular ABC factoid (namely, that there are only about 100 al Qa'eda operatives active in Afghanistan).

"FUCK ABC!" all you want... but are you also going to tell the poor schmucks at the Argentina Star to fuck themselves? What about the administration officials that confirmed the number in their response to the ABC factoid presentation?

Speaking of which, were the administration officials who confirmed ABC factiods... really just lying as well? Does that make the administration "proven liars"? (Or are you going to argue that this factoid, and presumeably many others that will follow in the coming years, is only a lie when spoken by ABC... while conversely the same factoid is true whenever spoken/confirmed by the administration? Are we hereby creating a new class of factoid?: The false/true factoid... which is only true when it leads to conclusions that are in the administration's best interests? Or at least their current interests?)

Ohh, and could you explain this one to me: "They stole the presidency from us for 8 years." Are you saying that ABC is the real power behind the Supreme Court? (Not to mention Florida and Ohio elections offices, and by extension DieBold & their ilk?)

(And by the way, the abc flag pin jpg is brilliant.)

[waterscalm]

11. Thanks for your post.

[Cha]

30. That's right ..the mediawhores can't be trusted..

they brought 8 years of bushcheney and the War on Iraq.

[saracat]

45. But when they promoted Obama they were trustworthy right?

[pecwae]

18. Sure, here's your unrec since you ask.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Thanks!

:hi:

[Clio the Leo]

21. I most certainly will NOT uncrec this!!!

And on top of that, I'm going to KICK it as well! ;)

[arcadian]

23. auto-unrec for mentioning the rec function

and for posting 8 year old articles.

[asdjrocky]

24. It's impossible to take you seriously at all any more.

[Jakes Progress]

32. Yep. Used to read her posts

with interest. Usually didn't agree, but there was a point. Now it's just hysteria and fits.

[asdjrocky]

38. It was the "What happens if....?" post she did about 9/11 to

manufacture fear over leaving these stupid wars. As someone that lost someone that day, I don't take kindly to people using that image to make political hey.

[Dinger]

27. Just To Be An Asshole, I Gave You A Rec

:evilgrin:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

28. What the fuck are you talking about?

Interview with General Jim Jones; Interview with Senators John Kyl and Barbara Boxer; Governor Jennifer Granholm Gets the Last Word; A Company Born on the Prairie

Aired October 4, 2009 - 20:00 ET

KING: Let's walk through some of the challenges. As the head of the National Security Council, you are leading these discussions. One of the big questions is, does the return of the Taliban, if the United States were to have a smaller footprint or come out of Afghanistan all together and the Taliban was resurgent, does the return of the Taliban in your view, sir, equal the return of a sanctuary for al Qaeda?

JONES: Well, I think this is one of the central issues and, you know, it could. Obviously, the good news is that Americans should feel at least good about in Afghanistan is that the al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country. No bases. No ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.

Now the problem is the next step in this is the sanctuaries across the border. But I don't foresee the return of the Taliban and I want to be very clear that Afghanistan is not in danger -- imminent danger of falling.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0910/04/sotu.05.html

[LooseWilly]

35. Nicely done... your corroboration of the ABC number is better than my corroboration.

Of course... if ABC said it, and they were (by definition) lying, then when General Jones says it, he must also be lying. Now, if the National Security Advisor is lying about this, it suggests that he is doing so as an emissary of the administration... and Obama has responsibility, ultimately, for the communications of his administration (and he's far too brilliant to have someone like his National Security Advisor out there lying behind his back)...

Ergo: Obama is a liar!

(fun with logic and a bad premise)

[spiritual_gunfighter]

36. I was kinda dumbfounded at the OP I had to read it again

The General Jones quote on CNN in October has been talked about a lot. The OP is either unaware of it or is being dishonest. I am not sure which.

[saracat]

46. Perhaps a bit od both.Some folks are deliberately obtuse to those facts

which do not support their position.This is thethe sone of silliest defenses of the President yet.Policy might be argued but this is just silly.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

37. I gave you an unrec

because you are either being dishonest or you are ignorant of what General Jones said in October either way this post is EPIC FAIL.

[Jakes Progress]

39. Epic indeed.

[knightinwhitesatin]

40. If I wanted to see examples of bias

all I need do is click on your threads.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, but you citing bias is like the pot calling the kettle black.

[burning rain]

42. OK.

.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.