The Niger Uranium Deception and Plame Affair - An Incomplete Chronology

counterpunch.org/leupp11092005.html

Yes, the Dems just went right along with it, probably afraid that they’d be pilloried as traitor’s for demanding more investigation and/or doubting the “official” word. A small excerpt is below:

The U.S. Congress, and leadership *of both parties, have been extremely deferential to those engaging in campaigns of deception, and along with the mainstream press failed ask many questions. Partly this was due to intimidation campaigns. But this is changing, given the course of events.

The inescapable conclusion we must draw is that the Bush administration policy leading into the Iraq War was dominated by officials, grouped under Cheney and Rumsfeld in particular, principally neocons and including Wolfowitz, Libby, Feith, Perle, Abrams, Shulsky, Luti, Bolton, Joseph, Hadley, Wurmser, Franklin, Cambone, Ledeen, Card, Hughes, Rhode, Rove and others who as a matter of policy, and without any moral qualms, deliberately practiced deception to build their case for war. They were not duped by conniving Europeans or badly served by incompetent CIA analysts. They were engaging in “psyops,” psychological operations, principally against their own people, whom they needed to delude with the most frightening imagery (“a mushroom cloud”) to get their job done.*

While it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community’s judgments related to Iraq’s weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: “When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.” That’s why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate – who had access to the same intelligence – voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.

The President of the United States, Nov 11, 2005

[quote=koda]counterpunch.org/leupp11092005.html

Yes, the Dems just went right along with it, probably afraid that they’d be pilloried as traitor’s for demanding more investigation and/or doubting the “official” word. A small excerpt is below:

The U.S. Congress, and leadership *of both parties, have been extremely deferential to those engaging in campaigns of deception, and along with the mainstream press failed ask many questions. Partly this was due to intimidation campaigns. But this is changing, given the course of events. *

The inescapable conclusion we must draw is that the Bush administration policy leading into the Iraq War was dominated by officials, grouped under Cheney and Rumsfeld in particular, principally neocons and including Wolfowitz, Libby, Feith, Perle, Abrams, Shulsky, Luti, Bolton, Joseph, Hadley, Wurmser, Franklin, Cambone, Ledeen, Card, Hughes, Rhode, Rove and others who as a matter of policy, and without any moral qualms, deliberately practiced deception to build their case for war. They were not duped by conniving Europeans or badly served by incompetent CIA analysts. They were engaging in “psyops,” psychological operations, principally against their own people, whom they needed to delude with the most frightening imagery (“a mushroom cloud”) to get their job done.
[/quote]

You have no evidence for this supported by any official study so it makes it an political re-writing of history. Thank you for backing up what the President said today.

[quote=gilliam]You have no evidence for this supported by any official study so it makes it an political re-writing of history. Thank you for backing up what the President said today.
[/quote]

The evidence is there, granted it is all circumstantial but it is a very strong circumstantial case, IMO. Just because you don’t have pictures of someone setting a fire doesn’t mean they aren’t an arsonist. I don’t want to argue with you, I really don’t. But the problem we have is that you don’t seem to even want to consider that the current admin (not nec. Bush himself - I sometimes think he’s a puppet of Rove and Cheney) has done anything wrong - which is certainly your perogative. I, however, see things differently - to me it is obvious as green on grass that at least Cheney and Rove are up to no good. You and I both have a lot of people who agree with each of us and we can find stuff all day long to strengthen our cases - like attorneys for different clients. I’ll admit to having questioned the prevailing wisdom since I was in grade school. I was in a peace march before I was a teenager, say “Billy Jack” a dozen times. I’m big on peace and justice (which is why I’m a Christian) and just don’t think we’re heading in that direction.

I honestly hope you are right and I am wrong - because if I am right then we are truly heading for a melt down.

[quote=koda]counterpunch.org/leupp11092005.html
Yes, the Dems just went right along with it, probably afraid that they’d be pilloried as traitor’s
[/quote]

Okay. So far, the assessments I’ve seen on the Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein is that they were either:

A. Cowards, acting only in political self interest.

B. Trusting fools, because they were hoodwinked by the Bush Administration.

Either way, it doesn’t sound like the politicians I would want to support. While I disagree with them, I applaud the Democrats who opposed the war from the beginning. While wrong, they stuck with their convictions.

Why can’t people accept that those who voted for the use of force evaluated the same data from our CIA and international intelligence sources the administration did and came to the same conclusion Clinton did when he was President?

This is what President Bush (or his speechwriter, at least :slight_smile: ) meant by the rewriting of history.

"While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community’s judgments related to Iraq’s weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.

They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his
development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his
position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: ‘When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.’ That’s why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

“The stakes in the global War on Terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our Nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.”

President Commemorates Veterans Day, Discusses War on Terror

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.