Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
www.cnn.com ^ | 6/6/03 | John Dean

Posted on 06/07/2003 7:07:40 AM PDT by harpu

Edited on 04/29/2004 2:02:39 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away -- unless, perhaps, they start another war.


(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: desperation; iraqifreedom; johndean; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-127 next last

1 posted on 06/07/2003 7:07:40 AM PDT by harpu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: harpu
I was wondering how long it would take before someone asked this question.. Should be amusing to see whether the Democrats seriously decide to take this detour to nowhere..
2 posted on 06/07/2003 7:10:20 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpu
JOHN DEAN???????????

BUBBA has more credibility than this piece of garbage.
3 posted on 06/07/2003 7:15:33 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpu
Like the less apocolyptic Knight-Rider article that was the front page lead in the Kansas City Star this morning, Dean is basing his indictment upon a very limited couple of "sources" who are now speaking out saying that the literal knowledge of this or that weapons system was not in thier reports at the time.

What Dean here, or Knight Rider fail to highlight is that the Administration gets a whole slew of reports from various sources and agencies that have to be balanced and considered with a thoughtful civilian responsiblity as the sworn defender of the nation.

Saddam in violation of his cease-fire agreements and UN resolutions allowed to remain active with a mixed bag of reports could have only made Bush culpable in later damage that Saddam inflicted -- end of story.

4 posted on 06/07/2003 7:16:18 AM PDT by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpu
"More recently, Wolfowitz added what most have believed all along, that the reason we went after Iraq is that "[t]he country swims on a sea of oil."

Wow! Dean needs to put down his crack pipe and figure out that the Guardian has already issued a full RETRACTION of their Wolfowitz misquote. It must hurt to be caught using that bogus quote. Then again, old man Dean seems to have weathered his misdeeds during Watergate, somehow.

Bush's quoted statements are acurate, in any event. Iraq *did* produce large, well-documented quantities of nerve, chemical, and biological agents (though most of that documentation comes from Iraq's surrender declarations back in 1991). It is from those declarations that we have UN inspectors in the first place.

What Dean wants to do is to PRETEND that Bush was talking about NEW production as factually as he was talking about the old, well-documented production in Iraq of such weapons. That's purely disingenuous on his part.

Instead of casting stones, Dean needs to be explaining how his Deep Throat buddy Fred Fielding has gotten away with violating Presidential Attorney-Client privilege for so long.

Dean has plenty of explaining to do, and this poor article is only the start of it.

Hey Dean, how about those mobile labs that we found in Iraq?! You know, the ones that you RIDICULED when Powell was only able to show *drawings* of them during his presentation to the UN...

5 posted on 06/07/2003 7:22:20 AM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpu
Is "lying" impeachable now? This must be a new phrase in government. In that case 99% of all sinators and congrossmen/women will have to be impeached!
6 posted on 06/07/2003 7:26:37 AM PDT by TrueBeliever9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TrueBeliever9
In that case 99% of all sinators and congrossmen/women will have to be impeached!
 
wouldnt hurt my feelings a bit.
7 posted on 06/07/2003 7:30:40 AM PDT by tomakaze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
"Democrats seriously decide to take this detour to nowhere.."
______________

LOL...Democrats are a detour to nowhere.
8 posted on 06/07/2003 7:33:32 AM PDT by fml
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
Personally, I think that what Dean is attempting to insinuate would be impeachable, but one requires a heck of a lot more than parsing the President's phrasing. They would have to find direct evidence of a plot to deceive the American people; a conscious, stated decision to manufacture evidence in the cause of war. I cannot imagine they would find such a thing because I strongly doubt that's what happened, whatever the case may be.
9 posted on 06/07/2003 7:33:59 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: harpu
If lying was an impeachable offense then we could toss every member of congress out.
10 posted on 06/07/2003 7:36:46 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TrueBeliever9
Is "lying" impeachable now? This must be a new phrase in government. In that case 99% of all sinators and congrossmen/women will have to be impeached!

That percentage would be a very good start, that's about the incumbent return rate.
11 posted on 06/07/2003 7:42:17 AM PDT by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: harpu
I don't think Bush intentionally lied, I don't see that in his character. I believe he was provided with "cooked" intel by people and countries he trusted.

I think we will find WMDs, but I don't think they will be anywhere near the level/abundance used to rally the nation for the war.
12 posted on 06/07/2003 7:43:41 AM PDT by mr.pink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Very nice informative post.....

Thanks..&

FRegards,

13 posted on 06/07/2003 7:48:41 AM PDT by Osage Orange (Hillary Clinton: "She makes a hornet look cuddly.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Yeah, JR, going after impeachment was such an electoral winner for the GOP. I'm surprised the Dems haven't tried it more often. [/sarcasm]

: )
14 posted on 06/07/2003 7:54:50 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: harpu
To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked.

G-d help this nation: people with such deep thinking abilities serve as counsels to the president.

P.S. Isn't it interesting that the footnote failed to mention which president this mand served? Did we have that many that it is hard to track? Or is it because they try to disguise the partisanship of the author, something that is very clear from the article.

15 posted on 06/07/2003 8:02:23 AM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpu
The presence of WMD's, at this time, is totally irrelevant except to Leftist dolts looking to find traction on some issue. The facts are, according to the Clinton White House and the UN, that Saddam, unquestionably, had chemical weapons. The Kurdish dead are also evidence that he had them and was willing to use them.

We went to war with Iraq for many reasons, but the one in play has been the Left's obcession with WMD's because they were the ones looking for higher levels of justification from Bush that they had from anyone else. All of the troubled voices in government and the media harping on this are liars since they never had any sort of definitive standards before this time.

The war in Iraq was a battle. The real war is ongoing and is against terrorism. We've known this much since the Bush repsonse to terrorism in the week following 911. I believe, and hope, that America will act unilaterally, if need be, to continue the destruction and punishment of regimes across the globe that harbor, train, finance and in any way aid the mayhem of international terror. Saddam was involved in all of these activities. The facts are there.

So, Mr. Dean, if you are having conscience problems and are looking for a better government you can go and "Kiss it." At least, that's what 'people of conscience' did throught the 90's when these problems developed.

What a wanker.
16 posted on 06/07/2003 8:09:04 AM PDT by WorkingClassFilth (Defund NPR, PBS and the LSC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpu
"Meanwhile in other news, yet another mass grave has been found south of Baghdad......."
17 posted on 06/07/2003 8:10:35 AM PDT by cardinal4 (The Senate Armed Services Comm; the Chinese pipeline into US secrets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
I think Sadaam had to go. And I'm glad we got him out.
BUT:
If GWB & Co did not tell the truth about WMD then they lied blatantly -- just as the Clintons lied (and lie) blatantly.
We can't be going after the Clintons for being liars then try to find all kinds of reasons and justifications if GWB...let's say it flatly...liked to the Congress, American people, and Blair to justify going in.
Sorry. And if we try to pretend it did not matter then whatever the Democrats do in the future (or have done in the past) is OK...because it would indicate there is no moral or ethical differences between the two parties.
The SAME STANDARDS must be applied to ALL.
Again, I was a war supporter and am glad Sadaam is gone.
But I don't like being lied to by my government on an issue like this -- and am hoping that is NOT what happened.

18 posted on 06/07/2003 8:11:36 AM PDT by jraven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
John Dean was Richard Nixon's chief counsel..
19 posted on 06/07/2003 8:13:02 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: harpu
I think the Constitution says that an impeachable offense is whatever enough members of the House determine it to be and it does not have involve a violation of the law.
20 posted on 06/07/2003 8:18:14 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Consort
have involve = have to involve
21 posted on 06/07/2003 8:18:51 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: harpu
Hey liberal, in those Bush quotes, all I have to say to you is this:

IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD "IS" IS

Put that in your pipe and smoke it (but surely don't inhale).

22 posted on 06/07/2003 8:24:04 AM PDT by KellyAdmirer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpu
As far as most Americans are concerned, Saddam had and used WMD and the ability to make more and perhaps has. Terrorists are working hard in this country with those very WMDs, rather than argue where are they - we had better find them quickly.

By the way, consider the source for the article, a man whose credibility has always been in question. John Dean is bogus IMHO, certainly not George Bush. How very like the left to paint this President as mendacious as Bill Clinton, they always drag the opposition down to their level with spin and lies. Mr. Dean is no exception.

23 posted on 06/07/2003 8:24:05 AM PDT by yoe (Hillary has a lot more to answere to than just "pretty questions" from Ms. Waters...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpu
"Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter."

But meanwhile, I want to get slobber all over the president because this is a good piece of jerky for the Dims to chew on and on and on and on.

And do you really think "it will end the matter?" Not a chance. The leftists are setting their own little verbal "land mines" and are trying to blow up the current administration.

24 posted on 06/07/2003 8:26:20 AM PDT by arasina (Thank God the White House now has plenty of CLEAN laundry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Consort
The constitution says "high crimes and misdimeanors". That is pretty explicit that it is has to be a violation of the law. The framers didn't want presidents being impeached due to factions so easily.
25 posted on 06/07/2003 8:26:56 AM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: harpu
We are letting our enemies frame the argument as usual.

Check out the number of articles and threads on the news sites including FR and see how many combine WMDs with "lie, lying" etc.

WMD headlines mentioning - "faulty intel, honest mistake, not found yet, we know he had them once so what happened to them" - are mighty scarce on the ground.

26 posted on 06/07/2003 8:29:04 AM PDT by Let's Roll (And those that cried Appease! Appease! are hanged by those they tried to please!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Especially seeing how they would need at least 15 GOP congress critters and 18 GOP senators to pull it off..
27 posted on 06/07/2003 8:30:11 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: harpu

Is lying to Hiltler impeachable offense?


28 posted on 06/07/2003 8:32:24 AM PDT by JudgemAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth
Hey, I was for the war strongly. WMD's or not. Saddam was a murderous thug who was destabilizing to the region, made us take up a dicey alliance with Saudi Arabia to counter him, and he needed to be gone.

However, let's not kid the kidders here. The administration before we went in talked like WMD's were pouring out of rooftops they were so vast in number.

They exaggerated. It is easier to rally the people behind WMD's than to say that our relationship with Saudi Arabia is a mess, and we are sick of being in bed with those thugs only to counter Saddam, and sanctions aren't working.

We had good reasons to go in. We just didn't have the intelligence on WMD's that we claimed we did. Our administration lied. All administrations lie. It's a fact of life.

29 posted on 06/07/2003 8:34:14 AM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: harpu
What about the missiles that had greater than 62-mile range that were found? It was agreed by all that they had a range far greater than what was legal under the surrender agreement with Saddam.
30 posted on 06/07/2003 8:39:05 AM PDT by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpu
Please -- the number one coward in the nation, John "I'm Scared of Getting Raped in Prison" Dean, is the last person to talk about liars in government.
31 posted on 06/07/2003 8:40:33 AM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mr.pink
I don't care if we do find WMD's. I also don't care which specific individual person takes over the government in Iraq. What I do care about is that, whoever takes over in that country, it is unlikely that they will fund or support terrorism against this country and its citizens any time soon.

That's true for all the other countries that have supported terrorism, communism, clintons, and all other forms of evil in the last century. I don't care what the guy's last name is, or his first name. I just want to make sure that they understand that bad acts have consequences.

If the democrats and other Bush-haters want to support dictatorships and human-rights violations, that's fine. As long as they don't put me and mine in danger.

32 posted on 06/07/2003 8:41:18 AM PDT by Bernard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
What about all this stuff?

WARNING: Gathering WMD storm a crock. See what Clinton told nation in 1998...

The Guardian Fully Retracts BOTH Powell/Straw Story AND Wolfowitz "It's All About Oil" Story

CIA convinced truck-trailers held bioweapons labs ^

IRAQ: WMD source 'was senior Iraqi officer'

FAS (Fed Am Scientist) Report: Iraqi Precursor Chemicals Stored Separately for Weapon-side Mixing

THE ROAD ENDS FOR WMD ON WHEELS

Coalition forces enter possible WMD site

Initial tests suggest WMD "cocktail" found in Iraq (**Of special note--post #58, by Archy)

U.S. finds new evidence of Iraqi WMD (NBC training school, antidotes)

Chem-weapons lab believed discovered

BRITS' CHILLING CHEM-NUKE FIND

CAPTURED FOES FOUND WITH CHEM-WAR GEAR

EUPHRATES 'POISONED'

MSNBC - Cyanide & Mustard Agents Found in Euphrates River

Is the Activity at Al Qaim Related to Nuclear Efforts?

U.S. probing nuclear facility (Al Tuwaitha Follow Up)

Team Inspects suspected plutonium site (update by the journalist who broke original story, NEW info)

Underground Nuclear Facility Found in Iraq

Marines hold Iraqi nuclear site built by French

U.S. Marines Guard Secret Iraqi City with Very Hot Nuclear Radiation Levels

And from Freeper "HatSteel":

Terrorist devices, chemical weapons found in Iraq

Suspicious Iraqi Drums - UPDATE

Suspected bioweapons labs found

Searching for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Larry Elder

Iraq's Weapons and the Road to War

Iraqi Scientist Links Weapons to 'Dual Use' Facilities, White House Says

IRAQ: U.S. Analysts Link Iraq Labs to Germ Arms

Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert

Herald Sun: Soldiers find Iraqi chemical 'dump'

***Germany's leading role in arming Iraq

*Germany intercepts (30 tonnes) chemicals (may be used to make nerve gas) for N Korea

New DOD team to hunt for intel as well as weapons

***Chemical Weapons Programs

Capture of chemical expert could help U.S. weapons hunt in Iraq (Emad Husayn Abdulla al-Ani)

Belgium Finds Nerve Gas Ingredient in Letters

Banned missile programme found in Iraq

Administration to Announce 'Rollback' Strategy for WMD

Suspicious Iraqi Drums Preliminary Testing Suggests Chemical Agents; More Testing Needed

2 trailers deemed biological arms labs

***Table 2: Characteristics of Chemical Warfare Agents: Commercial Uses of Chemicals or Precursor Chemicals

******CENTAF IRAQ'S CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS PROGRAM


And I should add--

October 1998:Senate Democrats Signed Letter Urging Clinton To Attack Saddam Over WMDs, just posted today.

33 posted on 06/07/2003 8:41:48 AM PDT by MizSterious (Support whirled peas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Southack
The liberals are truly desperate. They will try to console themselves with these kinds of accusations, but that's all it is.

Nobody else is buying it.

34 posted on 06/07/2003 8:42:01 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ikka
What does this jackass think was used on the Kurds after Gulf1?
35 posted on 06/07/2003 8:42:51 AM PDT by CanisLupus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Grampa Dave; FairOpinion
So the impeachment balloon has been launched...
36 posted on 06/07/2003 8:43:34 AM PDT by MizSterious (Support whirled peas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
I'd agree that the WMD's became the football when pitching the war, but I don't think Bush ever really tried to sell the war in the sense that he had to build support at home.

The nation was, and is, supportive of the action. Bush simply did what he decided to do and acted as a leader. A refreshing change from the polling wieners of the Krinton years.

Fact is, America would've supported Bush if Saddam's only weapons were Daisy air rifles. Saddam is a terror supporter and that ain't setting too well with most Americans.

The WMD issue was simply the weakest point that the Left could criticize the adminitration on. For all of the millions of words written and broadcast on this topic, I'm confident that 99.9999999% of them originate in the brains of Bush hating Marxists. No such standards were required in calls for military action against Iraq during the Krinton years. In short, who cares?

This is only window dressing by lying whores trying to drum up customers.
37 posted on 06/07/2003 8:44:54 AM PDT by WorkingClassFilth (Defund NPR, PBS and the LSC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Thanks. Needless to say, I am very disappointed: the writing betrays more anti-Bush feeling than stance on any kind of principle. Which is what led me to the suspicion of partisanship. My mistake, clearly.
38 posted on 06/07/2003 8:44:59 AM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CanisLupus
What does this jackass think was used on the Kurds after Gulf1?

Or why we have Chemical Ali, or Dr. Germ, or Mrs. Anthrax...

39 posted on 06/07/2003 8:45:54 AM PDT by Carolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: harpu
How do you feel about this long winded attack from John Dean?
40 posted on 06/07/2003 8:47:02 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Evil Old White Devil Californian Grampa for big Al Sharpton and Nader in primaries!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M
The constitution says "high crimes and misdimeanors".

A misdemeanor can be a misdeed and not necessarily a violation of the law. He can be impeached for behavior that is not condoned but is not illegal.

That is pretty explicit that it is has to be a violation of the law.

Nothing is explicit in the law and especially in government law and politics.

The framers didn't want presidents being impeached due to factions so easily.

What the framers wanted and intended are being interpreted by people so as to meet their own agendas. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution based on the majority ideology of the court at any given time.

41 posted on 06/07/2003 8:47:54 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
John Dean is loony tunes. Even the DemocRATs have enough sense of self-preservation not to join as quixotic a cause as this one.
42 posted on 06/07/2003 8:49:04 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jraven
But I don't like being lied to by my government on an issue like this -- and am hoping that is NOT what happened.

Is an airliner hijacked by murderous religious zeolots considered a WMD?

43 posted on 06/07/2003 8:49:46 AM PDT by alrea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TrueBeliever9
be-huh....depends on what your definition of WMD's is...
44 posted on 06/07/2003 8:54:55 AM PDT by grumple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: harpu
This reallt scares me!!! The democrats are going to push this thing until it explodes!!! Even my newspaper headline today was something like can Bush be trusted?? People, we HAVE to do something this is going to get out of control before we know what hit us!!!!
45 posted on 06/07/2003 8:59:58 AM PDT by Jewels1091
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/921692/posts

Weapons of Mass Distortion
The Wall Street Journal ^ | Monday, June 2, 2003 | Editorial


Posted on 06/02/2003 7:13 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER


To certain critics of U.S. policy in Iraq, the only thing worse than going to war with Saddam Hussein is the fact that we won. This they can never forgive -- which is why they are now trying to make a war crime out of the fact that the allies haven't yet found caches of weapons of mass destruction.


For these opponents of war, it isn't enough that a tyrant and his psychopath sons have been deposed. It doesn't count that mass graves have been uncovered, that torture chambers have been exposed, or that Saddam's victims can speak freely for the first time in 30 years. The critics are now claiming the war was illegitimate because no one has yet found a pile of anthrax in downtown Baghdad.


These rather selective moralists are leaping on a distorted report about comments by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz on WMD. An advance press release from Vanity Fair magazine spun as news the fact that Mr. Wolfowitz had said the following during an interview in early May: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason."


In Europe this has been seized on by the antiwar left as a source of vindication. "Just Complete and Utter Lies," explained the Daily Express of London. Germany's allegedly more august Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung observed: "The charge of deception is inescapable." State-side, meanwhile, the critics are focusing on whether there was an "intelligence failure," or the political manipulation of intelligence, in concluding that Saddam had WMD.


But who's trying to deceive whom here? That Saddam had biological or chemical weapons was a probability that everyone assumed to be true, even those who were against the war. U.N. inspections in the 1990s had proved that Iraq had such weapons, including 30,000 liters of anthrax, and Saddam had used chemical weapons against Iran and Iraq's own Kurds. The French themselves insisted that disarming Saddam of WMD, as opposed to deposing him, had to be the core of U.N. Resolution 1441.


Only last week Democratic Senator Joe Biden was asked by MSNBC's Chris Matthews, "Do you believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction going into the war?" Mr. Biden's reply: "Yes I do." Were he and other Democrats also part of the vast WMD conspiracy?


Mr. Wolfowitz's words were no contradiction of anything the U.S. said before the war. The allies had always given multiple reasons for ridding the world of Saddam. British Prime Minister Tony Blair famously used the human rights rationale in a major and well-received speech in Glasgow in March.


The Vanity Fair press release also failed to include that immediately after his WMD remarks, Mr. Wolfowitz had added in the interview: "But there have always been three fundamental concerns: One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism and the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people."


What seems to be going on here is an attempt to damage the credibility of Mr. Blair, President Bush and other war supporters. If their backing for the war is morally vindicated, they will emerge as even larger forces on the world stage, and so they must be tarnished after the fact as dissemblers.


Within the U.S., the role of the French and the European left is being played by elements of the intelligence community. Parts of the CIA in particular like to think of themselves as Olympian analysts whose views should be accepted as gospel. They resent that Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon sometimes challenges holy CIA writ, which has often been wrong about Iraq. In any case, intelligence isn't dogma but is supposed to be merely one tool for elected policy makers, all the more so given the sometimes murky nature of the information.


As to the undiscovered WMD, Iraq is larger than Germany and much of it remains unsearched. As Mr. Bush noted in Poland this weekend, the U.S. has already found two of the mobile biological labs that Colin Powell fingered before the war. Yesterday Mr. Blair added that he's seen more evidence that he will soon make public. But it is also possible that Saddam destroyed much of it, or that some was taken out of the country.


Whether or not WMD is found takes nothing away from the Iraq war victory. The allies liberated a country of 22 million people, rid the world of a terrorist ally and have begun a process that may well create a more stable and prosperous Arab world. The credibility gap lies with those who were opposed to achieving all of that
46 posted on 06/07/2003 9:01:35 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Evil Old White Devil Californian Grampa for big Al Sharpton and Nader in primaries!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
CNN says its silence on Iraq atrocities had nothing to do with maintaining access
AP ^ | Monday, April 14, 2003


Posted on 04/14/2003 2:22 PM PDT by DannyTN


A top CNN executive kept quiet about some atrocities in Iraq not because the network wanted to protect access but because it worried about putting lives in danger, CNN said Monday.

Eason Jordan, CNN's chief news executive, revealed the incidents in an op-ed piece in The New York Times Friday headlined "The News We Kept to Ourselves."

He said that in the mid-1990s, an Iraqi cameraman working for CNN was tortured because the government believed Jordan worked for the CIA. Reporting the story "would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk," Jordan wrote.

CNN also learned from Kurds that a planned attack on network employees by Saddam Hussein's forces in Kurdish-controlled Northern Iraq was thwarted a few months ago, he said.

Jordan was subsequently criticized by at least two columnists for soft-pedaling news on Iraq to maintain CNN's access to the country by its reporters.

Franklin Foer, an associate editor of New Republic magazine, wrote in The Wall Street Journal on Monday that he was suspicious of Jordan's "outbreak of honesty."

But Foer wrote the he didn't see it as honesty. "If it were, Mr. Jordan wouldn't be portraying CNN as Saddam's victim. He'd be apologizing for its cooperation with Iraq's erstwhile information ministry -- and admitting that CNN policy hinders truthful coverage of dictatorships."

The New York Post, owned by the same company that owns CNN competitor Fox News Channel, headlined Eric Fettemann's column, "Craven News Network."

CNN spokeswoman Christa Robinson noted that CNN reporters have frequently been kicked out of Baghdad by angry authorities, most recently a few days after the start of the war.

"The decision not to report these particular events had nothing to do with access, and everything to do with keeping people from being killed as a result of our reporting," she said.

47 posted on 06/07/2003 9:07:11 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Evil Old White Devil Californian Grampa for big Al Sharpton and Nader in primaries!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Given Bush's track record of smacking the dems around with their own words I think this is another instance. Notice how the dems are getting more and more hysterical on the topic. Just as many times in the past. Just when they think Bush is in the corner BAM! The real facts come out. I suspect this will occur some time just before the 2004 election, but only when the dems have dug the hole deep enough.
48 posted on 06/07/2003 9:08:26 AM PDT by Dutch Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
Is this the John Dean? The one who started Watergate to hide the fact that he married a call girl? The one who sold out his friends because he knew he;d be someone's punk in jail. Why didn't Liddy just shoot him like he wanted to?
49 posted on 06/07/2003 9:09:57 AM PDT by stop_fascism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
CNN and Uday - Best Friends? CNN comments on UDay in 2000.
CNN ^ | 3/28/2000 | CNN


Posted on 04/14/2003 7:36 PM PDT by Toskrin


Hussein's eldest son poised to lead Iraqi parliament March 28, 2000 Web posted at: 5:04 a.m. EST (1004 GMT) From staff and wire reports

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Saddam Hussein's eldest son, Odai Hussein, appeared Tuesday to have won a seat in parliament, and may end up becoming its speaker, a sign that he's the Iraqi president's heir apparent.

In Iraq's first parliamentary election since 1996, Odai Hussein on Monday secured 99.9 percent in the Baghdad districts, according to the state-run weekly Al-Ittihad.

Before the results could be counted, Odai Hussein, still limping from a 1996 assassination attempt, told reporters what he expected from the newly elected cabinet.

"All that is good for our great people," the young Hussein said, "and all that through which we can serve its brave men and women."

Inaugural set for April The new parliament is scheduled to hold its inaugural session in April and it is widely expected that Odai Hussein will be its speaker, a position viewed in Iraq as almost equal to that of prime minister, a post now held by Saddam Hussein himself.

Odai, a powerful figure who was making his formal political debut, was among 512 candidates running for 220 seats in the election.

Saddam will appoint another 30 representatives for the Kurdish north, where voting was not held. Saddam Hussein effectively lost control over Kurdish areas a decade ago in an uprising following the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

Iraq's 250-seat National Assembly is seen as a rubber stamp for Saddam Hussein, doing little more than making recommendations to the all-powerful Revolutionary Command Council he heads.

Monday's election did not include many characteristics of voting in other nations. There are no secret ballots and no opposition candidates.

Iraq: this election more diverse Iraqi officials said this year's election allowed more diversity than previous contests, when members of the nation's ruling Baath party made up most of the candidates.

"The percentage of the party members participating in this election is only 27 percent," said Humam Abdel Khaliq, Iraq's minister of information, "and 71 percent are independent people."

Odai Hussein, a member of the Baath Party, owns several newspapers and a television station. He also commands a paramilitary force and heads the National Olympic Committee, the Journalists Union and the Youth Federation.

Reporter James Martone and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
50 posted on 06/07/2003 9:10:06 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Evil Old White Devil Californian Grampa for big Al Sharpton and Nader in primaries!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-127 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson