[FoRK] It just doesn't get any clearer than this...

Gregory Alan Bolcer gbolcer at endeavors.com
Sun Mar 21 07:08:40 PST 2004

You're such a useful idiot.   The intelligence goes like this.  In 1998
after the monitoring stopped, our intelligence agencies (all 17 or 18 of them)
came to consensus that if Iraq were left to its own devices, then they
would be able to develop all types of WMD including a nuclear bomb
within the next 10 years.   1998 + 4 is 40% of the way there.  The
growing consensus in intelligence across all of these agencies was that
the 9-11 attack would embolden other rogue groups and nations to
jump like chimps on a gorilla and that a selective pre-emptive strategy
would be prudent to keep from sinking into a deteriorating world
security where terrorism was the norm.   Despite a few dissenting
agencies, the consensus was running about 60% for dramatic action. 
Even further, the Office of Special Projects was formed to represent
this administration's viewpoint which wasn't being represented--basically
the worst case scenario.  That's where the 5-7 year figure comes from. 
Add to that a systemic bureacratization of the pentagon where they
had been treating Iraq as the most serious post-cold war threat to the
US, the complicity of Congress, and the majority support for action
in the US public,  you have a pretty good layout for what happened.  

		I wanted you to see what real leadership is, instead of 
		getting the idea that leadership is a poll-tested idea.  It's when
		you are uncertain with no assurance of success before you begin, but
		you begin anyways and you see it through no matter the criticism. 
		You rarely come out clean, but sometimes you do.  

I'm still amazed that you are completely ignorant of what foreign policies
were enacted and acted upon in the Clinton administration.  Your Monica
comment makes so much more sense now as that seems to be the only
thing you can remember. 
I read and make up my own mind based on sources above and beyond
news stories.  As someone who knows how news is made, I'd suggest
you cast off that static thinker cap and try and get all the facts before
regurgitating spin.  

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: fork-bounces at xent.com on behalf of jbone at place.org 
	Sent: Sat 3/20/2004 1:38 PM 
	To: FoRK 
	Subject: [FoRK] It just doesn't get any clearer than this...

	Here's the nut, Greg.  Since you didn't click through the links in the
	previous conversation before trying out our your tired, unconvincing,
	and previously debugged "policy" argument yet again...  The reason this
	whole thing has bubbled back up (in case you weren't paying attention)
	is that since about a week ago the misadministration's spinmeisters
	have been trying to lay down some flak to cover for their lack of, ah,
	consistency with objective fact in previous utterances.
	The aggravating thing about all of this is that while assholes like
	Hannity stand on the sidelines screaming "politicizing national
	security, politicizing national security" --- of the Dems --- here we
	have an attempt at a "united front" propaganda push on the part of the
	misleaders that, indeed, "politicizes" national security (as they have
	been all long) --- as demonstrated clearly below and in similar
	Rumsfeld Caught Lying on "Face the Nation." (MLP)
	By Kyle
	Thu Mar 18th, 2004 at 10:30:25 AM EST
	On CBS's "Face the Nation" on March 14, 2004, United States Secretary
	of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that he hadn't used the phrase
	"immediate threat" to describe the situation in Iraq and that President
	Bush hadn't either.
	Thomas Friedman of CBS then presented Rumsfeld with quotes from
	September 2002 where he did describe the regime of Saddam Hussein in
	Iraq as an "immediate threat." Rumsfeld's response was that we may
	still find that they really were an immediate threat after all.
	MoveOn.org has a video available which cuts off before Rumsfeld
	finishes his response.You can also read the full transcript from CBS
	(PDF), or there is a partial transcript below.
	Sec. Rumsfeld: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the
	only people I've heard use the phrase `"immediate threat." I didn't.
	The president didn't. And, uh, it's become kind of folklore that
	that's--that's what's happened. The president went...
	Schieffer: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.
	Sec. Rumsfeld: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the
	administration and say nobody said that.
	Schieffer: Vice president didn't say that? The...
	Sec. Rumsfeld: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.
	Friedman: We have one here. It says "some have argued that the
	nu"--this is you speaking--"that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not
	imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having
	nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain."
	Sec. Rumsfeld: And--and...
	Friedman: It was close to imminent.
	Sec. Rumsfeld: Well, I've--I've tried to be precise, and I've tried to
	be accurate. I'm s--suppose I've...
	Friedman: "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat
	to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the
	regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
	Sec. Rumsfeld: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he
	had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other
	countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we
	will know. David Kay said we're about 85 percent there. I don't know if
	that's the right percentage. But the Iraqi Survey Group--we've got
	1,200 people out there looking. It's a country the size of California.
	He could have hidden his--enough chemical or biol--enough biological
	weapons in that hole that--that we found Saddam Hussein in to kill tens
	of thousands of people. So--so it's not as though we have certainty
	Full discussion: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/3/17/15138/5087
	FoRK mailing list

More information about the FoRK mailing list