Obamagaffe

[Mudder_s_Mudder]

<p>Parent2noles:</p>

<p>The discovery of those pre-Gulf War, discarded, badly deteriorated chemical weapons did not in any way support the Bush Administration’s claims, on the eve of the Iraq invasion, that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling WMDs that were an imminent threat for use against the United States.
[McClatchy</a> Washington Bureau | 06/22/2006 | New report offers no evidence that Iraq stockpiled WMD](<a href=“http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/warren_strobel/story/14099.html]McClatchy”>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/warren_strobel/story/14099.html)</p>

<p>I am convinced the U.S. did the wrong thing by invading Iraq, and I share your opinion about the lack of responsible congressional oversight. IMO there’s enough blame for this disgraceful invasion and occupation to cover both Republicans and Democrats, sparing those lone voices of reason and dissent on both sides.</p>

[parent2noles]

<p>I suspect we have yet to recover the bulk of the chemical munitions and perhaps some biological efforts at WMDs from Saddam’s government.</p>

<p>Was this worth a war? I kind of doubt it, but that’s hindsight. Its a hell of a lot tougher to make decisions like this in real time.</p>

[BedHead]

<p>

Was this worth a war? I kind of doubt it, but that’s hindsight. Its a hell of a lot tougher to make decisions like this in real time.

</p>

<p>And yet you continue to try to justify the strategic blunder that is this war by trotting out old news – and not very meaningful news – about certain chemical caches having been found. </p>

<p>Now that the number of people holding out with this sort of propaganda has dwindled down to a pathetic few, you fall back on criticizing people who were against this war as being starry-eyed pacifists (and many, many of us weren’t and aren’t)

I think we should ban war.

or suggesting that the Administration made a tough call.</p>

<p>No, there were plenty of people that counseled at the very least caution, if not out and out simply not to go into this war. One was the NSC Advisor of Bush I.</p>

<p>What people should realize (if they hadn’t been listening before) in Scott McClellan’s statements has been confirmed was that Bush pursued the Iraq War to install a peace-loving democracy in the center of the Arab world. This is a worthy goal on paper and absolutely ridiculous in the real world; an invading force doesn’t strengthen democratizing forces in a society, especially with the cauldron of forces already astir in a region like the Middle East. This effort at democratizing was a notion pushed by Paul Wolfowitz among others.</p>

<p>Sorry, Parent2Noles: deal with it. The war was a stupid, stupid pursuit – an unnecessary war. It has achieved very little enduring good for Iraq or the world. It has cost us tremendous amounts of blood and treasure. And this all falls squarely on the shoulders of Bush – and to a lesser extent the Congress that let him do it.</p>

<p>Thus, when you render your judgement that one candidate or another is “better on Iraq” it is pretty transparent that you’ll go with the candidate that doesn’t fess up to what a vast majority of people already accept – i.e. the Iraq War was a bad idea. This speaks to your delusion, not to your judgement. It indicates too that McCain is the candidate for those who are deluding themselves, not for those who are willing to move on and make hard decisions to rectify a bad situation.</p>

[parent2noles]

<p>I don’t disagree it is a regrettable event, but I’m not convinced it was unnecessary. </p>

<p>But I do agree that McCain would be better at either winning what remains of this conflict or getting us the hell out if it is necessary. :)</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>muddersmudder,</p>

<p>Interesting that you link to the McClatchy piece. Here is a quote from it:</p>

<p>

The new study of the Iraqi regime’s archives found no documents indicating a “direct operational link” between Hussein’s Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report. </p>

<p>He and others spoke to McClatchy on condition of anonymity because the study isn’t due to be shared with Congress and released before Wednesday

</p>

<p>Notice how this works? Those who hold an anti-administration viewpoint anonymously leak selected snippets of the report that can be construed by a hungry media to paint an unfavorable perspective of the administration. This then gets repeated by all the other media outlets thus totally diffusing what the report itself actually says. </p>

<p>This is what happened in this case. All the media reported on the report based on anonymous leaks that were available before the report was released. Then, when the report was finally released, what it actually said was ignored - certainly the media is reluctant to actually print or broadcast anything that shows that their headlines of a few days earlier were wrong. If you really want to know what is in such reports, my advice is to not believe the media and go directly to the source. You will be better informed.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>

Speculation that Saddam Hussein might have decided at some point to link up directly with the terrorist al Qaida network against the United States doesn’t negate the fact that he didn’t.

</p>

<p>If you would actually read the report versus what the media and the Dems say, you would realize that what you say is incorrect.</p>

<p>I will repeat what I posted above which dispels your notion that Saddam’s linkage with terrorists, including al Qaeda was nothing more than a hypothetical:

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some ways, a “de facto” link between the organizations. **At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals **but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

</p>

[kluge]

<p>

With regard to WMDs found in Iraq by Coalition forces, chemical weapons have indeed been found: <a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...classified.pdf[/url]”>http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...classified.pdf&lt;/a&gt; So much for the assertion no WMDs have been found and that the concept of Iraqi WMDs is somehow a Republican pipe dream.

Fundingfather, you believe three impossible things before breakfast every day - things which comport with falsehoods the Bush Administration sold to America stridently for years -and then you sneer at those who analyze evidence taken as a whole, instead of extrapolating wildly based on snippets taken out of context.</p>

<p>Your trotting out the memo touting the discovery of discarded, pre-Gulf war chemical munitions as proof that there were too* WMD’s in Iraq! *is simply embarrassing. Embarrassing, FF, as in you should know better, and you’re insulting our intelligence and destroying your own credibility by making that claim. Do the ditto-head son the blogs you frequent simply bob their heads in agreement when that sort of tripe is thrown up as “proof”?</p>

<p>Embbarrassing, FF, simply embarrassing. And

I suspect we have yet to recover the bulk of the chemical munitions and perhaps some biological efforts at WMDs from Saddam’s government.

Of course you do, FF. And you’re going to “suspect” that until the day you die, evidence be damned.</p>

<p>And in case you missed it in your there has to be a pony here somewhere zeal,

these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network

means just what it says.</p>

[parent2noles]

<p>Still sounds like, looks like and walks like a duck to me. ;)</p>

[kluge]

<p>Of course it does, FF. Of course it does. What wouldn’t “sound like a duck” to you?</p>

[mezzomom]

<p>On one of the more lame “gaffe” accusations made against Obama: the “57 states” comment. Maybe you have to be under 30 to get this one, but it’s a fairly common expression used by people (younger than me). Generally, it’s used as “illegal in 57 states.” And this is worthy of discussion???..apparently right-wing bloggers think so; Google just “57 states” and you come up with breathlessly shocked blog after blog. </p>

<p>It reminds me of Geraldine Ferraro’s claim that Obama is clearly sexist, using his brushing off of his shoulders as apparent proof. It’s an obvious reference to a Jay-Z song and video: Google Jay-Z and Dirt Off Your Shoulder to see the YouTube video.</p>

<p>I wouldn’t expect Ms. Ferraro to know that; if I didn’t have a 19-year old daughter, I certainly wouldn’t have known. But it does reinforce with me the value of avoiding a rush to judgment about “gaffes” that aren’t necessarily gaffes.</p>

[JHS]

<p>Hillary Clinton wishes there were 57 states.</p>

<p>I looked at the 57 states thing. It was pure gaffe. He was saying that he had been in 47 states, there were three he hadn’t been to, except he said 57 instead.</p>

<p>I was speaking to a neighbor earlier today. Not having any staff or any prep for this conversation, I stumbled over his wife’s name. Then I corrected myself. I guess I may not be qualified to be a neighbor.</p>

[parent2noles]

<p>kluge has declared that FF = P2N.</p>

<p>So let it be written, so let it be done. ;)</p>

<p>FF, are you wealthy? If so, how about grubstaking my kids in college?</p>

<p>Hopefully,</p>

<p>P2N</p>

<p>:D</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>kluge must be exhibiting the same reading capability on CC as he does when he analyzes the news. Or, could it be an FF obsession?</p>

<p>Sorry P2N, no can do. My kid is done and now its time for retirement saving. However, we’ve been looking at your state for retirement - things sure are cheap down their relative to NJ.</p>

[parent2noles]

<p>True, but we have to pump our own gas! :)</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>But, it’s never 15 degrees and blowing snow, so I’ll gladly pump my own - unless its 95 degrees and 90 percent humidity. Good thing THAT never happens in Florida.</p>

[kluge]

<p>So, FF and P2N, what was the source which inspired both of you to post your virtually identical posts at this time? I apologize for not recognizing that the two of you were Tweedledeeing this one. One of you posted this same spin months ago. So, tell us - who put this bee in your bonnets right now? Who is pushing this particular bit of meaningless tripe in an effort to increase the disinformation of the American public?</p>

<p>I’m interested in how the propaganda machine works - and you guys are the only foot soldiers I have regular contact with. So who is it who fed you this crap?</p>

[Mudder_s_Mudder]

<p>First, apologies to the OP for the thread hijack. This will be my last post on this subject.</p>

<p>Fundingfather, I did pull up all five volumes of the IPP. I read the abstract before I posted the first time. But thank you for asking.</p>

<p>From the Executive Summary, page 15, volume 1:</p>

<p>"The Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) review of captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism. Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States. At times these organizations worked together, trading access for capability. In the period after the 1991 Gulf War, the regime of Saddam Hussein supported a complex and increasingly disparate mix of pan-Arab revolutionary causes and emerging pan-Islamic radical movements. The relationship between Iraq and forces of pan-Arab socialism was well known and was in fact one of the defining qualities of the Ba’ath movement.</p>

<p>“But the relationships between Iraq and the groups advocating radical pan-Islamic doctrines are much more complex. This study found no ‘smoking gun’ (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda. Saddam’s interest in, and support for, non-state actors was spread across a variety
of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. Some in the regime recognized the potential high internal and external costs of maintaining relationships with radical Islamic groups, yet they concluded that in some cases, the benefits of association outweighed the risks. A review of available Iraqi documents indicated the following:
• The Iraqi regime was involved in regional and international terrorist operations prior to OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq.
• On occasion, the Iraqi intelligence servIces directly targeted the regime’s
perceived enemies, including non-Iraqis. Non-Iraqi casualties often resulted from Iraqi sponsorship of non-governmental terrorist groups.
• Saddam’s regime often cooperated directly, albeit cautiously, with terrorist
groups when they believed such groups could help advance Iraq’s long-term goals. The regime carefully recorded its connections to Palestinian terror organizations in numerous government memos.”</p>

<p>The abstract can be found on page 93, volume 1.</p>

<p>Volumes two through five contain a list with descriptions of the documents found, translated, and included. (As of 2006, only 15% of the documents had been translated.) For example, document 7, volume 2, page 520:
“This 52 page file contains memos and correspondence, dated 1999-2002, within the Iraqi Intelligence Service (115), about preparing and executing a mission related to blowing up a Turkish School in Northern Iraq, team of experts specialized in explosives to produce and test explosives for Fedayeen Saddam, disassembling a booby-trapped vehicle in Maysan Governorate.” Just as referenced in the McClatchy article.</p>

<p>From document 1, volume 2, page 4: “This 71 pages file contains reports within the Iraqi Intelligence Service (115), dated between 3 June 1992 and 10 May 1994, regarding an investigation made about the failures and premature exploded bombs, and other explosives. These bombs were intended and planed to destroy targets, including the residence of the US Ambassador in Jakarta, the Office of the American Airlines and Japanese Embassy in the Philippines, targets and installations in Iran ·and other undisclosed locations elsewhere.”</p>

<p>I found the link to the McClatchy article by clicking on the link at the bottom of the page you cited on the FAS website.<br>
“The study was first reported prior to release by Warren P. Strobel of McClatchy Newspapers.”
[DoD</a> Report on Captured Iraqi Documents Secrecy News](<a href=“http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/03/dod_report_on_captured_iraqi_d.html]DoD”>http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/03/dod_report_on_captured_iraqi_d.html)</p>

<p>(For the record, I don’t have a problem with McClatchy as a source.) </p>

<p>I repeat:</p>

<p>Saddam Hussein’s links to regional and global terrorism were never in dispute.</p>

<p>Speculation that Saddam Hussein might have decided at some point to link up directly with the terrorist al Qaida network against the United States doesn’t negate the fact that he didn’t. </p>

<p>If you can cite evidence from any of the IPP volumes supporting such a direct connection, I would be happy to read it. If you can provide cites in the documents for the “de facto” links between Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network to the outside groups they had in common (as I am certainly no expert), I would appreciate it. Thanks.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>"So, FF and P2N, what was the source which inspired both of you to post your virtually identical posts at this time? "</p>

<p>HUH??? Perhaps you could point the posts that you view to be “virtually identical”? Speaking of embarrassing oneself, kluge you just keep right on digging.</p>

[kluge]

<p>I apologize, FF. I conflated your post insisting that documents which “do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network” meant that Saddam actually was in bed with al Qaeda with P2N’s several posts on the bogus WMD press release. (No wonder P2N’s various posts were virtually identical to each other. Makes sense now.) But FF - it was you who posted that link some months back, right? Not P2N? Or have I mixed that up, too?</p>