16 words; 16 questions.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-18 02:47pm

From Gov. Howard Dean's campaign website:

As the Niger uranium story has unfolded, what has become increasingly obvious is that there are many questions that must be answered about the way the Bush Administration led us to war, managed the conflict in Iraq, and failed to foresee the continuing resistance that our military is now confronting.

We must be clear: decisions regarding war and peace are the most serious and solemn that a Commander-in-Chief is called upon to make. There are now fundamental questions about President Bush’s leadership in taking us to war with Iraq.

There has been much discussion about the 16 words included in the State of the Union address. Today I call on the President to answer these sixteen questions to ensure that the American people can retain their trust in their government and to help ensure that the United States can retain its credibility as a moral force in the world.

1) Mr. President, beyond the NSC and CIA officials who have been identified, we need to know who else at the White House was involved in the decision to include the discredited Niger uranium evidence in your speech, and, if they knew it was false, why did they permit it to be included in the speech.

2) Mr. President, we need to know why anyone in your Administration would have contemplated using the Niger evidence in the State of the Union after George Tenet personally intervened in October 2002, to have the same evidence removed from the President’s October 7th speech. (The Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Mike Allen, 7/13/2003)

3) Mr. President, we need to know why you claimed this very week that the CIA objected to the Niger uranium sentence “subsequent” to the State of the Union address, contradicting everything else we have heard from your administration and the intelligence community on the matter. (Washington Post, Priest, Dana and Dana Milbank, 7/15/2003)

4) Mr. President, we urgently need an explanation about the very serious charge that senior officials in your Administration may have retaliated against Ambassador Joseph Wilson by illegally disclosing that his wife is an undercover CIA officer. (The Nation, Corn, David, 7/16/2003)

5) Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration persisted in using the intercepted aluminum tubes to show that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear program and why your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, claimed categorically that the tubes were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs,” when in fact our own government experts flatly rejected such claims. (CNN, 9/08/2002, Knight Ridder News Service, 10/04/2002)

6) Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Rumsfeld created a secret intelligence unit at the Pentagon that selectively identified questionable intelligence to support the case for war – including the supposed link to al-Qaeda – while ignoring, burying or rejecting any evidence to the contrary. (New Yorker, Seymour Hersh, 5/12/03)

7) Mr. President, we need to know what the basis was for Secretary Rumsfeld's assertion that the US had bulletproof evidence linking Al Qaeda to Iraq, despite the fact that U.S. intelligence analysts have consistently agreed that Saddam did not have a "meaningful connection" to Al Qaeda. (NY Times, Schmitt, Eric, 9/28/2002, NY Times, Krugman, Paul, 7/15/2003)

8) Mr. President, we need to know why Vice President Cheney claimed last September to have “irrefutable evidence” that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, an assertion he repeated in March, on the eve of war. (AP, 9/20/2002, NBC 3/16/2003)

9) Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Powell claimed with confidence and virtual certainty in February before the UN Security Council that, “Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.” (UN Address, 2/05/2003)

10) Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Rumsfeld claimed on March 30th in reference to weapons of mass destruction, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." (The Guardian, Whitaker, Brian and Rory McCarthy, 5/30/2003)

11) Mr. President, we need an explanation of the unconfirmed report that your Administration is dishonoring the life of a soldier who died in Iraq as a result of hostile action by misclassifying his death as an accident. (Time, Gibbs, Nancy and Mark Thompson, 7/13/2003)

12) Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration has never told the truth about the costs and long-term commitment of the war, has consistently downplayed what those would be, and now continues to try keep the projected costs hidden from the American people.

13) Mr. President, we need to know why you said on May 1, 2003 , that the war was over, when US troops have fought and one or two have died nearly every day since then and your generals have admitted that we are fighting a guerrilla war in Iraq. (Abizaid, Gen. John, 7/16/2003)

14) Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration had no plan to build the peace in post-war Iraq and seems to be resisting calls to include NATO, the United Nations and our allies in the stabilization and reconstruction effort.

15) Mr. President, we need to know what you were referring to in Poland on May 30, 2003, when you said, “For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.” (Washington Post, Mike Allen, 5/31/2003)

16) Mr. President, we need to know why you incorrectly claimed this very week that the war began because Iraq would not admit UN inspectors, when in fact Iraq had admitted the inspectors and you opposed extending their work. (Washington Post, Priest, Dana and Dana Milbank, 7/15/2003)

If you can’t or won’t answer these 16 questions, Mr. President, I call on the Republicans in Congress to stop blocking efforts to create an independent, bipartisan committee to investigate what is a matter of the highest importance: whether your decision to go to war was sound and just.

The American public deserves answers to all of these questions. I urge you to lead with the honor and integrity that you promised as a candidate.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-07-18 03:04pm

Good luck Shrubby

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-18 04:32pm

Jesus fucking Christ, why the obsession with sixteen fucking words? I must be missing something, because last week Tony Blair stated that the information that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Niger came from separate intelligence, not the infamous forged document. Making the sixteen words factually correct.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-18 05:55pm

Durran Korr wrote:Jesus fucking Christ, why the obsession with sixteen fucking words?

Because it's a focal point at the moment.

I must be missing something, because last week Tony Blair stated that the information that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Niger came from separate intelligence, not the infamous forged document. Making the sixteen words factually correct.

So because Tony Blair says it, it therefore must be true? Tony Blair and George W. Bush have said many things over the past twenty-four months that have proven untrue, Durran, and until and unless this phantom "separate intelligence" comes to light, the only intel we can assume that GWB was going on were the forged documents.

LA Times wrote:Still, he and other Pentagon officials said, they are studying the lessons of Iraq closely — to ensure that the next U.S. takeover of a foreign country goes more smoothly.

"We're going to get better over time," promised Lawrence Di Rita, a special assistant to Rumsfeld. "We've always thought of post-hostilities as a phase" distinct from combat, he said. "The future of war is that these things are going to be much more of a continuum....

"This is the future for the world we're in at the moment," he said. "We'll get better as we do it more often."

So we're going to be taking over countries more often in the future? Possibly on even shoddier premises than Iraq? Pretty chilling stuff, and all the more reason to sweep Bush out of office next November.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-18 06:05pm

Candidate Dean said that the first thing he's going to do in office is create an official White House blog.

This would be a first for an American president, obviously, and would be a complete (and much-welcomed) departure from the increasingly secretive and secluded Bush Administration.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-07-18 06:07pm

If Howard Dean gets elected, it will be a dark day for national security.

... And don't tell me that you believe for a moment that this 'Blog' will be anything more than a 'Welcome to the White House' piece of public-relations bullshit.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-18 06:07pm

Durran:

The SotU is an issue right now because it looks very bad in the light of the other intelligence that the Administration has publicized about the war. If there was publicized intel that supported the Administration's position that the war was necessary, and if supplies of uranium and CBWs had been found in Iraq, then the SotU would not be an issue. But there isn't, and they haven't, so it is.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-18 06:08pm

Axis Kast wrote:If Howard Dean gets elected, it will be a dark day for national security.

Why? Because he's not a fascist control freak?

... And don't tell me that you believe for a moment that this 'Blog' will be anything more than a 'Welcome to the White House' piece of public-relations bullshit.

His campaign blog is anything but.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-18 06:11pm

BTW, Axis, what about President Bush's plan to slash funding for First Responders, the absolutely CRITICAL first link in the chain of survival following an emergency?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-07-18 06:13pm

The SotU is an issue right now because it looks very bad in the light of the other intelligence that the Administration has publicized about the war. If there was publicized intel that supported the Administration's position that the war was necessary, and if supplies of uranium and CBWs had been found in Iraq, then the SotU would not be an issue. But there isn't, and they haven't, so it is.

The amount of time we’ve been occupying Iraq is insignificant as compared to the amount of time required for a thorough inspection for weapons of mass destruction. Remember: it took the Allies five years to sift through the rubble of post-war Germany for all of the Reich’s hidden stockpiles. This is one issue to which few critics seem to have given any logistical thought.

Why? Because he's not a fascist control freak?

Because he’s far too dovish and trusting.

His campaign blog is anything but.

His campaign blog is a statement of opinions and anticipated policy, not national security data. You can find the same information on President Bush from a dozen other sources. Point blank: Howard Dean will not revolutionize your access to supposedly “hidden” information.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-07-18 06:14pm

BTW, Axis, what about President Bush's plan to slash funding for First Responders, the absolutely CRITICAL first link in the chain of survival following an emergency.

What does this have to do with Howard Dean's supposed exposure of intelligence to the public?

And this is the first I've heard of the issue anyway. Care to link up?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-18 06:20pm

Axis Kast wrote:
BTW, Axis, what about President Bush's plan to slash funding for First Responders, the absolutely CRITICAL first link in the chain of survival following an emergency.
What does this have to do with Howard Dean's supposed exposure of intelligence to the public?

It's important because while Bush talks tough on national security, his actual priority is in expanding the armed forces (not the same thing - the armed forces are designed to project power; the National Guard and the Coast Guard are designed to protect the country). While expanded power projection is necessary, the fact that Bush is willing to victimize homeland defense to do it is not what one would expect from a presidency that was essentially made on homeland defense issues.

And this is the first I've heard of the issue anyway. Care to link up?

From earlier this year:

First Responders in 'dire need.'
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi criticizes inadequate funding for first responders in Omnibus spending bill.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-07-18 06:26pm

Harman, who is on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said the $3.5 billion in the fiscal 2003 omnibus bill contains only $870 million in "new money," which she defined as funding for areas not earmarked before.

That's a direct quote from your own source (the first one). Seems you misrepresented the article. Bush isn't cutting funds, he's simply against expanding them. Considering the state of our economy, it's a justifiable measure.

It's important because while Bush talks tough on national security, his actual priority is in expanding the armed forces (not the same thing - the armed forces are designed to project power; the National Guard and the Coast Guard are designed to protect the country). While expanded power projection is necessary, the fact that Bush is willing to victimize homeland defense to do it is not what one would expect from a presidency that was essentially made on homeland defense issues.

I approve of Bush's aggressive foreign policy. His "play the game on their field" plan has proven effective at eliminating two dangerous régimes thus far. If a dirth of funds forces us to choose between one and another, it must - at this point in time at least - be the outward forces.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-18 06:27pm

Axis Kast wrote:
The SotU is an issue right now because it looks very bad in the light of the other intelligence that the Administration has publicized about the war. If there was publicized intel that supported the Administration's position that the war was necessary, and if supplies of uranium and CBWs had been found in Iraq, then the SotU would not be an issue. But there isn't, and they haven't, so it is.
The amount of time we’ve been occupying Iraq is insignificant as compared to the amount of time required for a thorough inspection for weapons of mass destruction. Remember: it took the Allies five years to sift through the rubble of post-war Germany for all of the Reich’s hidden stockpiles. This is one issue to which few critics seem to have given any logistical thought.

B U L L S H I T. Bush and Co. claimed before the war that they knew EXACTLY where the WMD were - they in fact pinned it down to a 50 mile square around Tikrit at one point. Guess what - we've searched that area top to bottom and no WMD in the place. You can't say "We have exact intel on the location of Iraqi WMDs" and then backpedal and change your tune to "They might be anywhere in Iraq! Give us more time!"

Why? Because he's not a fascist control freak?
Because he’s far too dovish and trusting.

You have a different opinion than I do. I think Bush is far too hawkish and secretive. He did, after all, go to war on a very poorly-explained case (and much of his explanations turned out to be false).

His campaign blog is anything but.
His campaign blog is a statement of opinions and anticipated policy, not national security data.

Duh. That's what a blog is. I hardly expect him to start blogging national security data (that would be a massive breach of confidentiality). It's just that Bush has declared an awful lot to be NS data that the American people actually have a right to know (like what it was that convinced him to go to war in the first place).

You can find the same information on President Bush from a dozen other sources. Point blank: Howard Dean will not revolutionize your access to supposedly “hidden” information.

Never said he would - but at least he's willing to be open to the people instead of hiding from them and sending out his pollsters to collect data about them.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2003-07-18 06:40pm

Iceberg wrote:not the same thing - the armed forces are designed to project power; the National Guard and the Coast Guard are designed to protect the country

I would question your ability to think at this point, but I realized long ao that I don't have to. Point of fact: the National Guard and Coast Guard are parts of the armed forces.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-18 06:42pm

Iceberg, at the moment Blair is in no position to be making high profile, public statements concerning intelligence, even if he may have been in the past. I see no reason not to take his statements at face value, even if the intelligence in question has not yet been released.

First Responders in 'dire need.'
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi criticizes inadequate funding for first responders in Omnibus spending bill.

This is a classic Democratic scare tactic; misrepresenting limiting the growth of spending as making outright spending cuts. You are attacking a strawman. Bush is not slashing any funding to the First Responders.

You have a different opinion than I do. I think Bush is far too hawkish and secretive. He did, after all, go to war on a very poorly-explained case (and much of his explanations turned out to be false).

Bush is not as hawkish as he is often made out to be. Before 9/11 he wasn't hawkish at all (if anything, Al Gore was the hawk during the 2000 election). The trend that we are currently seeing with U.S. forces overseas is disengagement, not increased deployment (with the exception of Iraq, which was necessary to enable disengagement from Saudi Arabia).

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-07-18 06:47pm

B U L L S H I T. Bush and Co. claimed before the war that they knew EXACTLY where the WMD were - they in fact pinned it down to a 50 mile square around Tikrit at one point. Guess what - we've searched that area top to bottom and no WMD in the place. You can't say "We have exact intel on the location of Iraqi WMDs" and then backpedal and change your tune to "They might be anywhere in Iraq! Give us more time!"

I want irrefutable proof. Find me the source in which George W. Bush claims he knows exactly where weapons of mass destruction are being hidden.

A fifty-square-mile territory is rather considerable when dominated at its center by a large city once the central recruiting grounds for régime thugs and Ba’ath Party yes-men. We’re barely got adequate security along main thoroughfares, and you’re claiming a “full search” has been carried out to satisfaction?

You’re ignoring precedent.

You have a different opinion than I do. I think Bush is far too hawkish and secretive. He did, after all, go to war on a very poorly-explained case (and much of his explanations turned out to be false).

Read between the lines. Everybody’s got their own opinion, much of it predicated on unspoken fact, be it the intimidation of Saudi Arabia or a new message to terrorist groups everywhere. You stand on the other side of the coin, yes. But that hardly gives you any kind of superiority in debate. I find Bush’s case to be convincing.

Duh. That's what a blog is. I hardly expect him to start blogging national security data (that would be a massive breach of confidentiality). It's just that Bush has declared an awful lot to be NS data that the American people actually have a right to know (like what it was that convinced him to go to war in the first place).

Examples, please?

Never said he would - but at least he's willing to be open to the people instead of hiding from them and sending out his pollsters to collect data about them.

Great. So he’s campaigning across the country.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-07-18 06:47pm

I think at this point Bush would LOVE it if Dean won the nomination as many are labeling him a closet Dukakis. I haven't seen anything much of Dean yet to make me think otherwise. Bill Clinton he's not and that's what the party needs if they want to have any hope at all of winning against Bush.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-18 06:47pm

Beowulf wrote:
Iceberg wrote:not the same thing - the armed forces are designed to project power; the National Guard and the Coast Guard are designed to protect the country
I would question your ability to think at this point, but I realized long ao that I don't have to.

When you can't attack the argument, attack the man...

Point of fact: the National Guard and Coast Guard are parts of the armed forces.

The Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security (and formerly part of the Department of the Interior), NOT the Department of Defense. Yes, technically part of the armed forces, but generally speaking only the DoD services are thought of as the Armed Forces (a common US Armed Forces commercial on TV in the mid-90s only showed the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-18 06:50pm

Stravo wrote:I think at this point Bush would LOVE it if Dean won the nomination as many are labeling him a closet Dukakis. I haven't seen anything much of Dean yet to make me think otherwise. Bill Clinton he's not and that's what the party needs if they want to have any hope at all of winning against Bush.

Dean's a loser (as a candidate, not as a person). National health care is not and will not be hot electoral property anytime soon, and this election will certainly not be won with a left-of-centre position on foreign policy.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-07-18 06:52pm

In your opinion Durran...

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-18 06:53pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Stravo wrote:I think at this point Bush would LOVE it if Dean won the nomination as many are labeling him a closet Dukakis. I haven't seen anything much of Dean yet to make me think otherwise. Bill Clinton he's not and that's what the party needs if they want to have any hope at all of winning against Bush.
Dean's a loser (as a candidate, not as a person). National health care is not and will not be hot electoral property anytime soon,

Only because the people have been propagandized to believe that national health care = communism.

and this election will certainly not be won with a left-of-centre position on foreign policy.

However, it may well be won by a fiscal conservative campaigning against a man whose fiscal policy has proven to be woefully prodigal.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-18 06:56pm

Only because the people have been propagandized to believe that national health care = communism.

Yeah, tough shit.

However, it may well be won by a fiscal conservative campaigning against a man whose fiscal policy has proven to be woefully prodigal.

If the economy does not improve, possibly. If the economy does improve, which it is set to (Alan Greenspan is predicting a takeoff), this won't be as much of an issue.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-18 07:05pm

And by the way, it's not so much the fact that Americans consider national health care to be equivalent to communism that makes it bad electoral property so much as it is the fact the Hillary Clinton and her task force managed to scare the living shit out of the country when they tried national health care ten years ago.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-07-18 07:09pm

Durran Korr wrote:And by the way, it's not so much the fact that Americans consider national health care to be equivalent to communism that makes it bad electoral property so much as it is the fact the Hillary Clinton and her task force managed to scare the living shit out of the country when they tried national health care ten years ago.

That bitch and her team of lackeys did more to fuck with the idea of national health care than any Republican fear mongering. They had these fucking scehmes set up that were so complex that people had no clue what they were looking at. Rationing of health care at that point was a certainity and when the AMA won't get behind you on it where do you go from there. What's worse is the SOLE reason I voted for Clinton was so that he could get a national health care system set up, NOT so that he could give his wife powers to set this monster up. I voted for him NOT his fucking wife.

And they didn't really FIGHT for it. They sort of put up their hands and walked away. Where would have the Great Society have been if LBJ simply walked away?