"Intelligence doesn't work against a madman."

[Boxlicker101]

Box, the physical battering of women by men is generally accompanied by verbal abuse. It's been my experience (not personally, luckily only) that men aren't generally silent when beating up a woman (for whatever reason). So though I don't think it's right, a woman who only verbally abuses a man isn't a measure in the scheme of things.

Perdita

Hi, Dita. I have never had any experience of any kind as an abuser, and never, ever expect to have any. All my wives and grandchildren and cats know or knew me as the kindest and most gentle and reasonable of men. Having been the target of verbal abuse from experts and having suffered a few physically beatings also, I am well aware that the latter are more painful but verbal abuse is also no fun.

It is probably true that most men who beat up their wives also call them names while they are doing it. I am glad that you have never personally experienced this and I hope this remains true. Even so, I think you would agree that, generally speaking, women are more verbally abusive of their signifigant others than men are. This is so because women are, generally speaking, more verbal than men are. This has probably been proven scientifically, although I would not be able to quote a source. So far as being controlling, I think women are more so, especially if you include controlling of offspring and others.

 

[shereads]

PS. Do you realise that a British missile sub is off your coast right now and the US Navy can't detect it? The French are patrolling the East Coast. Isn't it comforting to have predictable friends?

It's comforting when they're French.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Just to get back on track, what was meant by "intelligence"? This could be either information or the ability to think rationally. Either way, I think information helps little against a madman because he would be unpredictable. The ability to think rationally doesn't help much either because the madman is not rational.

 

[minsue]

Just to get back on track, what was meant by "intelligence"? This could be either information or the ability to think rationally. Either way, I think information helps little against a madman because he would be unpredictable. The ability to think rationally doesn't help much either because the madman is not rational.

And yet he's in charge of the most powerful country in the world.

 

[Boxlicker101]

A major part of the cold war strategy was MAD, which stood for "Mutually Assured Destruction". Put briefly, the Soviets knew that if they launched a nuclear attack on the USA, the attack might be successful but the Americans would know about it and would respond with the same, so both countries would be wiped out. Since both the Soviet leaders and the American leaders didn't want this to happen, and leaders of both countries were rational men, it never did. People like Osama Bin Laden, however, are not rational, at least not as the term is usually defined, and they would consider mutual destruction to be a great victory.

 

[minsue]

We didn't go to war against Bin Laden, Box. We went to war against the government and people of Afganistan and we went to war against the government and people of Iraq. Where to next?

 

[shereads]

Just to get back on track, what was meant by "intelligence"? This could be either information or the ability to think rationally. Either way, I think information helps little against a madman because he would be unpredictable. The ability to think rationally doesn't help much either because the madman is not rational.

The idea that Saddam Hussein is mentally ill (a "madman") has only come up recently.

Vice President Cheney, working for Halliburton, was using subsidiaries to do business with this "madman" during our own trade embargo. The CIA and the previous Bush administration did business with the madman until he became useless to us.

The "madman" designation is meant, in the context the administration is currently bandying it about, to imply that he is/was a wacko who was as likely to nuke us as he was to have breakfast. Bullshit. He was crazy shrewd, not crazy self-destructive.

Cruelty and despotism don't make someone unpredictable; if so, we will have to apply the Preempt-the-Dangerous-Madman rule to North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and anyplace else where political prisoners are tortured or disappeared.

If you want to know what he meant by "intelligence," in the context of the soundbyte referred to in the title of the thread, I'm sure there are transcripts of this morning's Meet The Press interview online by now. I saw it, and he was attempting to minimize the importance of having used false intelligence information as a reason to invade Iraq. He is denying - despite having his own words quoted back to ihm- having said last year that our primary reason to invade Iraq was the "certainty" that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons which could be deployed within 45 minutes, and was in the process of attempting to purchase uranium.

It's called the "moonwalk." Michael Jackson used to do it with his feet; Bush is doing it with his mouth.

 

[shereads]

I don't know, and there would be no way of proving one way or another, but I would be willing to bet there are more women who are verbally abusive of their husbands than vice-versa.

You miserable cretin, if you earned a decent living, we could afford a much nicer thread than this one.

 

[Boxlicker101]

We didn't go to war against Bin Laden, Box. We went to war against the government and people of Afganistan and we went to war against the government and people of Iraq. Where to next?

What you are calling "The government of Afghanistan was actually a gang of outsiders who had seized power and were trying to hold it through fanaticism and force of arms. We did go to war against them and drove them away, mostly. The people of the country were caught in the middle and we tried to minimize injury to them. All in all, the people in Afghanistan are better off for the American and allied effort.

We went to war against the government of Iraq and could have done a lot more harm to the people if we had wanted to. Whether or not the people of Iraq are better off now or not remains to be seen. We certainly did not go to war against the people of Iraq to the degree that the government of Iraq went to war aginst the people of Iran and the people of Kuwait. Or, for that matter, to the degree that the government of Iraq went to war against their own people, especially Kurds and other Muslims.

 

[minsue]

What you are calling "The government of Afghanistan was actually a gang of outsiders who had seized power and were trying to hold it through fanaticism and force of arms. We did go to war against them and drove them away, mostly. The people of the country were caught in the middle and we tried to minimize injury to them. All in all, the people in Afghanistan are better off for the American and allied effort.

We went to war against the government of Iraq and could have done a lot more harm to the people if we had wanted to. Whether or not the people of Iraq are better off now or not remains to be seen. We certainly did not go to war against the people of Iraq to the degree that the government of Iraq went to war aginst the people of Iran and the people of Kuwait. Or, for that matter, to the degree that the government of Iraq went to war against their own people, especially Kurds and other Muslims.

Typed and deleted many times. I can't vocalize (or the equivalent in cyberspace) what I want to say tonight. Headaches.

Have a flower.



- Min

 

[shereads]

And yet he's in charge of the most powerful country in the world.

How did I overlook this, Min?

You're my new hero.

 

[shereads]

All in all, the people in Afghanistan are better off for the American and allied effort.

Um, Box, I beg to differ with you on two issues: The government was largely composed of people trained and supported by us, to get rid of the Soviets.

We're reaping what was sewn by our own government in past decades, on more than one front. And instead of learning our lesson, we keep trying to install "democratic" governments hand-selected by us, insisting that it will make things better for "the people."

Just this morning, GBW refused to even acknowledge the possibility that a majority vote in Iraq would likely result in a fundamentalist Islamic state.

He named Chalabi, among others, as people who have assured the president that a majority of Iraqis want a government that protects the rights of minorities, including religous minorities.

Chalabi has been such a straightforward source of information so far, it's comforting to know that the president continues to rely upon him as a spokesman for his country. It's a bit like asking Jorge Mas Canosa, a leader of the Cuban exile community in Miami for decades, to advise the White House on what the people of Cuba would do if we invaded. "Oh, they'd welcome it, Mr. President. They'd want someone like me installed in some sort of advisory capacity."

As for people being better off in Afghanistan, the Taliban is experiencing a resurgence already. So what did we solve, exactly? I forget. We were supposed to be destroying Al Queda and finding Osama Bin Laden. Remember him? The guy who was important before Saddam Hussein?

Sorry about the rant. I'm just sick to death of the propoganda war by the White House. We're just skipping around the world spreading democracy like sunshine, and people are better off for it.

Except for the dead people. But dead people don't vote.

 

[minsue]

Sorry about the rant. I'm just sick to death of the propoganda war by the White House. We're just skipping around the world spreading democracy like sunshine, and people are better off for it.

The hero worship has flip-flopped back to how it should be and all is right again.

- Mindy

 

[shereads]

Yes, my guru. If you say it, it is so.

 

[Pure]

Hi Box, note to sher

Just for accuracy, the MAD strategy of the Eisenhower years is not the 'madman' strategy of Nixon. MAD simply says, "If I go down hard, you do too."

As the posted article said, of course some of Dulles' and others' concepts are precursor's of 'madman', which says, "If you step on my toe just a little too hard, you just never know if you'll be breathing the following day!"

Sher,

If Bush meant 'intelligence' as accurate information, and that that was useless against a madman (as alleged of Osama), then his remark is even more foolish.

Perhaps he meant that 'intelligence info' is fallible; and that it won't enable the prediction of a madman's actions. Perhaps further that one has to take a flyer occasionally in dealing with such a person; i.e., he's making a kind of excuse.

 

[Pure]

Hi Sher,
you said,

//I'm just sick to death of the propoganda war by the White House. We're just skipping around the world spreading democracy like sunshine, and people are better off for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------//

Did you check out that Kennedy '61 speech I posted (in sorry to get political)? Doesn't it seem, in retrospect, 'of a piece' with recent stuff you're complaining of?

 

[oggbashan]

I had always understood that MAD was an acronym for Mutual Assured Destruction which meant that neither side could survive a nuclear war in any reasonable sense of 'survive'.

Og

 

[shereads]

Hi Sher,
you said,

//I'm just sick to death of the propoganda war by the White House. We're just skipping around the world spreading democracy like sunshine, and people are better off for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------//

Did you check out that Kennedy '61 speech I posted (in sorry to get political)? Doesn't it seem, in retrospect, 'of a piece' with recent stuff you're complaining of?

It does, Pure, and it doesn't. Kennedy didn't have the benefit of a failed war like Vietnam to look back and learn from.

Speaking of Vietnam, have you read or seen that portion of the Meet the Press interview? GWB still cannot give a straight answer to where he was when he was supposed to be serving in the Air National Guard in Alabama. "I was honorably discharged...If I hadn't served, I wouldn't have been honorably discharged."

Where are the people who remember serving with a future president of the United States - son of a CIA Director and himself a future President - when they were stationed in Alabama back then? And does anyone really believe that it's not possible for a slacker son to receive an honorable discharge when his father is as powerful and politically well connected as Bush I?

GWB didn't attempt to account for the missing months of service, or the failure to submit to medical screenings so he could continue flying, but he readily admitted that he was discharged eight months early to attend Harvard Business School.

"I worked it out with the military."

How nice that you were able to do that. During a war of which you were "supportive," like all good patriots.

I think I despise the man more every time he opens his mouth. There's a reason why this president rarely does a press conference.

 

[OldnotDead]

The idea that Saddam Hussein is mentally ill (a "madman") has only come up recently.

I'm not sure that this statement is accurate. I did a little searching and could not find the text, but in one of his White House statements prior to the war, President Bush did express that one of his concerns was the irrationality of the then Iraqi leader.

I'm also sure that he continued to reiterate it during the war and after.

The "madman" designation is meant, in the context the administration is currently bandying it about, to imply that he is/was a wacko who was as likely to nuke us as he was to have breakfast. Bullshit. He was crazy shrewd, not crazy self-destructive.

Well, he actually WAS crazy self-destructive. Even after the '91 experience which should have educated him about his country's ability to repel an invading force, he refused to comply with the UN sanctions. Part of it was probably his own version of 'bad intelligence'. There are some indications that both the French and the Russians were telling him that they could stop our progress toward war. There is also some fairly credible evidence that those in his government that did not tell him what he wanted to hear were not well received.

In any case, he chose a path that lead to his government's destruction and I would be hard pressed to classify anyone that did that as 'crazy shrewd'.

 

[Pure]

Excerpt from the Bush interview, from todays NYTimes:
---
[start, p 3 of 10]
RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. And this is the whole idea of what you based your decision to go to war on.

BUSH: Sure, sure.

RUSSERT: The night you took the country to war, March 17th, you said this: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

BUSH: Right.

RUSSERT: That apparently is not the case.

BUSH: Correct.

RUSSERT: How do you respond to critics who say that you brought the nation to war under false pretenses?

BUSH: The first of all, I expected to find the weapons. Sitting behind this desk making a very difficult decision of war and peace, and I based my decision on the best intelligence possible, intelligence that had been gathered over the years, intelligence that not only our analysts thought was valid but analysts from other countries thought were valid. And I made a decision based upon that intelligence in the context of the war against terror. In other words, we were attacked, and therefore every threat had to be reanalyzed. Every threat had to be looked at. Every potential harm to America had to be judged in the context of this war on terror.

And I made the decision, obviously, to take our case to the international community in the hopes that we could do this, achieve a disarmament of Saddam Hussein peacefully. In other words, we looked at the intelligence. And we remembered the fact that he had used weapons, which meant he had weapons. We knew the fact that he was paying for suicide bombers. We knew the fact he was funding terrorist groups. In other words, he was a dangerous man. And that was the intelligence I was using prior to the run up to this war. This a vital question.

RUSSERT: Nothing more important.

BUSH: Vital question. And so we, I expected there to be stockpiles of weapons. But David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out.

That's what the Iraqi survey group, let me me finish here. But David Kay did report to the American people that Saddam had the capacity to make weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with the ability to make weapons. He was a dangerous man in the dangerous part of the world. And I made the decision to go to the United Nations.

By the way, quoting a lot of their data in other words, this is unaccounted for stockpiles that you thought he had because I don't think America can stand by and hope for the best from a madman, and I believe it is essential that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It's too late if they become imminent. It's too late in this new kind of war, and so that's why I made the decision I made.



RUSSERT: Mr. President, the Director of the CIA said that his briefings had qualifiers and caveats, but when you spoke to the country, you said "there is no doubt." When Vice President Cheney spoke to the country, he said "there is no doubt." Secretary Powell, "no doubt." Secretary Rumsfeld, "no doubt, we know where the weapons are." You said, quote, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." "Saddam Hussein is a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible." You gave the clear sense that this was an immediate threat that must be dealt with.

BUSH: I think, if I might remind you that in my language I called it a grave and gathering threat, but I don't want to get into word contests. But what I do want to share with you is my sentiment at the time. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a danger to America.

RUSSERT: In what way?
BUSH: Well, because he had the capacity to have a weapon, make a weapon. We thought he had weapons. The international community thought he had weapons. But he had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network. It's important for people to understand the context in which I made a decision here in the Oval Office.

I'm dealing with a world in which we have gotten struck by terrorists with airplanes, and we get intelligence saying that there is, you know, we want to harm America. And the worst nightmare scenario for any president is to realize that these kind of terrorist networks had the capacity to arm up with some of these deadly weapons, and then strike us. And the President of the United States' most solemn responsibility is to keep this country secure. And the man was a threat, and we dealt with him, and we dealt with him because we cannot hope for the best.

We can't say, Let's don't deal with Saddam Hussein. Let's hope he changes his stripes, or let's trust in the goodwill of Saddam Hussein. Let's let us, kind of, try to contain him. Containment doesn't work with a man who is a madman. And remember, Tim, he had used weapons against his own people.

RUSSERT: But can you launch a preemptive war without ironclad, absolute intelligence that he had weapons of mass destruction?
BUSH: Let me take a step back for a second and there is no such thing necessarily in a dictatorial regime of ironclad absolutely solid evidence. The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon.

RUSSERT: But it may have been wrong.

BUSH: Well, but what wasn't wrong was the fact that he had the ability to make a weapon. That wasn't right.

RUSSERT: This is an important point because when you say that he has biological and chemical weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles.
BUSH: Which he had.

RUSSERT: And they could come and attack the United States, you are saying to the American people: we have to deal now with a man who has these things.
BUSH: That's exactly what I said.

RUSSERT: And if that's not the case, do you believe if you had gone to the Congress and said he should be removed because he's a threat to his people but I'm not sure he has weapons of mass destruction, Congress would authorize war?

BUSH: I went to Congress with the same intelligence, Congress saw the same intelligence I had, and they looked at exactly what I looked at, and they made an informed judgment based upon the information that I had. The same information, by the way, that my predecessor had. And all of us, you know, made this judgment that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed.

You mentioned "preemption." If I might, I went to the United Nations and said, Here is what we know, you know, at this moment, and you need to act. After all, you are the body that issued resolution after resolution after resolution, and he ignored those resolutions.


BUSH: So, in other words, when you say "preemption," it almost sounds like, Well, Mr. President, you decided to move. What I decided to do was to go to the international community and see if we could not disarm Saddam Hussein peacefully through international pressure.

You remember U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 clearly stated show us your arms and destroy them, or your programs and destroy them. And we said, there are serious consequences if you don't. That was a unanimous verdict. In other words, the worlds of the U.N. Security Council said we're unanimous and you're a danger. So, it wasn't just me and the United States.

The world thought he was dangerous and needed to be disarmed. And, of course, he defied the world once again. In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences. People look at us and say, they don't mean what they say, they are not willing to follow through.


[snipped]
I repeat to you what I strongly believe that inaction in Iraq would have emboldened Saddam Hussein. He could have developed a nuclear weapon over time. I'm not saying immediately, but over time which would then have put us in what position? We would have been in a position of blackmail. In other words, you can't rely upon a madman, and he was a madman. You can't rely upon him making rational decisions when it comes to war and peace, and it's too late, in my judgment, when a madman who has got terrorist connections is able to act.

RUSSERT: But there are lots of madmen in the world, Fidel Castro
BUSH: True.

RUSSERT: in Iran, in North Korea, in Burma, and yet we don't go in and take down those governments.
BUSH: Correct, and that's a legitimate question as to why we like felt we needed to use force in Iraq and not in North Korea. And the reason why I felt like we needed to use force in Iraq and not in North Korea, because we had run the diplomatic string in Iraq. As a matter of fact, failed diplomacy could embolden Saddam Hussein in the face of this war we were in.

In Iraq I mean, in North Korea, excuse me, the diplomacy is just beginning. We are making good progress in North Korea. As I've said in my speeches, every situation requires a different response and a different analysis, and so in Iran there is no question they're in danger, but the international community is now trying to convince Iran to get rid of its nuclear weapons program.

[end, about p 5 of 10; many of the later pages on on the economy, national guard service etc.]

 

[shereads]

He certainly wasn't infallible, OldNot. But shrewd enough to manipulate global powers during his rise to power, and to use us for help in maintaining power.

When I said "recent," I was referring to the preamble to the invasion of Iraq. Saddam Hussein as a madman who might be irrational enough to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. was a more frightening enemy than the one who was simply cruel within his own borders, and a potential danger to those nearby.

My point was that the administration has been couching information in carefully crafted marketing terms from the get-go, and the worst of it is that they pretended to know of a link between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussien.

I was disappointed that Tim Russert didn't mention a word about Osama in the interview yesterday. Notice that the name didn't come up during the president's State of the Union address, either. We might yet catch Bin Laden, but it won't be with the help of the Saudi citizens and members of Osama's family who were quietly allowed to leave the U.S. in the days following 9/11, when a no-fly order was applied to all but military aircraft - and the one the Bin Laden family left on, including a nephew who was under watch by the FBI because of suspected connections with terrorism.

For what it's worth, Saddam Hussein could not very well reveal weapons that had already been destroyed. David Kay found documents indicating that at least some weapons were destroyed during the 1990's, after the Clinton administration bombed Iraq. Saddam was likely bluffing, showing his power, by refusing to provide documentation. It was the wrong move, but it doesn't mean he was insane.

 

[Pure]

Bush interview, National Guard service portion, p. 8. NYT transcript

RUSSERT: And we are back in the Oval Office talking to the President of the United States. Mr. President, this campaign is fully engaged. The chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Terence McAuliffe, said this last week: "I look forward to that debate when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard. He didn't show up when he should have showed up."

BUSH: Yeah.

RUSSERT: How do you respond?

BUSH: Political season is here. I served in the National Guard. I flew F-102 aircraft. I got an honorable discharge. I've heard this, I've heard this ever since I started running for office. I put in my time, proudly so. I would be careful to not denigrate the Guard. It's fine to go after me, which I expect the other side will do. I wouldn't denigrate service to the Guard, though, and the reason I wouldn't, is because there are a lot of really fine people who served in the National Guard and who are serving in the National Guard today in Iraq.

RUSSERT: The Boston Globe and the Associated Press have gone through some of their records and said there's no evidence that you reported to duty in Alabama during the summer and fall of 1972.

BUSH: Yeah, they're just wrong. There may be no evidence, but I did report; otherwise, I wouldn't have been honorably discharged. In other words, you don't just say "I did something" without there being verification. Military doesn't work that way. I got an honorable discharge, and I did show up in Alabama.

RUSSERT: You were allowed to leave eight months before your term expired. Was there a reason?

BUSH: Right. Well, I was going to Harvard Business School and worked it out with the military.

RUSSERT: When allegations were made about John McCain or Wesley Clark on their military records, they opened up their entire files. Would you agree to do that?

BUSH: Yeah. Listen, these files, I mean, people have been looking for these files for a long period of time, trust me, and starting in the 1994 campaign for governor. And I can assure you in the year 2000 people were looking for those files as well. Probably you were. And absolutely. I mean.

RUSSERT: But would you allow pay stubs, tax records, anything to show that you were serving during that period?

BUSH: Yeah. If we still have them, but you know, the records are kept in Colorado, as I understand, and they scoured the records. And I'm just telling you, I did my duty, and it's politics, you know, to kind of ascribe all kinds of motives to me. But I have been through it before. I'm used to it. What I don't like is when people say serving in the Guard may not be a true service.

RUSSERT: Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?
BUSH: Yes, absolutely. We did so in 2000, by the way.

 

[Pure]

Sher said,

[Does Kennedy 1961 message compare to Bush/Rice/Cheney message:]

It [Kennedy speech] does, Pure, and it doesn't. Kennedy didn't have the benefit of a failed war like Vietnam to look back and learn from.

You've heard of Dien Bien Phu (1954) ?
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/vietnam/story/dien.bien.phu/



Added: But you're right; each overseas adventure is seen according to previous ones; each succeeding one--in general-- looks more unwise.

 

[OldnotDead]

I think most Americans do care, Min and Og. The majority who voted for Al Gore in 2000 because we feared this cowboy and his handlers. We were a majority, and if you added the votes that went to Nader's Green Party in a key state of two, we'd have been a significant majority. The fact that we weren't divided properly by state, to sway the electoral college, doesn't mean we didn't see a lot of this coming.

Actually, exit poll data does not support this revisionist premise. One of the reasons the vote was so close was that the reasons that people chose to vote for one or the other were as varied as ever. There were no clear cut issues that anyone anlyzing the results could point to as the reason Gore lost or Bush won. But among the issues that were cited, fear of or support for war wasn't even on the radar screen.

"We," the people who were so desperate to keep Bush/Cheney out of office, were predicting a war with Iraq if they were elected, along with the destruction of the budget surplus and the crippling of the Environmental Protection Agency. . . .

Argh.

There is a little data to support this, but not enough of a majority, even a popular one. In every election there is a group of voters that vote against a candidate. Ironically, in the 2000 election, there was a slight tilt of 'anti-Clinton/Gore' voters, exceeding the number that were voting for Gore solely as an anti-Bush vote. Some analysts believe that there were just enough negative votes to make the outcome what it was.

Historically this makes sense. Most 'anti' voting is strongest when it comes to incumbents, rather than aspiring candidates. The best known exception being the phenomenal anti Goldwater vote, where a large number of people voted against him as a 'warmonger'. (Does anyone remember the quip, "They told me if I voted for Goldwater we would be at war within a year? I did and we were." )

Of course, the real irony of close elections is that just about any group can claim responsibility of outcome. I remember attending a lecture years ago where a political analyst 'proved' that every single minority and special interest group elected Jimmy Carter. Without going into detail, it was simple example of having a fairly close election and then arguing that any group that made up more than 5% of the electorate was 'responsible' for his success.

This time around, however, the tables will clearly be turned. As an incumbent, Bush will get be the primary target of the negative vote. Exit polling in primaries shows a clear bias on the part of Democrats in favor of 'someone that can beat Bush'. But does anyone remember that this was one of Bush' arguments during primary season the last time when he was up against McCain? It WAS a factor in some of the primary voting on the Republican side. Not a major factor, but significant.

What matters, of course, is what happens when both the parties members and the independents vote. This time around, you might be able to assert that it was the negative vote that changed the outcome. But if you want to make that argument about 2000, I think you are on thin statistical ice.

 

[shereads]

Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq.

I'm picturing a bunch of generals flushing their stash right before the dorm is raided.



It was interesting how many times the president repeated David Kay's name on Sunday. Having read that there was a closed-door meeting before Kay appeared before Congress - and in light of GWB's recent announcement that the director of the CIA is not in danger of being fired because of the intelligence fiasco - a person might suspect that Bush/Cheney conduct matters of state the way they conducted business at Harkin and Halliburton, respectively.

One dissident within the ranks has alreaady been punished, by the outing of his wife as a CIA undercover operative. I wonder what deals have been made, and how many people have decided not to ask for a deal, but just to take whatever blame is laid at their feet.

Containment doesn't work with a man who is a madman. And remember, Tim, he had used weapons against his own people.

And yet in the same interview he explains that North Korea's admission that they were developing nuclear weapons didn't require a similar response, because we are able to contain the threat through diplomacy.

BUSH: I went to Congress with the same intelligence, Congress saw the same intelligence I had, and they looked at exactly what I looked at

Pure, I wish you could have seen him deliver those lines. In context, he seemed to be correcting himself - He began by saying "I went to Congress," caught the error, and began again with the rehearsed version: "Congress saw the same intelligence I had." He took himself out of the picture, so for anyone who doesn't know better or wasn't listening for an admission of complicity, the president didn't use the information to persuade Congress; he was misled just as they were.

Marketing. Sleight of hand. Misdirection.

If his delivery were better, he'd come off looking like a victim of an incompetent CIA. Yet he doesn't intend to hold the head of the CIA accountable.

Unlike Britain, our investigation into who misled whom won't be concluded until after the election. Because we want to give them time to be thorough, says the president.