ZOT!
PWND!
Posted on 04/22/2006 6:32:17 AM PDT by Andy5000
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Central Intelligence Agency warned US President George W. Bush before the Iraq war that it had reliable information the government of Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, a retired CIA operative disclosed.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
ZOT!
PWND!
Posted on 11/12/2005 2:25:09 AM CST by FairOpinion
Contrary to ongoing reports by mainstream media outlets, WMDs have been found in Iraq, so reports New York Times best-selling author Richard Miniter in his new book, Disinformation.
Consider these shocking facts:
• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin
This is only a partial list of the deadly weapons Miniter reveals in his new book, Disinformation. Miniter systematically dissects the "No-WMD Myth" (how it started, and why it continues), as well as 21 other War-on-Terror myths perpetuated by the media
Wonder what has been found since!
But how do you account for the administration's public presentation of the WMD evidence? The aluminum tubes for instance. Here you had the CIA saying "yes they're for nuclear enrichment" but the DOE and the State Department were saying "nope, no way". Yet the administration went forward and presented the tubes as though the intel community had a clear consensus on the matter.
It's one thing to make decisions based on uncertain information -- as you said, that's part of being a decision maker -- but it's another to go before the public and claim that the evidence is certain. This, I think, is the true objection that the libs have with Bush's handling of the prewar intelligence.
If events unfold in a way that allows them to impeach Bush, the impeachment won't center on the fact that Bush was decisive in the midst of uncertain information. Rather it will center on the administration's public presentation of the WMD intelligence -- i.e. that it knowingly made the evidence look more clear-cut than it was.
I think an impeachment would probably center on the items listed here by Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly.
I'm talking about political appointees... Bush kept many or most of Bubbas.. Surely you must know that.. Theres a boatload of things a President can do to apply pressure to civil service employees.. Since just being a democrat makes you a security risk.. pressure should be applied.. across the board to "civil servants" in the Executive branch.. But why would Bush even care about all that.. hes a globalist..
And very probably a traitor to the republic.. or worse a dupe.. I've about it had with BIG giverment republicans... their sneaky. At least a democrat is either stupid or an overt traitor.. theres an honesty in that..
I would reverse the question. How could we possibly allow Saddam to remain in power after 9/11? People seem to forget that we were spending billions maintaining the no-fly zones and that Iraq was on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. The Oil for Food program would still be functioning providing Saddam with billions (along with the UN receiving its administrative fees) and show what a sham the containment of Saddam really was.
I agree with you that the Adminstration and the Reps in Congress don't do a good job in articulating and defending our policies. However, even an eloquent Tony Blair has had difficulty in silencing the critics.
That simply isn't true. As a retired USG bureaucrat with 36 years of service, I have some knowledge of how the system works. All the political appointees must submit their resignations when a new administration takes over. Have you ever heard of the Plum Book? It contains all the presidentially appointed positions within the Federal Government.
If you want to take the time, go over all those positions using the link I provided and tell me which one's are "Bubbas." I bet you would be lucky to find one or two who served under Clinton and were kept on by Bush. Personally, I have never seen it happen during my years in the USG except if the change in Administrations didn't involve a change in political parties. The political appointee jobs are avidly sought by the political faithful and are handed out as rewards to the supporters, i.e., the spoils system is alive and well. There are many more applicants than positions. Also, there is pressure to try to convert career jobs into political jobs or have political types apply for career jobs.
There's a boatload of things a President can do to apply pressure to civil service employees.. Since just being a democrat makes you a security risk.. pressure should be applied.. across the board to "civil servants" in the Executive branch.. But why would Bush even care about all that.. hes a globalist..
Actually, there is very little a President or a political appointee can do to a career employee unless he/she violates their conditions of employment. The political appointees can reorganize some elements and eliminate jobs, but Congress also gets in the act if it is too radical and the career employees affected by the elimination of their jobs would have "retreat" rights, which would allow the senior employees to be retained in other positions. The net result of RIFs (Reductions in Force) is that the most junior employees are let go. It is very difficult to fire a federal employee.
Would very easy if we had a party that would eliminate federal programs.. and reduce by half or more, others.. We don't.. And we won't until the federal bureaucracy is called rampant socialism and parasitic to the states.. and the republic..
Civil servant unions(extant) should be illegal because of the conflict of interest generated as a parasite to good government.. as should teachers unions.. Teachers ARE civil servants..
Nice try, sausage link.
I am honored.
McCarthy story?
Concur 100%.
Every time we think he's whipped he starts kicking butt again. I think he's holding back now because he wants the Dems to peak early and the GOP to peak on the first Tuesday in November.
You're funny.
Actualy, that is a Romulan Warbird, not Klingon.
Yeah,... I know, ...$1 in the geek jar. :) Damn, that jar is getting full.
Oh, I don't know...the current Dem crowd has a genius for electoral failure.
The ultimate would be for the Dems to gain seats, but not enough to gain control...say, 10 seats...and that would wake the GOP up a bit.
CIA=Central Incompentence Agency
Aw, that's cute.
Thanks for heads up, Calpernia!
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.