Republican Chutzpah on Iran
Chutzpah is a Yiddish term that means "unbelievable gall; insolence; audacity". Got to love Yiddish. No other term captures what the Republican staff members of the House Intelligence Committee accomplished today with the release of a partisan report on Iran. According to the Washington Post account:
A key House committee issued a stinging critique of U.S. intelligence on Iran yesterday, charging that the CIA and other agencies lack "the ability to acquire essential information necessary to make judgments" on Tehran's nuclear program, its intentions or even its ties to terrorism.
Gee whiz, "lack of essential information"? Like what? Nuclear weapons? Which brings me to Valerie Plame.
Valerie's identity was exposed by Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others in Bush Administration in the summer of 2003 she was doing undercover work to monitor, detect, and interdict nuclear technology going to Iran. Larisa Alexandrovan broke the story in February on Raw Story. David Shuster confirmed the report on Hardball on 2 May 2006:
While the heart of the CIA leak investigation is the Bush administration`s aggressive defense of the WMD case for war in Iraq, there is new evidence now the defense may have undermined intelligence efforts on Iran. The key player in the CIA leak story is Valerie Wilson, a CIA operative whose identity was outed by White House officials. As MSNBC first reporter yesterday, Wilson was not just undercover but, according to intelligence sources, was part of an effort three years ago to monitor the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran.
So, the Republicans want to whine about inadequate intelligence on Iran's nuclear program but hold fund raisers for Scooter Libby, one of the men implicated in the leak of Valerie's classified identity. The leak did more than ruin Val's ability to continue working as an undercover CIA officer. The leak destroyed a U.S. intelligence program to collect information about Iran's efforts to get nuclear weapons material.
What is particularly galling about this is how Peter Hoekstra has played politics with intelligence all along. In a letter to the White House earlier this year complaining about the possible appointment of Stephen Kappes as the Deputy Director of the CIA, Hoekstra said:
I am convinced that this politicization was underway well before Porter Goss became the Director. In fact, I have long been convinced that a strong and well-positioned group within the Agency intentionally undermined the Administration and its policies. This argument is supported by the Ambassador Wilson/Valerie Plame events, as well as by the string of unauthorized disclosures from an organization that prides itself with being able to keep secrets.
Instead of mounting an investigation to determine who exposed Mrs. Wilson and the intelligence operation she worked on, Hoekstra attacks CIA officers for being political hacks. Mr. Hoekstra, people who live in glass houses shouldn't chuck stones.
We now see a new effort by the Republicans to bully the intelligence community into identifying an imminent threat that does not exist. Iran has been a threat for 26 years. As reported in the Washington Post and New York Times, the intelligence community does not believe Iran is anywhere near to developing or deploying a nuclear weapon.
Peter Hoekstra wants to use his position as head of the Intelligence Committee to bully analysts and scare Americans. Meanwhile, he has sat idle as the Republican White House destroyed a viable intelligence operation to keep tabs on Iran's nuclear ambitions. That, my friends, is pure Chutzpah.
Mazeltov.
UPDATE:
My CIA buddy, Jim Marcinkowski, who is running for Congress against a member of the House Intelligence Committee who remained silent when Valerie was betrayed, offered his take on this as well:
Mike Rogers has demonstrated time and again that he is out of touch with the security situation on the ground in the Middle East. His comments and his voting record make that clear.
- In May of 2004, Rogers described the security situation in Baghdad as being no different than "walking in a rough neighborhood anywhere in America." Today, the situation in Baghdad is even more horrific, and Bush has called for additional US troops in an attempt to contain the violence.
- Yesterday, Rogers criticized the United States' ability to acquire intelligence, particularly nuclear intelligence. Yet three years ago, he - a former FBI agent - stayed silent and did nothing when a veteran CIA agent who specialized in nuclear security issues and WMD was "outed" for political reasons.
- In June of 2004, Rogers voted against increased funding for counter-terrorism efforts. This vote was taken despite a GOP-authored report attached to the bill arguing for additional funding."
Hoekstra, Weldon, and Santorum are the three geniuses who "found" WMD in Iraq - of course, the fact that they were old buried stuff that was left over from the 1980's didn't stop their attempt to earn themselves political points. Where did we dig up clowns like this to serve in our Congress?
Tom
August 24, 2006 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the whole government is based, not on facts, but on what the members of that government want to be true, reports such as that one are almost routine. The Republicans really, really want Iran to be a dangerous immediate threat to our country, one we must fear will end our way of life as we know it. (This supposedly makes them patriots.) So, of course, they expect the national intelligence agencies, which are, after all, run by appointees by the members of the government who feel that way, to come up with some "intelligence" fixed around that threat. Man, that sounds familiar for some reason....hmmm...fixed around......hmmm.
Hoppy in Sacramento
August 24, 2006 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Where did we dig up clowns like this to serve in our Congress?"
Uh, wasn't it from the Republican Party? That Republican Party is one fertile ground for folks like that. One could dig up as many as 220 pretty easily - or has that been done already? Now we need to fertilize the Democratic Party real well so we can dig up some rational "crops".
Hoppy in Sacramento
August 24, 2006 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Faulty intelligence caught this administration with its pants down in Iraq.
Is it surprising that it wants to undermine the intelligence on Iran?
Intelligence can't come back to bite you if there never was any. For Bush I believe this is called "nipping it in the bud."
August 24, 2006 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The intelligence provided to this administration wasn't faulty; the White House Iraq Group just threw out everything that didn't suit their purposes, and dressed up iffy rumors and called it "intelligence." Ask Hans Blix about the intelligence he provided about Iraq's supposed WMD's.
Next they dug up words like "mushroom cloud" and "yellow-cake," added a frequent smattering of 911 references, and spoke so solemnly (they could hardly resist yelling out "BOO!) as they did the "hard work" of scaring the American populace.
The icing on the cake was the elevated terror levels, which they used liberally, and without any relationship to anything that was actually happening.
They pulled their own pants down and mooned the world. Now they are trying to run with their pants down around their ankles.
PS, Thanks, Gettysburg, for supplying such a great visual image for me to run with!
Jan Knaus
August 24, 2006 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well heck, just attack Iran anyway to cover up the damage done by Val's outing.
Another interesting thing is the US gift to Iran: a nuke lab & reactor.
Neoboho
August 24, 2006 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush&Cie hate intelligence, obviously.
August 24, 2006 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even better is that it was the Ford administration who gave the nuclear gift (that is apparently still giving).
Cheney succeeded Rumsfeld as Ford's chief of staff and Wolfowitz was in charge of non-proliferation.
It must have slipped all of their minds this year.
"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness." GWB-Aug. 30, 2000
August 24, 2006 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are all mixed up, Gettysburg. :-)
It was the President in the pantry nipping the Buds and Feith in the Pentagon with his pants down.
"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness." GWB-Aug. 30, 2000
August 24, 2006 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jan
If I were European I'm sure I could have come up with something a little more three dimensional than "caught with his pants down." They're much more, ummm, expressive on the other side of the pond.
Maybe next time.
August 24, 2006 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was nothing faulty about the Iraq intelligence, it was fabricated.
- The Niger Uranium stuff was false from day one. The Italian Tabloid journalist who first sniffed out the story didn't think it was credible. You've seen Italian tabloids? If you can't sell it there, you can't sell it at all.
- There was way too much hyper-specific information. X litres of anthrax, XX gallons of sarin, XX of mustard, etc. Intelligence doesn't work that way, when your numbers are that specific, you either have the inside dope (which they didn't), or someone is making up their figures to look impressive.
- Then there was the amazingly unpersuasive stuff at the UN. Ambiguous phone calls that might have been wmd related, or perhaps really related to homosexual encounters or drug deals... And 'artist depictions' of mobile drug labs. Look, going to the UN, you put your absolute best case forward. If that case includes cartoons... you got nothing.
- Then there was the patently ridiculous stuff. Remember that 45 minute launch window to hit England. Remember that report of a fleet of drone aircraft equipped with chemical weapons to spray the eastern seaboard? yeah, okay, someone's been reading too much technofantasy.
- Beyond that there was reliance on informants selectively, where it was well known to be selective. There were informants who talked about wmd's (that was used) but confirmed it was destroyed (which wasn't talked about to so much).
- Then there was reliance on bullshit informants. Ahmad Chalabi? Reliable? Ask the Jordanian banking industry. And when was the last time he was in Iraq? Or how about Allawi, yeah, former thug on the run for ten years... Maybe a few credibility problems there.
- Finally, there was the utter failure of verification. The Inspectors went in. They went wherever the CIA pointed them. They found nothing. That should have been the big fat clue right there that something was up.
The bottom line is that the President and all his murderous little munchkins knowingly and with malice aforethought lied to America. And by "lie" I mean with malicious foreknowledge that it was not true, or with a breathtaking contemptuous recklessness and indifference for whether it was true or not.
I'm sorry Gettysberg, ain't nothing personal. But the point is, that if we start dressing up a pack of lies and calling it other than what it is, which is a pack of lies, well, that just ain't a good thing, and it don't lead to good places.
Sometimes, you have to call Ted Bundy a serial killer, rather than just sliding by with 'unusually enthusiastic young Republican.' Y'know what I'm sayin?
August 24, 2006 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another strand - the prinicipal author of the House report on Iranian intelligence is Fred Fleitz. If you followed the Bolton nomination fight you may remember the name. From the Cafe's Bolton Watch:
It gets curiouser. In the CIA Fleitz worked in WINPAC, the same section as Valerie Plame Wilson.
August 24, 2006 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, unfortunately, this administration is bound and determinded to go to war with Iran. Bush told us this months ago, long before Israel hit Lebanon. We are going to war with Iran, it is just a matter of time. Bush may even strike them before the mid-term election. The decider, decided this and informed us, so we should expect nothing less. They are just laying the ground work in terms of intelligence reports.
Sounds like intelligence still won't go along with them..so they are slandering them.
August 24, 2006 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am still coping with the image of GWB thinking from the hip. There are rumors that some Neocon tried to suggest he read Hegel, but he heard it as Kegel...
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 24, 2006 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gad, there's something to put me off my lunch.
August 24, 2006 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but that's when they had our sonuvabitch in charge, and Saddam had Soviet backing.
Thank God we know that the Israeli and Pakistani nukes are in safe hands.
August 25, 2006 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it is unlikely that Dubya and the posse will actually launch the attack before the mid-term. An attack might provoke an Iranian response, which would likely show just how bankrupt Dubya's policies are. No, instead we'll get the constant fear mongering and the call for a Congressional resolution. Note, we won't get a call for a declaration of war, just for some worthless resolution which will allow these weasels to slither away if and when things head south. The Republicans need the fear in for a political talking point. They don't need the accountability of a failed attack going into the elections.
August 25, 2006 3:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
And after their embarrassing piece of theater, public belief that WMD had been found in Iraq went from something like 35% to 50%.
Mission accomplished, I would say.
Gad, the media in this country has so much to answer for. No wonder the courts are stripping away their rights.
August 25, 2006 3:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a great catch. On the one hand, interesting to note we've got an Iraqi WMD data-miner still producing intel reports. But also curious to note that this time he apparently hasn't airbrushed out the uncertainties in the intelligence.
However, can't pass up on commenting on this quote from Hoekstra:
"I have long been convinced that a strong and well-positioned group within the Agency intentionally undermined the Administration and its policies."
Translation: "Those bastards at the CIA who keep on using solid analysis to call into question President Bush's policies".
Must also say that if Hoekstra is concerned about the politicization of the CIA, I have two words for him: Bill Casey. You can draw a straight line from his appointment to where the Agency is today, where analysts and operatives hold a deep, damaging mistrust of political appointees.
August 25, 2006 4:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was a also a report in the Washington Post in December of 2002 about a VX-based weapon being smuggled out of Iraq, through Turkey, by a group called Asbat al-Ansar. The Post's Barton Gelman was responsible for the report.
He was intervied the same day on NPR by Bob Edwards. The conversation included this passage:
EDWARDS: If the report is true, what does it mean for the war on terror and the Bush administration's efforts to disarm Iraq?
Mr. GELLMAN: Well, there's a couple of different milestones. It would be the first time known that al-Qaeda or its affiliate obtained any non-conventional weapon other than cyanide, if you would count that. It's also probably the most concrete evidence obtained to date that al-Qaeda terrorists received some form of material assistance in Iraq. And finally, if the weapons come from Iraq, then it means Iraq has them and therefore it could be used to rebut this 12,000-page declaration of last week that they've relinquished all that stuff already.
and later ...
EDWARDS: Tell me more about this group. I've never heard of them before.
Mr. GELLMAN: It's Sunni extremists, many of them Palestinian. They have considerable influence in a well-known refugee camp in southern Lebanon called Ain Al Helweh. They have globalized, as so many groups have, and now have an enclave in northern Iraq.
August 25, 2006 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.mipt.org/Patterns-of-Global-Terrorism.asp
Is this what you mean?
August 25, 2006 5:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Valarie Plame & Ahmed Chalabi
If there is a lack of good intelligence on Iran regarding nuclear weapons then the fault lies solely with the White House. The job of Valarie Plame was this very subject and her outing brought the entire operation down.
Ad to that the fact that the White House's favorite Iraqi, Ahmed Chalabi, revealed that US intelligence had broken Iranian codes, and we have conditions ready for stupid GOP operatives to advocate for yet another insane invasion.
August 25, 2006 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any chance Bush, Condi, Rummy, or anyone else will get that exact question from anyone in the media?
"Mr. President, since Valerie Plame was working on this very issue, and since her exposure caused the ongoing intelligence program to be shut down, and since the Vice President's Chief of Staff had a part in her exposure, don't you think it is disingenuous at the very least, to complain that you don't have adequate intelligence on Iran's nukular weapons program?
Jan Knaus
August 25, 2006 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is he Heidi Fleitz's brother? Do prostitutes run in families?
Jan Knaus
August 25, 2006 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Haha!!
The Mayberry Machiavellis, eh? Save that bullet Barney!
August 25, 2006 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fleitz is no Washington invisible. Amongst those who reviewed his book on Peacekeeping was Jeane Kirkpatrick. Interesting to me is that his view of peacekeeping is so "pre 9/11'!!! He also has some link to Somalia and Black Hawk Down based on a Q&A session with author Mark Bowden I found.
"Peacekeeping Fiascoes of the 1990s Frederick H. Fleitz Jr 2002
Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Georgetown Professor said:
Rough Fleitz bio:
State Dept -- Special Asst & acting Chief of Staff) to Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
CIA
---Intelligence Analyst: WINPAC, Office for Weapons Intelligence Non-Proliferation and Arms Control---Covered UN and its peacekeeping during parts of Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton administrations. (e.g., Intelligence Analyst, Balkans Task Force; Military Analyst, Balkans Task Force
Late 1990s Graduate of Fordham University, Masters in International Political Economy and Development
August 25, 2006 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kirkpatrick was a dunce when she was in the federal government before, and she's a dunce now. Mark Bowden wrote a great book, Black Hawk Down, and he's been a lousy analyst on Iraq. He was all for the invasion in March 2003. I followed his column in the Philadelphia INQUIRER back then and corresponded by e-mail with him. He didn't get it.
Tom
August 25, 2006 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Follow the Money:
I always said the objectives in invading Iraq were:
1. Install a client state which would deal oil on favorable terms
2. Replace bases lost in Saudi Arabia
3. Intimidate neighboring states and make them behave "better"
4. Prevent China from making deals for Iraqi oil
I'd like to ask what are the objectives in Iran?
Is it also about oil and preventing Iran from becoming a regional power, or are their other motives as well?
By falling into the neo-con framing (WMD's, democracy and "freedom") the left gets diverted from discussing the real issues. That the stated reasons are all blowing smoke can be seen just by noticing that we aren't overthowing Saudi Arabia or Syria even though they don't have a democracy or "freedom".
Let's not get side tracked (again).
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
August 25, 2006 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the reason I think we will attack before mid-term elections. Bush and the neo-con cartel are afraid they are going to lose Congress in the upcoming elections...which is why they will move forward before them, in hopes of still having enough support in the house to pass the resolution.
August 25, 2006 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps, this is the true reason for her outing, over and beyond what has been gabbed about in terms of casting aspersions on her hubby's character about the 'yellow cake' Niger intel
Recall that Cheney and Bush had the plan for war in the ME from the moment they walked into the WH and Cheney had all those energy meetings, where they divided up the ME with oil designated to the corporate raiders invited to divvy up the oil resources. Just as Bush said at his first NSA meeting he wanted war with Iraq, it may be just as likely that this dastardly combination of neo-cons and western corporate fascisits planned to hit Iran, as well from the git-go.
What better way to be able to create their own intelligence than to halt the most successful intel operation headed by Plame? I do not put this tactical move beyond the strategic vision of Cheney or Rumsfield.
It is highly plausible that we are simply seeing the blueprint for the ME energy grab designed by Cheney and the energy companies, simply unfold.
Their first and most significant move had to be to destroy all intell that ran counter to their corporate aims. Cheney has been over at the CIA manipulating data since he came to office, we continually hear about he harangues analyst and shifts the emphasis on intel information so as to support his 'unstated' goals.
I wonder what dirt they had on the previous CIA director for him to have so easily forsaken his duty to the country.
August 25, 2006 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't buy it from the gang that can't shoot straight, but its an interesting enough thought that it warrants a four.
August 25, 2006 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
No.
August 25, 2006 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
When considering anything said by this administration, the first rule has to be to just accept that they are lying. Unless you do that you are being led astray or being side tracked. I can't remember another administration, including Nixon and Reagan, where such a low percentage of truth comes from their mouthpieces. An explanation that fits the known facts, and therefore has an infinitely higher probability of being true than anything said by the administration, is that they came into office with the single goal of fattening their and their backer's bank accounts. And, since their backers are largely oil industry folks, and that secret meeting or series of meetings about "energy policy" took place, oil would seem to be the justification for almost everything.
Just to brainstorm: would RICO be a basis for impeaching the whole lot???
Hoppy in Sacramento
August 25, 2006 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand what you are saying, but while Bush is a moron, I do not think the other folks surrounding him, controlling our foreign policy and military are at all stupid. They are evil and machivaillian power grabbers out to control global resources and make the USA an empire.
Lately, I have had to consider that perhaps, the public 'perceives' them as not being able to shoot straight because we have never really known what the target was.
It is easy to beleive someone cannot hit their 'stated' target if our attention is deflected to the 'stated' target, as opposed to what they are truly aiming at.
Thanks for the rating.
August 25, 2006 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hear what you are saying, but I think they do not lie about what actions they are going to take. They lie about the reasons for taking the actions and create smoke screens to cover up for their actions to mask their naked greed, corruption and global powermongering. But what they do not do is lie about what they are going to do...it is simply so unbelievable to most of us, that we discount it as being absurd. However, they mean what they say in terms of war and global resource grabbing.
Terrorism is simply the smokescreen for the global oil grab.
Who was that Brit guy that said this is the 'mother of all smokescreens'..was his name Gallos or George.?
He was right!
August 25, 2006 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's a really good way of putting it. Here's another '4'.
August 25, 2006 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Impeached by whom?
August 25, 2006 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting military perspective on the Sunday morning talk shows on attacking Iran. A general pointed out that the US forces in Iraq are very exposed. Iran could close the gulf at several points to shipping and literally trap the 135,000 US troops in Iraq in a cul de sac similar to Diem Bien Phu (or Stalingrad). There really are no combat ready troops available to reinforce them. I don't think our military would be foolish enough to go along with an attack on Iran given that awkward tactical situaion and the dilapidated state of the armed forces. Also, I'm not sure that war-like moves in Iran would go down well with the electorate, including the Republican base.
August 25, 2006 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
wrb, there are two 2004 articles that back your Cheney and energy meetings theory. The first is by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker:
The second, Crude Dudes, offers this and more:
I have searched for the Feb.3 document, but so far no luck.
"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness." GWB-Aug. 30, 2000
August 25, 2006 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
thanks ss, great articles.
also isn't Cheney's daughter the head of a committee that does the fact finding on Iran and assesses the intel?
August 25, 2006 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
--
-- All successful revolutions are the kicking in of a rotten door. (John Kenneth Galbraith) --
August 25, 2006 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty amazing. Ahmed Chalabi, the international fugitive and probable Iranian spy, had the Administration completely bamboozled.
One can only wonder what he learned from Laura, while seated next to her at the State of the Union?
--
-- All successful revolutions are the kicking in of a rotten door. (John Kenneth Galbraith) --
August 25, 2006 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barney Fife (Don Knotts) RIP!
Tom
August 25, 2006 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was George Galloway. He is a passionate man. He is also right.
Jan Knaus
August 25, 2006 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, this really is the gang that couldn't shoot straight.
Their one skill is beating the Democrats, that's it. That and lining the pockets of their friends.
Puffed up on their own arrogance, they have taken the richest and most powerful nation on earth and are systematically blowing it.
Yes, they are evil and machiavellian power grabbers out to build an empire. Every move is replete with that agenda.
And frankly, a skillful player might even do it. But they're not skillful.
They're merely arrogant and stupid men, puffed up on their own egos. Steadily throwing it all away.
August 25, 2006 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever the reasons that really were behind the invasion of Iraq (oil, exerting power in the region, or even something more noble) it turned out pretty bad. Now, I can't believe that Bush really wanted to hand the world's second largest oil reserves over to a hegemenous Iran/Iraq ruled by religious zealots. But, he can't very well come out and say that his judgment was incredibly bad and his team has been massively incompetent.
So, he is faced with a war he can't win. He has three choices: stay in Vietnam, I mean Iraq, until someone else takes over his job and then blame them when they pull out the troops for losing the war (I don't think many people will buy that one!), or he could pull out the troops and hand Iraq to the Mullahs and begin construction of fortress America, or he could raise the bet on the table (attack Iran).
He's a Texan. Which do you think he'll do? Keep in mind that he can't very well do much damage to his legacy at this point.
August 25, 2006 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg raised a good point. Don't diss him. Of course the administration wanted to invade Iraq from day 1. Of course they intentionally screwed with the intelligence. Since then, they have been repeatedly embarrased by revelations like the one made by Joe Wilson. Gettysburg was just saying, maybe tongue in cheek, that this time they don't want any data at all. Then, no one can accuse them of distorting it. They'll just replay old speeches from the Iranian President to justify their actions.
August 25, 2006 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn skippy!! And just like a Texan he is bragging about his hand and telling us he is not going to fold.
August 26, 2006 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's not actually a Texan. He was born in Connecticut, so he's got more in common with Joe Lieberman than Hank Hill. He was educated at Andover, Harvard and Yale. He's afraid of horses. And that Ranch was a prop bought for his gubernatorial run. He doesn't do anything with it, except clear brush *year round.*
August 26, 2006 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cheney shoots penned up animals. Bush kills native vegetation. Neither one of them does anything like growing things on their land. I think this is a perfect reflection of their view of the world. He is not the "decider" he is the "destroyer".
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
August 26, 2006 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The military was foolish enough to go along with invading Iraq. I don' think there is any doubt Bush will bomb Iran. Former CIA analyst, Ray Close makes a case in that direction. Bush will probably wait until 2008 so the next President has to deal with, and get blamed for, the catastrophic results. It will be the glorious conclusion to his reign, and will be sure to keep Americans at risk and in fear for years to come.
August 26, 2006 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Turns out it wasn't GWB, Cheney, Rove, Libby... or any other White House guy. It was Richard Armitage.
Don't worry, I don't expect a correction from you, it wouldn't be like you to admit a mistake.
August 29, 2006 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And they beat the best you had! Twice!! I think this is a perfect reflection of the state of the Democratic Party.
August 29, 2006 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The Niger Uranium stuff was false from day one. The Italian Tabloid journalist who first sniffed out the story didn't think it was credible. You've seen Italian tabloids? If you can't sell it there, you can't sell it at all."
are you lying or misinformed?
Are all the commenters who gave you a 4 for false information stupid? Your dreams of speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are just that, dreams. Blindly hating GWB won't win any election (outside of San Francisco anyway), present an alternative that you can convince anyone will work in Iran and you may have a chance.
August 29, 2006 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't. The clowns you dug up got beat by them...and probably will again.
August 29, 2006 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink