Was it Dean who said “We have to remember who the real enemy is here — George Bush”?

Well, here’s another example.

Weren’t these the same people claiming that the Bush admin. was abusing classified info for political gain not long ago?

Our troops are risking — and sacrificing all too frequently — life and limb, and the only thing these trusted politicians can think about is how to win the White House. If they do discover important information, shouldn’t it be brought to light immediately in order that it may save lives? Instead they want to wait and “pull the trigger” when it will create the biggest political bang.

…and if they find nothing, should they be inventing scandal — now, at a time of war? The President is off trying to strengthen a coalition, to reduce the American burden, and they are making his job more difficult by fomenting doubt in his credibility.

Thankfully, Bush hasn’t started politicking yet; he hasn’t stooped to their level. The Pres’ is off doing wacky things like working toward an evolving peace in Iraq (and Afghanistan) and getting the economy rolling again. I think they call it governing.

Come to think of it, isn’t that what we pay these Congressmen to do as well?

Instead, too many Democrats are off doing their best imitation of mid-afternoon talk shows. Sensationalizing every story and playing to the lowest common denominator… never really solving any problems.

This pathetic excuse for an opposition party doesn’t even realize that they’ve already “pulled the trigger,” and they were staring down the barrel when they did it.

“and it will cost them dearly at the polls.”

I think you give the general US populace too much credit for intelligence. The close finish between Bush and Gore is a prime example.

Instead, too many Democrats are off doing their best imitation of mid-afternoon talk shows. Sensationalizing every story and playing to the lowest common denominator… never really solving any problems.

Alex — I just hope you were just as outraged during the days of Whitewater, Hillary-killed Vince-Fostergate, Travelgate, Lincoln-Bedroomgate, what-can-we-make-up-nextgate, and, oh, yea that incredibly important Monicagate. That covers about half the serious “problems” congressional Republicans preoccupied themselves with “solving,” but succeeding only in tying up the media, the government and a presidency for years.

If a republican is in the White House, the office is beyond reproach. If it’s a democrat, it’s dodgeball time.

That’s all that’s going on here.

I don’t know; it seems important to me when the guy who has sworn to uphold the Constitution and all the laws of the land commits perjury and suborns the perjury of others. The Senate eventually balked, but the courts didn’t—he got fined by one and kicked out of the lawyer pool by another.

But answer this question more directly, Webster. What about this little episode should convince us that the Dems are serious about and good at handling national security?

Exactly Bryan.

I didn’t enjoy the stabs at Clinton over Monica, nor did I take well to the way he lied under oath. In fact, so you understand, I voted for Clinton. My anger is not partisan in nature.

I have lost all faith in the democratic party, as I point out in Staring Down the Barrel, because of their use of sensitive, privileged positions to attack the president in a time of war.

Big difference between that and Watergate, dontcha think?

Exactly Bryan.

I didn’t enjoy the stabs at Clinton over Monica, nor did I take well to the way he lied under oath. In fact, so you understand, I voted for Clinton. My anger is not partisan in nature.

I have lost all faith in the democratic party, as I point out in Staring Down the Barrel, because of their use of sensitive, privileged positions to attack the president in a time of war.

Big difference between that and Watergate, dontcha think?

I’m an idiot today. Watergate above should be WhiteWater.

And I shouldn’t have posted twice. Maybe a power nap is in order.

First off, I apologize for acting like a troll, popping in and out and being snarky. I also should attend to your main points more…

My first reaction was to doubt the memos authenticity; another source other than Hannity would be helpful.

But pieces of it ring true to me, but don’t read as dastardly as you may read them. I think this is obviously because of partisan interests.

(I can just imagine with what indignity and wondering horror Hannity’s read it, begging his listeners to head for the bomb shelter.)

Anyway — It’s a strategy memo; the Republican’s have them, too. Everything’s political. But though there are political ramifications in this case, there are also some legitimate questions the White House doesn’t want to answer, and Sen. Roberts doesn’t want to ask. What do you call that?

You want to “national security concerns.” But how do we know? Because the President says so?

Serious people have serious doubts, how can they be assured?

Obviously I’m sympathetic to what the Democrats are trying to do here, and it goes to the heart of your question.

The Democrats are the minority party and they’ve been easily outmaneuvered by the majority party. They have to strategize and use what tools they have left to perform their responsibility as the opposition party. There’s nothing shocking here. They think there are questions and areas the majority will avoid for political reasons. Sure, if the democrats can get political mileage out of it, why not?

Because “this will give some comfort to terrorists,” says Sen. Roberts.

Right. Just like investigating the hell out of Clinton comforted the terrorists.

It’s absolutely disingenuous to hide behind national security every time potential embarrassment or political damage is the real concern.

Just ask Henry Hyde and Ken Starr. They liked to ride that high horse back in the day.

The more logical question is — why is the White House NOT cooperating and why is the majority RELUCTANT to ask critical questions when our national security is clearly at risk?

I don’t get the logic. Investigating intelligence matters is what that committee is there for. What exactly is “aiding the terrorists?” Roberts is performing an investigation, so isn’t he already “aiding the terrorists?”

Or is he saying politicizing the investigation is “aiding the terrorists?”

But why are his actions or inactions not political? That’s clearly how the democrats are viewing this, and it’s a fair view considering his limiting of the investigation clearly benefits the White House and the party.

But is that good for the country, especially since this seems to be true:

“SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public’s concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.

…as your outrage at what you’re calling BS of this summary is not supported by your fellow citizens. The public feels something is amiss with our national security and the war on terror. Only one in seven people believe Iraq is the most important fight in that war. And are troubled by what the misguided is costing in money and lives, with it hardly clear at all that’s invading and occupying Iraq is going to make us any more secure.

From the Post link above:

As Bush faces public skepticism about the importance of the Iraq war to national security, he is also hearing similar doubts from some lawmakers in his own party. Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) yesterday criticized the administration’s thinking about Iraq as “one of the most misguided assumptions in the history of United States strategic thinking” and said the occupation could increase the threats to American security.

Leach, a veteran lawmaker who once worked for Donald H. Rumsfeld, now the defense secretary, said in a conference call with Iowa reporters that the administration expects a presence of six or seven years in Iraq rather than the “decisive” withdrawal he favors. He said the long-term occupation will create “more problems around the world and, potentially, in the United States as well.”

If this is a possibility, don’t you think the faulty information and process that got us into this should be examined and fixed?

The majority want to avoid looking into critical areas of this process. Is that really wise? Is it really in our best interest?

But you jump to

Democratic Investigation=nation imperiled!

Certainly the Republican Party might be imperiled, but not likely the nation. These are grown ups, you know. Please. Again, it’s the former you and the republicans are most concerned with, and not the latter. You want the system that maybe has us wasting our resources on a war NOT CENTRAL to the war on terror to remain broken, threatening our national security. Don’t you think it’s important to why?

And assuming your answer to be yes, should we just wait until the war on terror is over? That’s what you’re suggesting.

The way the White House is handling national security is in serious doubt. Would it be more responsible if the Democrats sat on their hands?

I ask again: why was there no concerns for national security when Republicans demanded, and got, every shred of paper they requested from the Clinton White House? Were they showing off their excellence with national security?

Didn’t they know they were giving aid and comfort to the terrorists?

(p.s. overlook snarky tone. Have another proposal-all-nighter ahead of me…)

Alex, does it matter at all that he lied in a politically-motived republican-funded lawsuit meant to embarrass him, if not destroy him, and give comfort to the terrorists?

Because Clinton was fighting the war on terror while the Republicans were providing said comfort to said terrorists.

Back to lying. Do you think Bush has lied? And if he has, do you think he should be impeached?

Sheesh, another all-nighter. You have my sympathies, as well as some jealousy (how I’d love to get to do the kind of work you do). Snarky tone already overlooked.

On the big question, yeah, I’d like to see the White House show a little more backbone and just cooperate for goodness’ sake. I’d like to see a full accounting of what went on prior to 9-11 too, because like you I don’t want another day like that as long as I live. But…every time any WH releases anything, it sets precedent. Some of what Congress wants gets into internal deliberations within the executive branch, and I do worry that if we just expose everything ever said within the WH, we may erode the level of candor possible within its walls (I worried about that in the Clinton days, too, fwiw, but much of what was asked of them had to do with junk deals in Arkansas so it had no real bearing on current WH process). So I can see reasonable grounds for some small delays and even withholding of some docs. But the WH should play ball better than it is—and the Dems should not, under any circumstances, politicize the intel apparatus, which is what the memo indicates is their intention. That is playing a very dangerous game, imho, when we are at war (which we weren’t during most of the Clinton years, and the wars he chose to fight were quite small by comparison to this one). There is no excuse for politicizing the Intel Committee, none at all, and doing so does contribute to the Dems’ image as soft on foreign policy and generally unserious about it. And fwiw, Robers has been cooperating, just not to all the Dems’ satisfaction. Perhaps they have made unreasonable demands? That’s surely not beyond the realm of possibility.

I think that on the larger Iraq question, the debate over whether Saddam did or didn’t have WMDs is a bit disingenuous. It was Clinton policy that he did have them, and it has long been the opinion of every single intel operation that looked into the matter that he did have them—even the UN believed he had them. The pre-war question wasn’t whether he had them, but what to do about it. That’s where the UN breakdown occurred—even Syria voted in favor of 1441, implicitly declaring its own belief in Saddam’s WMDs. Bush therefore could not have “lied” us into the war since he was saying what everyone else had been saying before, but in retrospect it is perhaps time to ask why every single intel operation that looked into the matter believed that those WMDs existed. I happen to think they do exist, but haven’t turned up for a variety of reasons. The Kay team did find diagrams and some components and even a small quantity of botulinum, so there’s some evidence that the WMD effort was waiting for the end of UN sanctions before getting off the ground again. Hopefully the ongoing search can clear all this up.

The assertion that Bush lied is also illogical. If he was ruthless enough to lie our way into a war in which thousands would be killed, is it reasonable to think that he’s not also ruthless enough to make sure the WMD “cover story” never gets found out? Wouldn’t cold logic dictate that such a ruthless man would ensure that WMDs would be “found” as quickly as possible? If he’s such a liar to start a war, he should at least be clever enough to keep that lie viable since his political fortunes depend on it.

Of course, if we had found WMD immediately, the Chucklehead wing of the Dems would have then used that to say “Ha! He manufactured it!” With some people, you just can’t win.

For my own rather far afield and more expansive thoughts on 9-11 in a nutshell, I think we experienced a collective massive failure of intel, largely because the bureaucracies are just too big and slow and risk averse. You don’t rise in the CIA by theorizing about outlandish terrorist plots that, unluckily enough, turn out to be true. Budget cuts since the 70s, and an overdependence on tech versus human intel, played a huge role too. The problem now is that we’re still not really trying to learn from 9-11 and fix the problems—we’re just turning on each other and pointing fingers. I guess it was inevitable eventually—to this day some people think FDR “allowed” Pearl Harbor to happen so that he could get us into the war (a dumb strategy, considering we nearly lost the entire Pacific Fleet in one morning). But it’s still an ugly thing to watch and be a part of, and gets us no closer to winning the war, which should be everyone’s goal.

That’s a fair response.

I’d add, though, that the “Bush lied” comes not from the general belief that Saddam had WMDs. You’re right. The Clinton administration did think that. But it didn’t — because it couldn’t rally concern based on what the CIA offered — make the specific charges to mount the camapaign now at hand. The “Bush lied” comes from the specifics they choice to gather and put before the public. No one wants to support such an exploit as we’ve undertaken without specifics. “Proof, proof, proof” was the constant, undertandable chant of the audience. The Administration heard and knew that was required, and Ahmed Chalabi — who was ignored as unreliable by previous administrations but was willing to supply some of those specifics and assurances — became quite handy. A grad student’s 12-year old doctoral thesis also helped out, as did the Niger forgery. Clinton and Bush shared the same “belief” of WMDs. But they didn’t share the same faith in the specific intelligence that would convince the nation and world that war was justified. That’s where the two administrations part. I do think that Kristof in the Times has a fair opinion, wondering how this could have happened. He doesn’t think Bush is a liar.

(as for what I do — you’re making an IMAX, for Chr***sake!)

Webster,

No, it doesn’t matter. He lied under oath. “I would have been embarrassed,” is not a valid excuse for such activities.

The page you link to is full of unprovable statements (based on secret meetings) and unsupported assertions. Links to sources would be nice.

Did Bush lie? About what? About the threat posed by Saddam… I don’t think so. I have trouble believing a person such as Saddam who pursued WMD from the moment he came to power, all of a sudden stopped and then lost the proof.

The bottom line is, from where I sit, this memo shows the political motivation behind the actions of senior Senators when dealing with sensitive information. The world changed on 9/11. A lukewarm warm war became an instant inferno. Remember that image of our elected officials, hand-in-hand, singing God Bless America?

The Democrats should run a hard race for the presidency. But there are some games which are no longer fair play. Not just because it hurts the incumbent, but because playing them puts America at risk

Alex – I give you links and sources and you reply with opinions…

Clear references to what you’re addressing or criticizing in my posts would be appreciated…but it seems being specific doesn’t interest you, because you can’t agrue a point very well

Otherwise why would you call the State of the Union address, Bush’s UN Speech, other speeches and the rest…as unprovable statements (based on secret meetings) and unsupported assertions.

Links to sources would be nice.

Huh?

You did address this…much appreciated…but gave as your rebuttal your opinion???

Did Bush lie? About what? About the threat posed by Saddam…I have trouble believing…

Did Bush lie? About what?

Don’t you get tired of this? I of course get it. I’ll play it one more time. I know, I know. The question’s asked about the obvious, and you reply playing dumb, requiring the poor liberal – if he cares to debate the Righty – to give background to the obvious. Knowing this is how it’s going to go, I already provide links and sources to my statements. But oddly, you still come back claiming the liberal has no sources or dismisses them as non-sources. The liberal, in turn, has two choices, recognize he’s dealing with a assertion=truth debater who cynically believes – and unfortunately is usually right – that all he has to do is deny the liberal’s point as untrue with vague statements and slightly off the point clichés, to simply leave the impression to readers of his post that the liberal’s point has been vanquished. The liberal’s choices are: see the specific Righty as a lightweight and move on, but risk leaving the Righty’s hypocritical and disingenuous dodge as the last word…or rechallenge him to respond with some integrity…but risk wasting more time. You’ll find your method well documented Here along with dozens of other Right Wing dodge techniques. Brush up.

Anyway – I’ll play your game one more round: assuming you won’t bother to look at the links above again…

an excerpt…

Bush made specific claims:

Bush’s statements, in chronological order, were:

“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”

United Nations Address September 12, 2002

“Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.”

“We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.”

Radio Address October 5, 2002

“The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”

“We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.”

“We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States.”

“The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his “nuclear mujahideen” - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech October 7, 2002

“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

State of the Union Address January 28, 2003

“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.”

Address to the Nation March 17, 2003

Give me evidence that any of this has proven to be true. Kay’s discovery of “processes” and “desires” and “plans” aren’t quite stockpiles, by the way.

And so if you don’t think it matters that the president may have mislead – even lied to – the American people and taken the country down a questionable path, but you seriously think the truth mattered about a Democratic blowjob, how am I to take you seriously?

Let me save you the typing. I already know your reply won’t be a reply at all, but will contain something like these profound opinions…

…it doesn’t matter…lied under oath…I have trouble believing a person such as Saddam who pursued WMD from the moment he came to power, all of a sudden stopped and then lost the proof…the world changed on 9/11…The Democrats should run a hard race for the presidency. But there are some games which are no longer fair play. Not just because it hurts the incumbent, but because playing them puts America at risk.

…it doesn’t matter…he lied under oath.

If you say so.

But that might be news to God, I imagine.

Hope the weather’s nice in Dodge.

And we could go out and Google up quotes from Clinton and Gore and Daschle and probably a dozen other Democrats saying the same things, back in 1998 most likely, when they tried and failed to gin up support for sustained operations against Saddam. All you’ve really proven is that our pre-war intelligence wasn’t very good.

But here’s what happened. Bush, post-9-11 and in a drive to finally take out Saddam, said various things about what intel was telling him about Saddam’s weapons programs. His statements do not differ materially from what had been said for years, by members of both parties, before he took office. It was apparently fine to say these things if all you intended to do was bomb Saddam or justify the sanctions, but apparently beyond the pale to then take the next step of actually taking him down to remove the threat for good. So some of the same Democrats who had said the some of the same things about Saddam suddenly questioned it all. Why? Did they suddenly get some better intel than the President had? That seems unlikely, given that they ended up voting in favor of the war based on that same intel—and they had access to that intel themselves. And curiously, Clinton stands by both his statements and Bush’s statements to this day, even while criticizing Bush for various other things.

After the fact, it seems clear that our pre-war intel was faulty—to say the least. But is the fault solely President Bush’s? Given the fact that much of it predates his inauguration, and given the fact that the Democrats have publicly spoken favorably of that same intel for years, that seems unlikely. What seems likely is that our intel agencies are broken, and have been for some time.

Why would that be? I’ll tick off a few possibilities. First, over-reliance on hardware at the expense of human intelligence gathering. You can only see so much from low earth orbit—you have to have eyes and ears on the ground, and we started getting away from that model of intelligence gathering decades ago. Second, budget cuts and restrictions on operations. Beginning with the Church Committee in the 70s, we restricted what our intel agencies could do overseas. It seems we probably put too tight a leash on them, as they have apparently become risk-averse. Third, the directive that our field agents could no longer deal with anyone who had any kind of criminal background. Terrorists aren’t Boy Scouts—they are an unsavory lot. That single restriction put far too many potential assets off limits to our operators. Fourth, poor language skills and few language assets. Case in point: Upon my exit from the Air Force several years ago, I inquired for work at the CIA. They asked me about foreign language skills, so I listed by poor French and my poor but improving Japanese. Japanese happened be a language the CIA was interested in at the time, and they said if I was already fluent I could come to work for them immediately. But they apparently had no program to put potential recruits through language school, so I didn’t go to work for them. We need to set up such a program if we don’t have one by now—we could groom a corps of Arabic translators and could stop relying on unreliable Islamic converts with dual loyalties, as we have seen at Gitmo.

I am now going to return to a point that I continually make about Bush’s critics: You act as though history began in January of 2001. All of the events I describe took place before he took office, yet they bear directly on our intel situation and our present progress on the war. They are not his fault, but your myopic view of history demands that you make them his fault, against all evidence and reason.

You’re free to do that, of course. But you’re ignoring a gigantic mountain of facts when you build your molehill-sized theories.

WELL, I DID GO GOOGLE!!!

And you know what I found?

You’re right.

I shouldn’t have hung my argument on those particular words.

Me bad.

But that’s what I hope I come here for — learn something — and not just to rant.

Now…about some other things Bush has said…

or how about I give it a rest.

I think we’d all like that.

Webster.

I did follow your links. In my response I first answered your direct question and the responded to the links. When I mentioned “secret meetings” and unprovable facts I was talking about your first link… the one from an unknown source. The site lists bullet after bullet of unproven claims and has the words “secret meetings” right in the text; do a search and see. The page offers no proof that said meetings ever took place. If they are such a secret, how does this person know about them? and why should I believe them?

I have an entire blog full of both opinion and the facts I use to support and draw them. Did you follow the one text link in my comment? If so you’d know that. Go read it some time and then tell me again if you still think I am so inept at arguing my side of an issue.

One more thing. If you’d like, I’ll address each one of your assertions about the SOTU. But not here, and not until the weekend when there is more time to give this proper attention.

-alex

Well that’s also part of the reason I do this for—to learn stuff. This has to be the most confusing war ever, or maybe it just seems so because we’re actually living through it. Writing this blog keeps me up to date with and helps me make sense of events, and comments like yours challenge my assumptions about things. I can’t see that as a negative.

I appreciate both Bryan and Alex’s replies; especially the latter’s references to time. I had more on my hands, and used it questionably.

I occasionally make references with what I’m really supposed to be doing when I’m reading this blog, and that work suffers. I think Alex sounds a bit more responsible than I am.

I think a simpler point — and more defendable —is that this is all political. Democrats surely want to find out if the Administration really screwed up; Republicans would hate anything negative to be revealed. That’s all. That’s what’s going on. The reverse was alive and well during the Clinton administration – and I think some of that excess is coming home to roost – or would be, if the democrats had any power…but there’s something to the warning of absolute power corrupts absolutely…

Anyway, the defense for not allowing the democrats to explore its line of questioning is that it’ll threaten national security. That would be valid, excepting the Republicans had virtual free rein to explore every facet of the Clinton administration while they looked for anything they could hang their hat on, and the present White House’s effective defense of “those advising the administration need the confidence that they can speak freely” which didn’t wash with the conservative courts during Clinton, but somehow are valide these days.

oh, but I digress…But even if the circumstances are similar, you say “we’re at war” so the rules are different.

But are they? Or is that just convenient? I mean there are some pretty interesting and valid holes in the administrations logic and action, but because any questions are completely dangerous to our safety, or so that’s what’s claimed, they’re not to be investigated at all?

What exactly is the threat to national security? Asking any questions threatens it? Should this be a blanket policy? What if there is something seriously wrong with the way the administration processes intelligence? And it’s not exactly a problem with intelligence. There’s evidence that that is a very serious concern.

Yet, “we’re at war” somehow trumps that.

Which is the bigger threat?

And why do you think it falls down to a man who is for and who is against expanding the investigation that it depends on the party?

Politics, on both sides. Not the other true, the other not.

And is this a big threat to how we govern ourselves and protect the nation?

I know I was changing the subject along another post, but I think this quite dangerous. I mean, can’t we think of the future here? I know Republicans want to win as many elections as they can, but what if they just happen to lose the next election, or the one after that, or lose control of Congress. I know Grover Norquist that the future will go otherwise, but just if…would republicans want to be in the minority with a presidency with such freedom?

Granted, the queries are partisan — but the Clinton administration endured a deluge of such. What if another Clintonesque administration occupies the White House and the Republicans are in the minority, would you be for this?

(I suppose we could use a new thread on this subject)

Sincere in-the-minority snarky

Webster, I appreciate the sincerity of your replies as well. I, like you and Bryan both, do this to challenge myself and to learn something in the process.

The WapPo story you linked to caught me be surprise. I think their spin of, “[the Bush Administration] will not entertain any more questions from opposition lawmakers,” is a bit overboard though. What the memo really says is that the questions will be filtered through the committee.

Its still a bit disappointing to hear, but not the same as ignoring (not entertaining) the questions.

Back on topic. No one is saying this administration should not be challenged. It was the unserious nature of the letter which I found disturbing. Seeking to “pull the trigger” at the most opportunistic (politically) time, is troubling.

This is what upsets me:

Our troops are risking — and sacrificing all too frequently — life and limb, and the only thing these trusted politicians can think about is how to win the White House. If they do discover important information, shouldn’t it be brought to light immediately in order that it may save lives? Instead they want to wait and “pull the trigger” when it will create the biggest political bang. …and if they find nothing, should they be inventing scandal — now, at a time of war? The President is off trying to strengthen a coalition, to reduce the American burden, and they are making his job more difficult by fomenting doubt in his credibility.

Stating you don’t like a plan, or the plan has failed — which it hasn’t — is completely different than saying there was no plan at all.

Furthermore, we are facing a dynamic enemy. The Baathist, al Qaeda, the Taliban, the United Militia of Terrorists, are active opponents. We make a move, they make a countermove. So even if the Administration’s long term goals are the same, the plan on how to get there must be fluid.

And that is precisely what Rumsfeld’s famous memo was all about.

But then we hear Democratic leaders, like Representative Charles Rangel say things like:

“The whole idea of having a leaked [memo] that says that there is no game plan… [Rumsfeld] doesn’t know whether he’s winning or losing, that he’s asking questions outside of the box — he’s not supposed to be asking questions.”

Remember when thinking outside the box was a good thing? And why is Rummsfeld not allowed to ask questions? I didn’t see “must by omnipotent” on the list of job qualifications for Secretary of Defense.

Anyone with any knowledge of military planning and operations understands the dynamic nature of a battlefield. As General Eisenhower is famously quoted, “in preparing for battle, plans were essential, but that once the battle was joined, [those original] plans were useless.”

All of this to come full circle and get to this point: the Bush Administration is not beyond reproach, but it is the nature of these challenges that is troubling. Just as it bothered me that the Republicans wasted so much time attacking Clinton’s sex life, it bothers me when I see Democrats take a frivolous approach in this debate.

The major differences being: 1) we have all experienced 9/11; and 2) these are matters of war, matters of life and death.

Ok, I have one more reply to write in response to this. Bryan, I will try to be more succinct. If this is too much for the comments section. Let me know and I’ll move it off to my blog.

Webster, in response to this comment.

Fact 0: Saddam Hussein was guilty until proven innocent. It was not up to Bush to prove some case against Hussein.

Fact 1: International espionage and intelligence gathering is a non-exact science. You get small slivers of information here and there and pull it all together to reach conclusions. Sometimes those conclusions are wrong, sometimes they are right.

Fact 2: There is a difference between being wrong and telling a lie. If you form an conclusion, based on imperfect information, and that conclusion turns out to be wrong, it is not a lie.

Saying you didn’t have sex with someone when you did is a lie. Saying Saddam is seeking WMD, based on intelligence reports, may turn out to be correct or incorrect… but it can’t be a lie unless the intelligence cleary shows he wasn’t; which it didn’t.

Fact 3: Resolution 1441, which promised “serious consequences” if Iraq did not comply with its demands, passed unanimously in the U.N. Security Council. France, Russia and even Syria all had votes. The all voted in favor of the resolution.

Fact-Set 4: I won’t take all the Bush quotes, but I’ll look at the biggest one as an example of the rest.

“The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”

This has yet to be proven true or false, but once again I would find it hard to call it a lie either way since it was based on intelligence reports. The U.N. itself claimed the Iraq did have those weapons. They were discovered in country. Iraq never provided sufficient proof that it secretly destroyed those weapons.

Iraq repeatedly lied about its weapons, weapons programs and just about anything else, including the fact that U.S. tanks were rolling through Baghdad.

“We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.”

This section is a statement of fact. The U.N. catalogued the weapons after the Gulf War.

“We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States.”

A statement of fact based opinion based on intel data. Not to mention the fact that we discovered the exact undeclared vehicles Bush was talking about, just before the war started. Remember that?

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his “nuclear mujahideen” - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”

The evidence did indicate he was rebuilding his nuclear programs. The U.S. showed the satelite photographs to the U.N. Iraq did purchase high-strength aluminum tubes, they’ve been found in country. We have also discovered at least one buried centrifuge, waiting to be put to use again in the future.