"mobile labs" was BS and Bush knew it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888.html

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement

This surprises anyone?

Will anything be done about this with the current "the president is can do no wrong" group of Republicans, and the group of spineless Democrats currently in Congress?

No point in going through this again, so I'll just skip to the end:

PurEvil wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
PurEvil wrote:

Sorry, but with all the ways Bush has screwed us over the years, this just kinda falls short of surprising.

Scandal fatigue?

That's an understatement. I miss Clinton... his scandals were interesting.

I'd like to allow presidents to run for a 3rd term so I can kick this guy's sorry butt out of office.

souldaddy wrote:

I'd like to allow presidents to run for a 3rd term so I can kick this guy's sorry butt out of office.

Somewhat ironic. It is conventional wisdom that a president who completes a second term is almost always in a dominant position to win a third if it were constitutionaly available. That was certainly true of Reagan and probably equally true of Clinton as well. DDE probably would have beaten JFK. Nixon didn't complete his second term as a result of his reckless disregard for the constitution. Assuming Bush survives a possible Democratic takeover of the House and Senate and possible impeachment, he may be the sole exception to this rule in the modern era.

souldaddy wrote:

I'd like to allow presidents to run for a 3rd term so I can kick this guy's sorry butt out of office.

This would be bad. Given the shady results of the last 2 elections, it wouldn't surprise me if Bush pulled a "surprise upset", even though his approval ratings are in the toilet.

I used to be a fan of John McCain, but his recent pandering to the religiofascist base is worrying.

Paleocon wrote:

I used to be a fan of John McCain, but his recent pandering to the religiofascist base is worrying.

He has been acting differently lately. So, is it a calculated set-up for his presidential run or are his true colors showing?

baggachipz wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I used to be a fan of John McCain, but his recent pandering to the religiofascist base is worrying.

He has been acting differently lately. So, is it a calculated set-up for his presidential run or are his true colors showing?

At that level, does it really matter? As Kurt Vonnegut put it in the book Mother Night, "You are who you pretend to be" (so be careful who you pretend to be).

Paleocon wrote:

Assuming Bush survives a possible Democratic takeover of the House and Senate and possible impeachment, he may be the sole exception to this rule in the modern era.

Bush was re-elected based on the strength of his "response" to 9/11. Most folks were starting to realize they'd maybe made a mistake by voting for him the first time shortly after the election. Then they sort of ... forgot. Seems that their memory is now returning.

Dezlen wrote:
souldaddy wrote:

I'd like to allow presidents to run for a 3rd term so I can kick this guy's sorry butt out of office.

This would be bad. Given the shady results of the last 2 elections, it wouldn't surprise me if Bush pulled a "surprise upset", even though his approval ratings are in the toilet.

Uh, I didn't see anything shady about the last presidental election, not any more than any other election other than 2000. Nothing illegal about pandering propaganda.

And just so we don't get too high and mighty in here, the Democrats were *notorious* for driving the same bus load of people to different districts in order to vote multiple times in the same election.

Anyone that thinks Democrats are somehow not the type of politicians who will say or do anything to get your vote and your money is mistaken.

Cues Ohio Players ... O-HI-O! O-HI-O!

The amount of shady stuff that went down there the last election should have drawn more media attention. No sir, don't like it.

And just so we don't get too high and mighty in here, the Democrats were *notorious* for driving the same bus load of people to different districts in order to vote multiple times in the same election.

Proof?

Links from credible sources?

I never heard of Democrats rigging election machines to fail in Republican districts. I also never heard of Democrats making a list of thousands of Republicans with names similar to convicted felons and barring them from voting. (much less have my brother the governor pay millions to a company with ties to my campaign's fundraising to do it)

They were also talking triumphantly about discoveries of Mustard gas supplies... For a couple of weeks. (Ulairi and JohnnyMojo, those valiantly continued to talk about them for some more).

fangblackbone wrote:
And just so we don't get too high and mighty in here, the Democrats were *notorious* for driving the same bus load of people to different districts in order to vote multiple times in the same election.

Proof?

Links from credible sources?

I never heard of Democrats rigging election machines to fail in Republican districts. I also never heard of Democrats making a list of thousands of Republicans with names similar to convicted felons and barring them from voting. (much less have my brother the governor pay millions to a company with ties to my campaign's fundraising to do it)

It probably happened before you were born.

Me = looking up 1960's and 70s newpaper articles in the Chicago Tribune = not gonna happen.

Make up your own opinion, but keep it in the back of your mind.

souldaddy wrote:

Anyone that thinks Democrats are somehow not the type of politicians who will say or do anything to get your vote and your money is mistaken.

As a Republican, I'm usually the first to jump on the bipartisan muck throwing bandwagon, but the plain and simple truth is that the corruption that Tomjack DeLaybramoff has brought to Washington is both qualitatively and quantitatively different than the way politics has ever been done in these United States. I know folks will say that the Democrats would have done the same thing if they were able, but that isn't true yet. And, as you know, it is simply impossible to prove or disprove a hypothetical negative. What we do know is that the Democrats didn't build the K-Street Project. They didn't hijack legislation by farming out the legislation writing process to moneyed interests. And they sure as hell didn't create multimilliondollar slush funds with stolen money. The saddest part is that this upping the ante of government corruption may very well have started an arms race that will completely disenfrachise the American people.

As Republicans, we have a whole lot to answer for. Our politics will never be the same.

The saddest part is that this upping the ante of government corruption may very well have started an arms race that will completely disenfrachise the American people.

The problem is I think that this has already happened! People have felt this way even before the last election. Republicans (politicians) aren't changing due to this and Democrats can't seem to take advantage of it. That makes the people the biggest loser.

Hillarious. It looks like Scott McKlellan is getting all worked up over this article.

The White House's defense? They're saying they weren't aware of the report so they weren't technically lying -- just incompetent.

Good post, paleo.

Paleocon wrote:

As a Republican, I'm usually the first to jump on the bipartisan muck throwing bandwagon, but the plain and simple truth is that the corruption that Tomjack DeLaybramoff has brought to Washington is both qualitatively and quantitatively different than the way politics has ever been done in these United States.

Are you kidding me? You, a republican voting conservative? I agree about Delay, but the bigger assjack was the guy in the oval office who said to his old Texas buddy "come on in, the water is fine." I apologized too often for Bush. Even my father hates his guts now, which is kinda like saying "cats and dogs, living together."

I know folks will say that the Democrats would have done the same thing if they were able, but that isn't true yet. And, as you know, it is simply impossible to prove or disprove a hypothetical negative. What we do know is that the Democrats didn't build the K-Street Project. They didn't hijack legislation by farming out the legislation writing process to moneyed interests. And they sure as hell didn't create multimilliondollar slush funds with stolen money. The saddest part is that this upping the ante of government corruption may very well have started an arms race that will completely disenfrachise the American people.

Yep. I'm voting democrat next election. As much as I think it will produce an equal-but-opposite reaction of liberal egotism, a culling must be done. But didn't the common middle eastern man's opinion of America drop to insane lows during the Clinton era? I would expect a democrat would have built on any good will the first Gulf War generated.

As Republicans, we have a whole lot to answer for. Our politics will never be the same.

I leave it at that.

But didn't the common middle eastern man's opinion of America drop to insane lows during the Clinton era?

I don't think so, based on the below. However, I'd welcome more information. This is sketchy and may reflect the lack of this kind of polling before 2000 or so in the region. I did find one report from 1990, but that was in the run-up to the war, so it doesn't show the kind of trending you refer to.

http://pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDec...

I'd love to see your source, and the particular reason you tie such a change in attitudes to Clinton.

souldaddy wrote:

Are you kidding me? You, a republican voting conservative? I agree about Delay, but the bigger assjack was the guy in the oval office who said to his old Texas buddy "come on in, the water is fine." I apologized too often for Bush. Even my father hates his guts now, which is kinda like saying "cats and dogs, living together."

Keep in mind that I've been in politics a LONG time. I know it sounds like wistful reminiscing of the "Wonderous Days of Camelot", but there once was a time when the GOP stood for conservative values like fiscal responsibility, individual responsibility, civil rights, equal opportunity, conservation of the environment, and transparency in government. It was Republicans who opposed Johnson's dumbass war in Vietnam and advocated a more Realist policy. It was Republicans who created the National Parks.

Things really started going south both literally and figuratively with Nixon's "Southern Strategy", in which he aimed to win the hearts and minds of Klansmen who felt betrayed by LBJ's "n-r loving" with the civil rights movement. George Herbert Walker Bush never bought into all of that, but his boss Reagan seemed more than willing to prostitute himself to those interests by making visits to Bob Jones University (which still has "anti-miscegenation" rules on campus).

Now, it appears, Republicans of conscience are a dying breed. We've largely been replaced by theocrats, racists, and crooks. And yet the current leadership (if that's what you want to call hate-baiting demogogues) still lay claim to the "party of Lincoln".

It was Republicans who opposed Johnson's dumbass war in Vietnam and advocated a more Realist policy.

I distinctly recall Nixon's 1972 campaign, and the Republican position was definitely pro-war at that time. They argued he would do it better than McGovern (another character assassination, painting a seriously patriotic bomber pilot who volunteered for the most dangerous long-range missions as a peacenik coward.) The anti-war movement started around 1967, and both parties were involved. It was Democratic activists who organized the marches and protests.

Basically, the Republicans opposed the *conduct* of the war, specifically Johnson's unilateralist approach to decisions, not it's goals.

Nixon's campaign featured ways out of the war with honor. In that sense, it isn't unlike the current Democratic position concerning the current Texan's quagmire in Iraq. Democrats that are overtly against the war itself rather than the "conduct of the war" are pretty few and far between (eg: Murtha).

Democrats that are overtly against the war itself rather than the "conduct of the war" are pretty few and far between (eg: Murtha).

Well, 21 Democratic Senators voted against the Iraq War resolution, so that might be a hard case to make.

Robear wrote:
Democrats that are overtly against the war itself rather than the "conduct of the war" are pretty few and far between (eg: Murtha).

Well, 21 Democratic Senators voted against the Iraq War resolution, so that might be a hard case to make.

I would be curious to see a comparision with the numbers of GOP Senators that voted restrictions on LBJ's use of force in Vietnam. Though it is true that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed unanimously in the House (416-0) and nearly so in the Senate (88-2), that has more to do with the fact that LBJ was a savvier politician than Shrubya. Say what you will, but Dumbya is certainly no "Master of the Senate".

In the end though, Democrats aren't willing to challenge the notions that "the world is better off without Saddam Hussein" and seem only to be willing to challenge the conduct of the war now.

So, the political opposition to the war kicked off in 1966 and really went national in 1967. As I noted, Democrats were generally against "the war", while Republicans were generally against the "conduct of the war". But that is after our commitment really grew, and also the Tonkin stuff began to fall apart.

Prior to that, in the 1964 campaign for example, Goldwater argued that Johnson was "soft on Vietnam", so the whole Tonkin Gulf thing was a way for him to show that he was not. So at that point, the Republicans were not yet opposed to the war. In fact, no one really was - it was a patriotic duty to support the President and the war, especially since it fit the pattern of the small wars we'd often been engaged in.

I'm not aware that there was a second authorization done; the authorization was pulled in 1968, I think I read.

Though it is true that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed unanimously in the House (416-0) and nearly so in the Senate (88-2), that has more to do with the fact that LBJ was a savvier politician than Shrubya.

No, it was a direct reaction to the attacks on American ships. Which were ginned up from a mistaken report by one of the captains, but that was the atmosphere. It was done in warm blood, not after weeks of preperation, as was the Iraq War authorization, and with the exception of Sens. Morse and Gruening, no one in Congress expressed misgivings, that I can find.