Rep. John Conyers, as predicted here 10 days ago, will hold one of his patented “fake hearings” on the Downing Street Memo Thursday afternoon at 2:30 p.m. EST. Pay no attention to the fact that the witnesses list is lead by the same lead witness (John Bonifz) who presented at his Ohio vote-rigging “hearing,” or that Conyers will trot out Valerie Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson, who can regale the “hearing” with tales of yellowcake and book sales. Luckily for Wilson no members of the Senate Intelligence Committee will be present to bitch-slap him again. Given the lack of reporting about his cratered credibility, Wilson probably sounded like a great witness to Conyers.
At Conyers Ohio vote-rigging “hearing” the witnesses even addressed him as “Mr. Chairman,” though one suspects he will have counseled his new stooges that tomorrow’s stunt is neither an official meeting of the House Judiciary Committee nor an official hearing, and that in any event he is merely the ranking minority member of the Committee that’s not actually meeting.
What a handful of C-SPAN3 viewers will be treated too is a bunch of Democrats, many of whom are members of the Judiciary Committee attempting to hold a hearing without the Chairman and majority members. Given the moonbat factor I suspect that every member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (note their website is hosted by the lone Socialist in Congress – Rep. Bernie Sanders) will find a way to get some face time.
Undoubtedly they’ll fail to mention this:
Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn’t Made – [NYT]
The second Downing Street Memo, which is a briefing paper for the meeting the original memo captured minutes of, states not once but twice that “no political decisions” to invade Iraq had been made. Of course they’ll probably argue that the briefing is superseded by the memo (are you dizzy yet) so no attention should be paid to the briefing. They’ll ignore that the chief of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service’s (Sir Richard Dearlove, noted as C in the memo) quote from the original Downing Street Memo, “Military action was now seen as inevitable,” was characterizing his impressions of the opinions of US intelligence officials he had recently met with. They’ll also ignore the fact that, other than providing intelligence, those officials Dearlove met with were uninvolved in the “political decision” making process.
And Conyers, et. all, will wonder why their fake hearing receives scant attention…
Prior Downing Street Memo coverage.
Update: They most certainly won’t be talking about the Editorial Board of the Washington Post saying:
AFTER LAGGING for months, debate on Iraq in Washington is picking up again. That’s a needed and welcome development, but much of the discussion is being diverted to the wrong subject. War opponents have been trumpeting several British government memos from July 2002, which describe the Bush administration’s preparations for invasion, as revelatory of President Bush’s deceptions about Iraq. Bloggers have demanded to know why “the mainstream media” have not paid more attention to them. Though we can’t speak for The Post’s news department, the answer appears obvious: The memos add not a single fact to what was previously known about the administration’s prewar deliberations. Not only that: They add nothing to what was publicly known in July 2002.
And they’re not the only ones saying that there was “no there, there” – see Kinsley and Kurtz for more of that.
Update 2: They surely won’t be discussing Fred Kaplian’s analysis of the Downing Street Memo (and all the other memos) at Slate. Exactly how many mainstream liberal media institutions (NYT, WaPo, Slate, etc) must debunk the DSM obsessed bloggers assertions? Go back to the quote from the Fox News article about this being a test for the liberal blogosphere if you’re wondering who should be worried. Today’s “fake hearing” leaves the DSM issue precisely where the Ohio vote-rigging story is, nowhere. Much of the media has bent to the will of the left and issued mea culpas for not reporting on the story initially, but by and large they’ve also noted upon examination of the DSM story that there’s hardly even a bit of smoke (let alone fire) to the story. Many liberal bloggers have made this their ship and seem intent on going down with it. If that’s their choice so be it – we’re just interested observers to the non-story story…
“Count 1: WMD programs were in place”
You’ve forgotten that the initial justification for war was not about a “WMD program.” It was about an imminent threat to the US and Iraq’s neighbors. Remember the remote-controlled planes that could drop chemical weapons on us? Or Cheney’s statement that we might discover our mistake under a mushroom cloud?
That’s not about a “program.” That not a valid justification for war. That is fear-mongering based upon false premises, and a revising of the parameters when they are discovered to be false.
“Count 2: See the 2002 SOTU for a partial list of the Hussein’s atrocities, the 300,000+ dead…”
Are you aware that there are African countries that far exceed Saddam’s record? Why did Saddam’s regime top the list for change? (Hint: It’s a 3-letter word.)
That’s a humanitarian reason if I’ve ever seen one.
“Count 3: When did the Bush admin. ever change it’s rationale for war?”
Several times:
WMD – began as “He has them and is prepared to use them.” Slowly became “He wants them and is developing a program.”
connections to terrorists – proven false.
humanitarian – only used when all others were proven unsubstantiated.
violation of UN Resolution 687, – Saddam was contained. Several experts, including those from the UN have concurred. When the UN does things the way the US government wants, the UN is valid. When the UN acts against the wishes of the US government, they are marginarlized.
“P.S. If the threat “imminent” as you Lefites have notoriously misquoted and misrepresented, then why keep referring to it as “preemptive”.”
To preempt something is to do something to prevent someone else from doing it first. Whether the concern that the “someone else” was actually going to do it is not germane. The Bush administration characterized Saddam’s war-making intentions as an “imminent” threat. If that was false, then preemptive action was not necessary. So the onus is on the administration to prove that the threat and its imminence were true.
“Count 4: Bush NEVER lambasted Kerry on the cost of war! Where’s your quote on this? I want to see it.”
Kerry isn’t responsible for the cost of the war. The White House submits requests for funding, and the Congress approves or denies.
“Count 5: Rummy visiting Hussein in ’83/’84.”
Let’s not forget that Osama bin Laden was on our side, too.
“Count 6. Paul O’Neill, Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, Ray McGovern. Well, thank God you at least didn’t put Michael Moore in here. P.S. Joe Wilson was proven to be a patent liar about his, er, report.”
Of course, you have a link to this, right? His report was corroborated by our intelligence services – the same ones that are responsible for identifying national security threats.
PW
WMD programs were in place. That’s funny, they told us there was an imminent threat. Every bloody country on earth has weapons programs. The Kay report stated that there were no WMD. End of story. Syria? How can you ship what doesn’t exist to another country? The weapons inspectors (Blix and ElBaradei) were not finished with the job they were sent to do and the Bushies weren’t about to let them finish hence they might make it more difficult to carry out the invasion.
It’s about geopolitical power (i.e oil), military bases in the heart of the region that geopolitical power relies on, and the fate of Isreal. To deny it is ignorant, naive, and childish really.
If I met you in person it is likely that I’d beat your cowardly ass. I’m tired of you phony hypocrites, the adults are taking over again so as I said earlier, you can go back to whatever it is chickenhawks do when they’re finished arguing GOP talking points. The game is over, you are on the wrong side and when we are looking for people to blame for the fall of American democracy we’ll be looking your way.
1. Peter: “Is at all possible that in the 8 months prior to the war that Hussein moved the WMD arsenal to, say, Syria?”
The answer is no ->http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/26/iraq.main/
2. So why aren’t we deploying miltitary to Darfur? That is going on right now, Saddam did the things you mention decades ago. Or maybe North Korea, where the Gov’t intercepts our food donations intended for the people and gives it to the soldiers, resulting in cannibalism in some vagabond groups of commoners due to the complete lack of food and shelter. We should probably do something about that since we’re so caring huh?
3. Connections to terrorists huh? How about the fact that George Senior was with a Bin Laden the day of Sept. 11th. You wanna talk about terrorist connections? Look to Crawford, TX.
4. The issue with the misquote of money spent on Iraq happened during the debates. Kerry misspoke and said a larger number then what was actually spent. Perhaps Bush himself did not say this, but republican partisans did. Therefore in the next debate Kerry corrected himself.
5. We sold weapons to Iraq, that is why they knew they had them, Rumsfeld has the invoice in his filing cabinet. However, little know that we actually destroyed most of them in bombing attacks back in 91.
6. Wow, bad point here. Richard Clarke was workig for the administration, therefore he was following orders when he let the Bin Ladens leave. This order was handed down from above.
I implore you my friend to just simply consider the other’s sides point of view, and ask yourself “Hmm, what if, hypothetically of course, they are actually right on some of this stuff?” Instead of choosing a team and making up your mind before you hear the issue, how about actually reading all available facts, let it swirl around in your brain for awhile, take into account political affiliations and try to put yourself in the minds of the players. Then actually form a real opinion using your own brain. And when you are proven wrong, simply admit you were wrong, and be a man about it. Don’t be a Bill Frist. Don’t get proven wrong and then when the facts come out, deny it all and then smear the people you proved you wrong. That’s stupid, be on the side of facts, period.
You are right about some of this and you are dead wrong about others. Same with everyone on this post. You simply haven’t convinced anyone that you are right yet, but you have been proven wrong on some issues, so just admit it.
This is all really a testament to the power of political culture.
Peter, and others who support the war, refuse to face the evidence of deception, not out of rationality or a cold look at the facts, but out of a sense of attachment and loyalty to their political culture.
Having said that, I am aware that the same charge can be leveled at many people who are against this war.
Nonetheless, for the reasons mentioned above by such people as Dan and Jason, George Bush lied to the American people when he claimed that he hoped to avoid war.
I’ll admit that Saddam was vicious and in violation of UN resolutions. I’ll even admit that the US had rational geopolitical reasons for taking him out.
But that does not change the fact that Bush lied to the American people.
If you like, you can argue that a President lying to the American people in order to bring the country into war is sometimes necessary.
I don’t buy it, but you can argue that.
Micheal L. & Brandon:
It is pointless, utterly pointless, to talk to you two. Neither of you presents anything even remotely resembling a fact.
Brandon. you seem to get your info from MIchael Moore, and that automatically disqualifies you from any reasonable arguement in my book. Your red herring about Darfur is something that I simply won’t chase. Your citation of Clarke and Bush with bin Laden is just flat-out wrong. You refer to a weapons deal made in 1984 that relates in no way to the events of today. Period.
Listen, I voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996. I voted for Gore in 2000. Hell, I voted for Dukakis in 1988. I have heard your side. I have been on your side. I agree with Dems on many issues. But you’re just dead wrong on this one. Dead wrong. You’re relying on rhetoric, trumped up conspiracy theories and very little fact. The facts are not on your side.
I won’t listen? What about you? I’ve yet to see any Libs disprove my facts with theirs. Please, give me links from credible and verifiable sources. I promise I’ll listen. But until then…
Dan:
You remain and shall always be an intellectual midget.
I’m not a lib you jerkoff. This is not a black or white issue, you can’t be simply right or simply wrong. You don’t get that. I think Michael Moore is a left-wing nut case, but he’s got a few good points. You on the other hand think that just because he’s a liberal makes him inherently wrong. That is how 90% of the country is, either the left or the right, but the truth lies in the middle. Red Herring? Actual genocide in 2005 is a red herring topic??? Saddam hadn’t done shit to us since 9/11, had no weapons and posed no imminent threat. So how the hell do you explain sending our troops, who half consist of national guardsmen, to Iraq to battle an insurgency of a post war that did not have to happen, while a real humanitarian issue is at hand and we don’t have the personnel to do anything about it. Not that Bush would anyways. Mission accomplished!
I never said you need to listen you dipshit. I said you need to realize that parts of the left are correct and parts of the right are correct, not one or the other. I am not going to waste my time verifying stuff that you can do yourself. But the fact is you won’t because you don’t want to know the truth, because it doesn’t fit your views. And of course now you will use 1 or 2 things I may have gotten wrong (I threw in some stuff for your enjoyment, and you responded perfectly republican) to smear my character using assumptions I’m a liberal, that I don’t fact-check, blah blah. Go for it bitch (I dare you not to comment on my infantile remarks, bet you can’t). Bush’s numbers are dropping for a reason, all of the crap you spew is for nothing if the middle of the country doesn’t agree.
Again I’m not a Democratic, your assumptions is just stupid. The Democrats are NOT dead wrong on this one though, YOU ARE. This war accomplishes nothing, and only hurts us.
Answer me this question: When this war is over and our troops come home and Iraq is running itself freely without any help from us, what have we as American people gained from it?
Don’t give me some shit about us being safer either, because that is simply untrue. It has been categorically proven that Saddam posed less of a threat than other countries. I know the answer, there’s only 1. Come on buddy, just say it.
I’m looking into the magic 8-ball…….I predict a cop out.
Can you believe some of what these guys are saying. They pretend it was a “hearing” but all it really was is a meeting of the “Congressional Anti-Semite Caucus”.
Dan:
You’re a feckless crapweasel. And not worth my time. Enjoy your life of ignorance.
Brandon:
Ditto.
Right on cue. If you can’t win, smear right? So predictable. Enjoy Hannity tonight you red sheep.
Wait a minute…You can’t answer this question?
When this war is over and our troops come home and Iraq is running itself freely without any help from us, what have we as American people gained from it?
Wait…You can’t answer this question then?
When this war is over and our troops come home and Iraq is running itself freely without any help from us, what have we as American people gained from it?
Peter,
The truth hurts my friend, maybe if you’re a good boy and you show a little remorse we’ll forgive you for your:
greed
ignorance
evil
…I don’t see any other alternatives if you still support Bush. Sorry wingnuts.
Well since Peter pointed to the Duelfer report and the Kay report as evidence to support his assertions, I would recommend he reread the conclusions of both and that he pay close attention to detail.
From the Duelfer report (conclusions section):
Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability – which was essentially destroyed in 1991…
(that means there were no longer any WMD, try convincing any sane American that the Bush administration tried to take us to war based on “Saddam wanted to recerate Iraq’s WMD capability”, they’d laugh you out of the room)
Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy.
(Not attacking the US)
The former (Hussein) regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions.
(nuff said on the Duelfer report).
From David Kay himself:
Dr. Kay said the fundamental errors in prewar intelligence assessments were so grave that he would recommend that the Central Intelligence Agency and other organizations overhaul their intelligence collection and analytical efforts. Dr. Kay said analysts had come to him, “almost in tears, saying they felt so badly that we weren’t finding what they had thought we were going to find — I have had analysts apologizing for reaching the conclusions that they did.”
I would suggest that before you use something as evidence to support a fact, you investigate the details so as not to look foolish.
I’d like to point out that there are some things that we all can agree upon: 1)”Fightin” John Kerry really was a war hero 2)Bill Clinton never did inhale 3)Hillary Clinton was only borrowing the furniture from the Whitehouse 4)Ted Kennedy knows American values like he knows the bottom of
a Jim Beam bottle and 5)Sadaam Hussien didn’t present a threat to the U.S.
John Kerry at least had the balls to take his gazillionaire Brahmin ass to Vietnam, more than we can say for our fearless misleader.
Bill Clinton considered terrorism his highest priority as he was leaving the WH. He briefed the incoming administration on that concern, all details are in Richard Clarke (R – 25 years of service to our country) The Bushies let their guard down and we all know what happened after that. Clinton’s been gone too long for wingnuts to continue to berate him. The current mess belongs to George “two-terms mandate” Bush (to steal a phrase from Lawton Smalls).
Hillary Clinton has more brains and decency in a single stand of her hair than the entire Bush admin posesses.
Ted Kennedy could take his fat billionaire ass and sit on the beach on Cape Cod drinking Chivas and getting his pole smoked. Instead, he stays in DC and fights for the little guy. Day in, day out as all Kennedy’s have for two generations.
Saddam Hussein didn’t present a threat to his next door neighbor. If he had, the Iraqi military would have gotten at least ONE fighter plane off the ground when he was invaded. He would have deployed SOME semblance of a counterattack as the US military marched toward Baghdad. Didn’t happen. Case closed.
It’s painfully apparent from this thread that there are people who just don’t want to deal with the facts. “Peter” has been provided with links and sources and just doesn’t want to hear it. The more rational the argument against him, the more he jams his fingers in his ears and goes “LALALLALALALALALA!!! NOT LISTENING!!!”
I’d say somebody get that man a copy of “THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES”, but I know nothing will change his mind. So, the hell with him. If he doesn’t want to open his eyes like a free person, like a real American, the hell with him.