Rumsfeld Clears Things Up

[andyfox]

Everytime someone in the administration talks about the fugitive WMDs, the president goes down in the polls. I'm no Karl Rove, but they should shut up about the WMDs and put out something every day about Hussein's cruelty. I m ean, it's now to the point where the president is trailing a botoxed New Englander with the personality of a tree and the charisma of a deck of cards.

Alas, up steps Don Rumsfeld to the rescue:

Rumsfeld offered several examples of what he called "alternative views" about why no weapons have been discovered in Iraq, starting with the possibility that banned arms never existed.

"I suppose that's possible, but not likely," he said.

Other possibilities cited by Rumsfeld:

- Weapons may have been transferred to a third country before U.S. troops arrived in March.

- Weapons may have been dispersed throughout Iraq and hidden.

- Weapons existed but were destroyed by the Iraqis before the war started.

Or, Rumsfeld postulated, "small quantities" of chemical or biological agents may have existed, along with a "surge capability" that would allow Iraq to rapidly build an arsenal of banned weapons. Commenting on that possibility, Rumsfeld said, "We may eventually find it in the months ahead."

Lastly, he offered the possibility that the issue of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction "may have been a charade" orchestrated by the Iraqi government. It is even possible, he said, that Saddam was "tricked" by his own people into believing he had banned weapons that did not exist.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and other Democrats on the committee reminded Rumsfeld that in September 2002 he said "we know" where weapons of mass destruction are stored in Iraq.

Explaining that remark, Rumsfeld told the panel that he was referring to suspected weapons sites, but he acknowledged that he had made it sound like he was talking about actual weapons.

The remark "probably turned out not to be what one would have preferred, in retrospect," he said.

A charade orchestrated by Hussein in order to get himself overthrown and arrested. A "surge capability" involving WMDs.

One hopes that these remarks probably turn out not to be what one would have preferred, in retrospect.

[adios]

Before we go another round on this I'll stipulate that all the alternatives mentioned by Rumsfeld are low probability scenarios. Furthermore this has obviously gone beyond being an embarassment and the process of getting to the truth to give an accounting of the reasons why and the lessons learned needs to unfold and it is. I read an article on Rumsfeld's testimony today and without observing it myself it does seem like he came off poorly. The hue and cry by some conservative Republicans is that Kerry and his ilk have relegated the CIA to being an impotent organization. Also these conservatives are saying that the US needs on the ground intelligence and that the Church led initiatives in the 70's went way too far. That's how the debate is shaping up, the Democrats are stating that the Republicans led by the Bush administration fabricated intelligence and the Republicans are stating that the Democrats are to blame for gutting the CIA. At least that's my take.

[ QUOTE ]
I m ean, it's now to the point where the president is trailing a botoxed New Englander with the personality of a tree and the charisma of a deck of cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your description of Kerry and that's basically my impression of him. I'd also state that just put him in front of a camera and you'll hear a tirade of campaign rhetoric. Kind of like a talking wind up doll. I've posted some unkind things about him as well. However, I think that the electorate does have a distinct choice between approaches to government in this presidential election. I read the George Will article posted by HDPM and it made sense to me believe it or not. However, I think that if Kerry wins the election we'll see 4 years of gridlock and if Bush wins we'll see the Bush agenda move forward.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
we'll see the Bush agenda move forward.


[/ QUOTE ]

As it needs to do. Bush is the One. Four more years.

-Zeno

[HDPM]

Surge capability is cool.

[Zeno]

This is disconcerting from a political point of view. For entertainment value it is on par with some the best utterances I have heard in many a year. A+, I say.

Bush is counting on his money and a blitzkrieg of ads for a ‘surge capability’ to catapult himself into the White House for another four years. He has my vote.

By the way, in a not too hectic 48 to 72 hours I could concoct a WMD by getting a few items from Walmart, the supermarket, and the local hardware store. Easy as pie. You could probably find any number of recipes on the web or in an old Weatherman handbook or other delightful publications. An effective and massive delivery system is a little harder to come by, but with some creative thinking and a little cash this could be overcome in a trice. It would be crude, but highly effective. Thank your stars I am a pacifist.

Why we haven’t been hit with another attack is a bit puzzling but the answer may be that the terrorists are concentrating so much on a repeat of their ‘big score’ that other means (which could be just as effective) are being bypassed or shoved aside - That and a bit more vigilance by the authorities. But I best say no more, someone may be listening and I could get into trouble.

-Zeno, The Gun Toting Pacifist and Misanthrope.

[jokerswild]

Bush has the personality of a spoiled rich kid that flunked kindergarten, and deserted the Texas Air National Guard. He drank and snorted cocaine until he was 40. That's what he did for a living. Then he discovered stock fraud with Harken Energy.

He's the anti-Robin Hood. He robs from the poor and middle-class to give to the rich.

Following your logic, he should immediately invade both Red China and Russia.

[adios]

Kerry came out in 1992 and defended Bill Clinton's lack of Viet Nam service.

web page

Some Kerry gems in 92:

On Feb. 27, 1992, Kerry defended then presidential candidate Bill Clinton against an attack by his Democratic rival Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.). As the primary season unfolded, Kerrey, who lost part of his leg in Vietnam, had peppered Clinton with uncomfortable questions about whether the Arkansan had evaded the draft.

Kerry hit back at his Senate colleague, saying: “I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way… What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be re-fighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary.”

Jan Scruggs, president and founder of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, attributed Kerry’s shifting position to political expedience.

“It was just smart politics,” said Scruggs. “Kerrey was a presidential candidate, and John Kerry was basically defending the guy who was going to win.”

In October 1992, Kerry again defended Clinton from remarks by President George H.W. Bush. In a television interview, the president had questioned Clinton’s involvement in anti-war protests while a Rhodes scholar at Oxford and a trip by Clinton to Moscow as a post-graduate student in 1969.

In prefacing his Senate remarks, Kerry recalled the words Bush had spoken four years earlier. “This is a fact: The final lesson of Vietnam is that no great nation can long afford to be sundered by a memory,” Bush then said.

Kerry proceeded to ask a series of biting rhetorical questions of Bush from the Senate floor.

“What has happened to the George Bush who made that statement?” Kerry asked.

“Why, President Bush, now do you choose to break another promise? Why do you choose to break your own statute of limitations?

“Why do you choose yourself to bring back the memory that only four years ago you said sundered this nation? Is your desire to hold office really so great that you would betray your own sense of decency and fairness? Is your desperation now really so great that you would adopt a conscious strategy of reopening and pouring salt on some of the most painful wounds that our nation has ever expected?

“You and I know that if service or non-service in the war is to become a test of qualification for high office, you would not have a vice president, nor would you have a secretary of defense, and our nation would never recover from the divisions created by that war.”

Then Vice President Dan Quayle served in the National Guard. Dick Cheney, then Defense secretary and now vice president, never served.

This is the same Democratic party that fought and won to have one day late absentee ballots cast by US military personal abroad who resided in Florida thrown out in the 2000 election. The Democrats pro military my ass. Again thanks for the Halliburton stock tip. It's up over 55% since you recommended it and it's paying a nice dividend as well.

[pretender2k]

We should systematically invade everyone of these countries for the same reason that we should have invaded Iraq. These people are inslaved and being killed when they step up against the government in controll. We should give them all the rights that the americans enjoy. They should be able to sit around on the couch and watch American Idol and go on Jenny Jones and Jerry Springer and talk about how they were abused. Of course that will only be good for use because it will just lead to a whole lot of people who use approxiamately 1% of their brain when they go online to play poker after watching WPT and loose their money to us and call it entertainment and talk about how it is all just luck.

[jokerswild]

That's the military industrial complex. Bush is a deserter, stock defrauder, and has no moral compass other than his own glorification. He will have to cheat again to defeat Kerry.

[jokerswild]