Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (54815)	7/17/2004 9:19:12 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793919

The doubletalking from the left right now on Iraq is really out of hand. Good fisk by Just One Minute Blog. I Ignored Bush's Lies (But Supported the War Anyway) Dianne Feinstein provides a fascinating alternative view on the question of manipulated, confusing, or misunderstood intelligence on Saddam's nuclear capabilities and aspirations. Writing her separate opinion in the SSCI report (p. 483), she said this about the intelligence on Iraq's nuclear program: "I think it is clear that there was not an ongoing nuclear program. In August of 2002, prior to the vote in the Senate on the authorization to go to war, I spent a day in Vienna at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA is the agency that runs nuclear inspections; they saw no signs of a nuclear program in Iraq. The IAEA convinced me that there was no on-going nuclear program in Iraq. The intelligence reporting on a possible Iraqi nuclear program did not have an impact on me, because I did not believe it was correct." So, she didn't believe the lies (and neither does she suggest anyone is lying, but I am employing a bit of literary flair here.) We wonder - what did she say about the war resolution in October 2002 when she voted in favor of it?: "...For the past 11 years, Saddam Hussein has prevaricated, manipulated, deceived and violated every agreement he has made to disarm. If the past is prologue, this record means that arms inspections, alone, will not force disarmament. The great danger is a nuclear one. If Saddam Hussein achieves nuclear capability, the risk increases exponentially and the balance of power shifts radically in a deeply menacing way. As I said on this floor in earlier remarks, I believe that Saddam Hussein rules by terror and has squirreled away stores of biological and chemical weapons. He has used them on Kurdish villages and in his invasion of Iran. Evidence indicates that he is engaged in developing nuclear weapons. However, today the best authorities I could find indicate he does not yet have nuclear capability. But this is only a question of time. And we cannot let Saddam Hussein become a nuclear power." My goodness. Even though she saw through the smokescreen of the Bush-Cheney lies, she thought Saddam was a long term nuclear threat and supported disarming him. Go figure. Is Ms. Feinstein hopelessly out of the mainstream or is she still a serious figure in her party? And somewhat parenthetically, we note that Ms. Feinstein apparently succumbed to the Wolfowitz mind-rays for much of the rest of her statement - she entertains us below. I shouldn't even comment (but I do): "I have come to the floor to state that, after much deliberation, I have decided to vote for the Resolution introduced by Senators Lieberman, Warner, Bayh and McCain. ...Although the ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda are tenuous, there should be no question that his entire government is forged and held together by terror..." Wait, is she some sort of Cheney puppet, implying a terror linkage that we all know isn't there? "...While the distance between the United States and Iraq is great, Saddam Hussein's ability to use his chemical and biological weapons against us is not constrained by geography - it can be accomplished in a number of different ways - which is what makes this threat so real and persuasive. " "Real and persuasive" sounds like "imminent" - we are appalled by her hyperbole and theatrics. Disarming Iraq under Saddam Hussein is necessary and vital to the safety and security of America, the Persian Gulf and the Middle East - let there be no doubt about this. OK, but will you and your party doubt that later, I wonder? "I deeply believe that it is vital for the U.N. Security Council to approve a new, robust resolution requiring full and unconditional access to search for and destroy all weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, the Security Council has not yet taken this action. Nor do we, at this time, know if they will. If one believes Iraq is a real threat, and I do, and if the United Nations fails to act, then the only alternative is military action led by the United States. " Leading a fraudulent coalition? Wonders will never cease. MORE: For a Kerry connection, let's try this: John Kerry has criticized the President for failing to grasp subtleties of the (flawed) National Intelligence Estimate, although we later learned he had not read the report himself. Asked about this by Don Imus, his answer was a bit of a jumble (or so we said). I imagine that Vienna is lovely in August. Had Sen Kerry joined Ms. Feinstein on her trip to the IAEA, perhaps he would not have said this on the Senate floor in Oct. 2002: "With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster?..." Seems like Senators say the same thing with or without believing our own intelligence services. July 17, 2004 \| Permalink TrackBack TrackBack URL for this entry: typepad.com