Administration to Fight Back

Wednesday, November 09, 2005
I'll believe it when I see it, but I found this at CNN:


Senior administration officials are working on what they call a "campaign-style" strategy to respond to stepped-up Democratic criticism that the Bush administration twisted intelligence in making the case for war in Iraq.

"You're going to see heavy and direct engagement from this administration," according to a senior administration official, who said there would be "an increased presence and willingness to be more aggressive in responding to Democrats."

The Democrats are making fools of themselves by disavowing involvement in a war we are obviously winning. The world has changed dramatically since March 19, 2003 and using arguments that only show how murky our knowledge was prior to Iraq makes it even more clear that deposing Saddam was necessary for our future security. We know what is happening in an important region in the Middle East whereas before it was just a black box of confusion, veiled threats, sinister motives, and deception from a country that had placed itself outside the norms of international order.

In Iraq al Qaeda does not have the protection of mountain valleys, forests, and caves from which to fight. And their desperation and fury at losing an Arab country to democracy has shown the world their cruel and inhuman face. And the vast majority of Iraqi people, whether sunni or shi'a, have shown al Qaeda, the muslim world, and us, that they won't put up with this nonsense.

Compare the awakening of the muslim world to the danger from within and the shame it brings to Islam to a murderous, savage, dangerous tyrant who kept his people and his activities in a box closed to outside eyes and the notion of arguing over a specific piece of pre-war intel becomes ludicrous.

50 comments:

mrp said...

Seriously OT (Sorry Syl, I'll comment later)

After reading Hugh Hewitt's latest posts, I did some googling on the Sony rootkit problem and found this fascinating article.

Sony rootkit investigation

Would one of you tech types put up a post on the subject, please?

Peter UK said...

It would be useful if the blogosphere would put up a list of all those Democrats who supported the war,perhaps starting with Clinton's Iraq Liberation Act.
Use the old "They were for it before they were against it" tactic.

markg8 said...

We welcome "heavy and direct engagement from this administration" if it means showing us the justification for their claims that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear weapons programs and was working with Al Qaeda.

They can start by putting Michael Maloof and David Wurmser on one of the Sunday morning gasbag shows to explain themselves.

I doubt they'll do any such thing. Smoke and mirrors and suggestions like Peter's are more their style. But it all boils down to the same thing. Repubs say Dems voted to disarm Saddam too. Dems say they were lied to about the evidence that sent us to war. The only way to
get to the bottom of this is to delve into why Cheney's boys got the intelligence so wrong. Let's see the sources for these claims. Why weren't CTEG's claims vetted by the rest of the US intel community?

Syl said...

mark

read the posting.

All you're fighting about is how murky our intelligence was before the war. It only proves that Saddam's disinformation and lies were working.

so what?

markg8 said...

Isn't the Democratic criticism of the murky intelligence what they plan to fight back against? Then why not take it on directly and put us in our place with all the intel that gave them "no doubt"?

topsecretk9 said...

About friggin time...

Dems say they were lied to about the evidence that sent us to war.

That only works if they are prepared to explain how they were lied to by the Clintonians as well. The phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was coined during those tumultuous times.

Knucklehead said...

Stephen Hayes identifies Ten documents the Bush administration should insist the intelligence community declassify.

Norman Podhoretz provides a useful outline for asking Who Is Lying About Iraq?

"MacRanger" of Macsmind has pointed out, over several days now, some interesting stuff that bears further investigation and yields some questions that should be asked of "officials from former administrations".

markg8 said...

In response to Hayes, yes, yes, yes! Get it all out there, the 10 documents and more. All of it.

It's about time the Administration lay it's cards on the table.

Syl said...

Mark

Isn't the Democratic criticism of the murky intelligence what they plan to fight back against?

No.

They're trying to prove that the intelligence was not murky and in fact was clear that Saddam didn't have wmd.

And thus they believe they were duped into supporting a war we are winning.

Knucklehead said...

Be careful what you wish for there, Mark. Several of those documents are about stuff that went on during St. Bill's administration. The Dems might not like that stuff much at all.

markg8 said...

"They're trying to prove that the intelligence was not murky and in fact was clear that Saddam didn't have wmd.

And thus they believe they were duped into supporting a war we are winning."

Huh? The Administration only has to provide clear supporting evidence for the intel they used to send Harry Reid scurrying back to his hole. The only reason there is any "murk" at all is because they refuse to declassify a bunch of evidence about people who are either dead or in custody, or ought to be like Chalabi.

And btw why is he being fetted by Condi Rice and AEI as I write this like he's some US ally? Wasn't it only 17 months or so ago his Baghdad office was being raided by the US Army and he was being accused of passing along classified info to the Iranians by the White House?

He's gonna be in the country at least thru Friday. Maybe the FBI ought to take him up on his offer from June '04 and question him before he skips town back to London or Tehren or wherever he lives these days. Nah, if they can't be bothered to talk to Rocco Martino about the Niger forgeries they can't bothered with Chalabi. Afterall he seems to be the preferred candidate for the Iraqi PM post by both the WH and the mad mullahs in next month's election.

markg8 said...

Then St. Bill will have to explain himself. And if it turns out he was cahoots with Bush to drive us to war in 2003 I promise on my honor to never vote for him for president again.

mrp said...

From the linked article:

"You're going to see heavy and direct engagement from this administration," according to a senior administration official, ...

One may fairly discount the predicted onslaught when the "senior adminstration official" (Cheney? Rove? Third-shift WH switchboard operator?) refuses to be named for attribution.

Not that making complete fools of the Dem leadership requires enormous political competence.

Knucklehead said...

Mark,

Clinton was far more likely in cahoots with Mark Rich, Demarais, Total, Strong, Power Corp, and the French yellowcake bakery all working dilligently, arm in arm with Don Kofi and rogue elements in the CIA and State, to keep the US from doing anything to disrupt the big money pipeline.

markg8 said...

I gotta hand it to ya knucklehead you sure can squeeze a whole mess o'crap into one sentence.

Say wasn't Scooter Libby Marc Rich's lawyer?

terrye said...

Mark:

Actually the Democrats have been lying their tails off here lately. Making all kinds of unfounded accusations. But the loonies love it.

I used to remember a time when Liberals worried about the little guy. You know the kind of people that guys like Saddam kill by the hundreds of thousands. No more. Now it is the opposite. Often as not a reactionary liberal is the mass murderer's best friend and leading aoplogist.

In fact liberals used to care about the environment, but the fact that Saddam did incredible damage to the ecosystem of Iraq is of no importance to them.

Liberals supposedly care about things like human rights and ethnic cleansing but they are indifferent to destruction of the Marsh Arabs or the well documented and infamous human rights abuses of Saddam Hussein.

In fact I have not seen liberals work this hard trying to defend a monster since Chomsky was singing the praises of and the Utopian Khmer Rouge. And how can we forget the Mao?

Of course the Democrats are part of the leadup to the Iraq war, if they were not Clinton would have walked away from dealing with Iraq years ago. But he did not and neither did the UN.

The truth is people would have believed in Saddam and his weapons whether Bush ever left Texas or not.

Maybe the left is sorry that the Butcher of Baghdad is not in business anymore. I am not.

I was ashamed that my country did nothing when a million Africans were slaughtered and I am glad that we did not turn our back on the people of Iraq.

I am also glad that we made it plain that when the UN passes a mandatory force resolution that means something and when the US signs a cease fire that means something and when some dictator tries to kill president that means something too.

Some people need to know there are limits.

One thing I do find interesting. To this day no one really knows what did happen to the weapons. The programs were still there, just like the centrafuges in the rose garden of a scientist. But there are still a lot of unanswered questions and people like Reid are not interested in the truth, they are just playing politics with war.

Peter UK said...

Mark Garrity,
Are Democrats saying they are so bloody stupid that they didn't realise that they "Were for it before they were against It"?
I'd take the fifth on that If I were you mark. Where in Arizona would you like the genuine Mona Lisa dropped off?
It is no use crying rape,after you married the man and had his kids.
"I didn't know what was happening until the fifth kid,yer Honour"

What kid of recommendation is being a gullible halfwit for Democratic government? Yes we know they qualify,but sheesh Mark,its a rough world out there,do you think this is really a vote winner? You've been Roved,either you are complicit or you are stupid.
Dumb and Democrat?

terrye said...

Is this the same Mark that got kicked off of Roger Simon's?

terrye said...

Peter:

It is worse than that. Democrats like Kenneth Pollack [of Clinton's National Security Council] did not just go along with the intelligence, they wrote books about how dangerous Saddam Hussein was.

Peter UK said...

"Say wasn't Scooter Libby Marc Rich's lawyer?

There you go again,Mark deduction by word association,are you sure you are 49? This is very childlike Reasoning.

Say didn't you support Clinton the Asprin Bomber?

Peter UK said...

Terrye,
Yes, the same Mark Garrity of Arizona who emailed this to Dennis the Peasant

Rick Ballard said...

Dumb and Democrat

Peter,

This is an ecologically sensitive blog so redundancy is discouraged. Every pixel is precious!

Peter UK said...

Rick,
Sorry, Dumbocrat.

terrye said...

I had almost forgotten Joseph Mailander.

Yes and there he was savaging Dennis for not goining up.

Does he know how old Dennis is?

Rick Ballard said...

Maybe Dwindlecrat. Dumbocrat might be considered accurate regarding the remainder but it's rather pejorative concerning the people who watched their party lurch ever leftward ubtil it disappeared from view.

Peter UK said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter UK said...

Oh Dear" Judith Miller has been SACKED!

Peter UK said...

Rick,
The Democrats have suffered from the same entryism that the British Labour party experienced with the Trotskyist Militant Tendency,they manage to expel them and reclaim the party for its true Leninist roots.
Until the democratic party rids itself of the Kossacks,haddocks,pillocks,moveon,moveoff
movesideways,clap your hands in the air,never got over the seventies hippies,trolls, orcs, arseholes who are perpetual students,and billionaire opportunists,it is never going to be home for normal human beings.

markg8 said...

Sure I wrote that to Dennis but as is his wont he inserted his own petty insults and screwed it up. Then he banned me because he just couldn't take unpleasant facts contradicting his rants. Ah well the versions I wrote the College Repubs were much better. You can read them at my Kos page.

markg8 said...

Peter why do you insist I'm from Arizona? Geez do you ever get anything right? I live in New Jersey and I'm originally from Illinois.

markg8 said...

terrye once again if you really cared about Iraqis you wouldn't support continuing the war in their country. Saddam's in prison. They've held two elections and our troops are too few to protect Iraqis and only inspire resistance. If you have to torture people to cooperate you're not winning. There's no reason to stay because anything we do only makes things worse. For every starry eyed Iraq the Model or tidbit of good news you dig up there are hundreds that you ignore that say the opposite.

Saddam killed most of his his victims back in the 1980s when he was an ally of them same guys you so adamantly support now. As a matte of fact one of the reasons Roger banned me is because I posted a list of bio and chemical weapons precursers Reagan/Bush 1 sold him. It was a long list. If I remember correctly they even sold him the Bell helicopters he gassed the Kurds with.

Peter UK said...

Mark,do you guarantee that this will improve as soon as the coalition withdraws?
You had better give us the benefit of your expertise so we don't make a mistake.
Is this your address so we can contact you?

Peter UK said...

"terrye once again if you really cared about Iraqis you wouldn't support continuing the war in their country. Saddam's in prison. They've held two elections and our troops are too few to protect Iraqis and only inspire resistance. If you have to torture people to cooperate you're not winning. There's no reason to stay because anything we do only makes things worse."

What fucking snake in the grass you are Garrity the only way you can think of ending this war is by losing,not winning it mind,that would not meet your anti-American agenda,you want a re-run of the ignominy and shame of Vietnam.
Despite all your mealy mouthed words you dont give a shit about the fate of the Iraqis.A can't make omlettes without breaking eggs man eh,anything as long as your wing of politics can seize power in the aftermath.You are no better than Stalin,Hitler or Pol Pot,what a scumbag.

Syl said...

Mark

You have NO facts. You haven't a clue what's going on in Iraq. You don't give a shit for the Iraqi people or you wouldn't spew nonsense just for the sake of argument.

If this were my blog, you'd be gone.

markg8 said...

No Peter that's not my address. Is that supposed to be some kind of intimidation tactic boy? What a goon.

No I guarantee nothing, nobody can. But I've already told you what I think the best and worst outcomes will be.

As someone here stated themselves, most Sunnis don't side with Zarqawi. I myself read a report last summer that gave me some hope the whole thing won't blow up into fullscale bloodbath after we leave. In one of those smaller Sunni towns south of the triangle, forget the name, soem Zarqawi goons posted a fatwa all around town calling for Sunnis to expell their Shia neighbors, a much smaller minority there, as retaliation for the same treatment in towns to the south. The Sunnis drove the goons out instead.

I suspect (and hope) Iraqis are more intregrated than the admin or anybody else gives them credit for. At least in some parts of the country. Part of Saddam's secularist legacy.

Regardless Zarqawi isn't going to take over and I don't think Saddam's old hoodlum buddies have a chance in hell either. Numbers aren't on their side.

The only way to end the insurgency is to get out and let the Iraqis decide for themselves what they want to do. If it resutls in civil war it'll probably be short and ugly with the Sunnis being put in their place.

But the result in the not so long run will be a Shia dominated government allied with Iran. All their leaders (the Kurds too) have gotten a tremendous amount of support for decades from Iran. US and UK guns and propaganda aren't gonna change that. But that's what you get with the will of the people in a democracy.

What does your crystal ball call thsi "success" you speak of? Let's hear the plan.

markg8 said...

I suppose the propreiters could ban me
but that's no way to build to readership. Ask Dennis the Peasant.

markg8 said...

Look folks the die has already been cast. Bush is going to start making a stab at bringing the troops home next year. Same with the Brits.

We have no choice. Our armies are not built for long hostile occupations. Even at the current 160,000 troops strength we can't provide security and in order to keep casualties down don't even try.

It's not going to be me, Harry Reid or even Cindy Sheehan who ends this war. It's the generals in the Pentagon who are telling Bush we have to go if we're going to maintain our volunteer Army.

Oh sure we'll declare victory, say the Iraqis are ready to take over, blah, blah, blah but it is what it is.

Peter UK said...

blah, blah, blah, indeed Mook

flenser said...

markg8

So to sum up, no matter when or under what circumstances the troops come home, you will declare it a defeat, correct?

Can you define what you would be willing to consider a victory?

flenser said...

syl

"If this were my blog, you'd be gone."

It's as much your blog as anyones. Banning people from blogger is difficult to impossible though.

We can simply delete all marks comments if he becomes too much of an annoyance.

Peter UK said...

"No I guarantee nothing, nobody can. But I've already told you what I think the best and worst outcomes will be."

And your specific expertise on this matter would be Mook?

You must glean a lot of geopolitical insight as you wash windscreens.

Peter UK said...

"US and UK guns and propaganda aren't gonna change that. But that's what you get with the will of the people in a democracy."

Your buddy Hitler was elected by the will of the people in a democracy - US and UK guns,definitely changed that!

Sometimes the Mookian view of the world just doesn't work out.

markg8 said...

What would I consider victory in Iraq? Leaving a peaceful prosperous capitalist democracy with guaranteed civil rights for women and minorities more allied to the West than Iran.

There was a chance of that happening if the occupation and reconstruction had been executed perfectly. Our slim chances of achieving those goals went out the window when Bush allowed the DOD to run the occupation instead of the State Dept
with their Future of Iraq plans and experts. I believe Wolfy and Rummy fired 17 out of 21 of those experts who were to run Iraq's ministries (may have been all of them but 17 sticks in the memory) for being Arab apologists just before the invasion started.

markg8 said...

Oh and who did the DOD send to run those ministries? Kids just out of graduate school, like Michael Ledeen's daughter, who applied for jobs in Iraq at the Heritage Foundation. A lot of these kids thought they'd be getting coffee for some general or top level administrator in the green zone who actually knew something about public works, security, civil government or at least a little Arabic.

No wonder there was as much or more Iraqi government money "misplaced" after the occupation began as Saddam skimmed from the Oil for Food program.

Peter UK said...

"Oh and who did the DOD send to run those ministries? Kids just out of graduate school, like Michael Ledeen's daughter, who applied for jobs in Iraq at the Heritage Foundation."

Another Mookian contradiction from one who wanted George Bush's daughters to go to Iraq.These kids wouldn't by any chance be Republicans would they?

markg8 said...

Sure I'd like to see Jenna and not Jenna join the Army and go to Iraq. But not to run whole ministries of a nation of 25 million people. They're not anymore qualified to do that than Ledeen's daughter.

Peter UK said...

Why not join the army yourself Mook,put your money where your mouth is,or do you prefer little girls to do the fighting for you?

Better still you are knocking on a bit,a failure,no future,not much use to society,why not go and interpose your body between the combatants.

markg8 said...

You're falling back on the same tired arguments Petey. You never did tell me how old you are. Have you ever served in the Queen's army? I'm not trying to bash you, just curious. And really go google Prescott Bush and Hitler.

Peter UK said...

Old arguments but true arguments.Mook you aren't one of those who believes google,anyone can get anything on there,have you a clue how to read historical sources?

markg8 said...

Petey when you see actual newspaper clippings written soon after the fact in 1942 that say the FBI raided offices in NYC and shut them down after determining they were aiding and abetting the enemy what do you think you're looking at?