Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Larry Johnson: "Like a passenger who just leaped from the Titanic into

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-05 11:35 PM
Original message
Larry Johnson: "Like a passenger who just leaped from the Titanic into
... the icy waters of the North Atlantic, George Bush is frantically looking for a rescue boat. Understandably he keeps pointing at the dinghy nearby—i.e. last year’s report issued by former Senator Chuck Robb and Judge Laurence Silbermann under the title, Final Report on Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. However, that boat don’t float too good and Bush’s credibility will continue, along with his Presidency, to sink beneath the weight of lies used to bamboozle America into a preemptive war.

<clip>

The CIA analysts consistently warned the Administration that the info the Brits had also was unreliable and the reports of Iraq trying to get their hands on a nuke were wrong. The director of WINPAC at the CIA, Alan Foley, repeatedly warned NSC official Robert Joseph not that the Niger claim was unreliable. Undeterred Joseph inserted the bogus 16 words into the President’s 2003 State of the Union Address.

But the policymakers did not want to hear it. In fact, Don Rumsfeld and his minions were briefing TV and newspaper pundits just two weeks before the President's 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium in Niger.

Here is the bottomline. There is no such thing as perfect intelligence or perfect analysis. However, we do not serve the security of this country by perpetuating the myth that we went to war in Iraq because a couple of analysts believed Saddam's acquisition of aluminum tubes was part of a secret program to build a nuke. Going to war was and remains a political decision made by a President.

From Cooking the Books and Politicizing Intelligence on November 14, 2005

More at the link:

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/11/cooking_the_boo.html


Senator Kerry said many important things today, but among them, I think the following need to be read, and read again:

When the President tried to pretend on Friday that the Intelligence Committee had already determined that he had not manipulated intelligence and misled the American public, he knew full well that they have not yet reported on that very question — that is why Democrats were forced to shut down the Senate and go into closed session to make the Republicans take this issue seriously. When the President said that his opponents were throwing out false charges, he knew all too well that that these charges are anything but false.

<clip>

The bottom line is that the President and his Administration did mislead America into war. In fact, the war in Iraq was and remains one of the great acts of misleading and deception in American history. The facts are incontrovertible. The act of misleading was pretending to Americans that they hadn’t made a decision to go to war, and would seriously pursue inspections when the evidence strongly suggests that they had already decided to take out Saddam Hussein, were anxious to do it for ideological reasons, and hoped that inspections, which Vice President Cheney had opposed and tried to prevent, would not get in their way.

<clip>

The facts speak for themselves. The White House has admitted that the President told Congress and the American public in the State of the Union Address that Saddam was attempting to acquire fuel for nuclear weapons despite the fact that the CIA specifically told the Administration three times, in writing and verbally, not to use this intelligence. Obviously, Democrats didn’t get that memo. In fact, similar statements were removed from a prior speech by the President, and Colin Powell refused to use it in his presentation to the UN. This is not relying on faulty intelligence, as Democrats did; it is knowingly, and admittedly, misleading the American public on a key justification for going to war.

This is what the Administration was trying so desperately to hide when it attacked Ambassador Wilson and compromised national security by outing his wife.

<clip>

If the President wants to use quotes of mine from 2002, he might look at the ones that were not the result of relying faulty intelligence and trusting the President’s word. As I said in my floor statement before the authorization vote: “If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day…Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible.”

In my speech at Georgetown on the eve of the war, I said: “the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don’t have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people…We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult…I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.” Today our troops continue to bear the burden of that promise broken by this Administration.

Link:

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1145


"It IS Tribunal Time in the United States of America."

I call upon every legitimate member of the legal and law enforcement professions in the United States of America to bring Bush, Cheney, and their fellow neoconster criminals before the first (and, hopefully, only ever) American War Crimes Tribunal and hold them accountable before the law.


Peace.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-05 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks for posting.....
No one put a gun to Dimson's head and said invade. He did that all by himself. He, alone, shoulders that responsibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-05 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. Recommended!
bush is responsible for the killing and maiming of our Soldiers and all the deaths and maiming of the innocent Iraqis. And this has to stop..I don't care what the little monster is out there catapulting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-05 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. thanks for posting.....
i well up everytime i re-read senator kerry's words. i wish this message could have gotten thru the MSM a year & a half ago...we might be moving in a whole different direction today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-05 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
4. Larry Johnson is excellent
Thanks for sharing!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Theduckno2 Donating Member (905 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 12:19 AM
Response to Original message
5. Bush made "his" case for war in Iraq and then acted on it.
His case didn't reflect the truth on the ground and now he is trying to hide behind those he bamboozled. Thanks for posting! Recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
6. Larry Johnson was a Fox contributor until he stopped agreeing
Once he started talking about problems in the Iraq war, they quit having him on.

He's been money on this thing.

Kerry quotes are good, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wetzelbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. yeah, because he's his own man, something most of those clowns
would never understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. i don't think he ever toed the line with them
i remember him from the days of the anthrax attacks. he was saying that based on the victims the attacker is probably a right wing anti govt type.

i was surprised because i expected him to spew some shit.

of course that's why he didn't last on there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wetzelbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
7. we need more Repubs like Larry Johnson...
that guy is one sharp cookie.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. i didn't know he was a Republican
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wetzelbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. moderate obviously
he's been pissed about the Plame thing though, for good reason. So he's been after Bush for a few years now.

He does seem nonpartisan in certain ways. Probably more independant than anything, just an honest guy who is fighting the good fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Yes. He is a life-long registered Republican and American patriot.
That is why I have insisted, time and time again, that the issues confronting this Nation as a result of Scalia and SCOTUS, in December, 2000, enabling Bush and the neoconsters to illegitimately take control of the Republic transcend all partisan categories.

Larry Johnson, and many others, have realized for some time that we are fighting an evil, dark, theocratic endeavor to usurp and utilize the American platform for vast imperialism -- the culmination of Ike's worst vision of militaristic corporatism.

"It IS Tribunal Time in the United States of America."


Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wetzelbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. oh a real Republican would have nothing to to do with these guys
Somebody like Ike would have stooge-slapped Bush, Rove and Cheney. Not even in his class at all.

Yes, you are dead on. His last address he specifically mentions the undo influence of the military-industrial complex. He'd be sickened by war profiteering as blatant as the kind we have now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. Heck, even Nixon would stooge slap these guys
He was a boy scout compared to the Neo Cons in charge now. And, back then there were plenty of Republicans in Congress who would speak out even if their own party was in the bad. Nowadays, Republican party loyalty is more important than loyalty to country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. Yes. Authentically American!
Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
11. NYT Editorial: ..but it is Mr. Bush and his team who are rewriting history
<clip>

The president and his top advisers may very well have sincerely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But they did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections. We need to know how that happened and why.

Mr. Bush said last Friday that he welcomed debate, even in a time of war, but that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." We agree, but it is Mr. Bush and his team who are rewriting history.

From Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials
by the New York Times Editors on November 15, 2005

Link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/opinion/15tue1.html?hp=&pagewanted=print


Folk at the NYT must be getting mightly anxious over the major role their rag contributed to the Bush, neoconster propaganda effort responsible for 1000s of lost lives and an expanding human and infrastructure tragedy in the Middle East.


Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. There are many in the MSM who appear to have buyers remorse. While I
am glad many are beginning to raise important questions, they must still face their role in allowing this ugly chapter in American history to have happened in the first place. They hold responsibility for purporting false information and for not asking tough questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 01:06 AM
Response to Original message
15. Continuing the analogy
Bush is the rich guy disguised as a woman stealing a seat in the lifeboat but getting found out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 03:24 AM
Response to Original message
17. "Bush's War" (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
18. Impeachment is required.
Bush and Cheney lied to get this country into an unnecessary war. The cost in lives, dollars and America's reputation is staggering.

If this Congress won't impeach, we need to elect one next year that will.

Can anything be more clear cut?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
19. Thomas Oliphant: Bush's magnificent deception
November 15, 2005

WASHINGTON -- JUST FOR the record, the polling numbers President Bush claims not to read show the following with regard to the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003: According to The Wall Street Journal-NBC News survey last week, 57 percent of the sample believe Bush deliberately misled the country on the way to war, more than 20 points above the numbers asserting he was straight with the country.

In denying the charge, however, it is fascinating that the White House spin machine has avoided giving examples of its nuanced rhetoric on the subject of the alleged threat posed by Iraq at the time in order to make its case to a skeptical public. That's because there aren't any.

Instead, there has been an entertaining chorus of claims that the charge is false but that everybody else did it -- other countries' intelligence services, assorted politicians in this country (especially Democrats). Lacking a defense, Bush's operatives have sought to construct a Potemkin universe of intelligence dupes.

In this blizzard of disinformation, though, the unique nature of Bush and his top advisers is conveniently overlooked. Everyone else in the world with the possible exception of Tony Blair recognizes the corollary to the now-accepted wisdom that Iraq possessed no unconventional weapons and posed no threat to the United States worthy of adjectives like grave, imminent, or even serious.

<clip>

More at the link:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/11/15/bushs_magnificent_deception?mode=PF


It's simple. Bush lied, totally and willfully.


Peace.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
22. Rob Cordry: 'Bush is focused on how to mislead us out of war'
Blogged by David Edwards on 11/15/2005 @ 10:50am PT at Brad Blog including video links:

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002018.htm

Excellent.


Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. That was a GREAT segment! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
23. E J Dionne Jr: "Mr. President, it won't work this time."
Edited on Tue Nov-15-05 03:01 PM by understandinglife
<clip>

The bad faith of Bush's current argument is staggering. He wants to say that the "more than a hundred Democrats in the House and Senate" who "voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power" thereby gave up their right to question his use of intelligence forever after. But he does not want to acknowledge that he forced the war vote to take place under circumstances that guaranteed the minimum amount of reflection and debate, and that opened anyone who dared question his policies to charges, right before an election, that they were soft on Hussein.

By linking the war on terrorism to a partisan war against Democrats, Bush undercut his capacity to lead the nation in this fight. And by resorting to partisan attacks again last week, Bush only reminded us of the shameful circumstances in which the whole thing started.

<clip>

From Another Set of Scare Tactics By E. J. Dionne Jr., Tuesday, November 15, 2005; A21

Link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/14/AR2005111401018_pf.html


Piling threats and more lies onto crimes and the lies that were used to hide and commit the crimes, is not a sustainable policy -- Bush and the neoconsters are about to learn that fact the hard way.


Peace.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
24. Fred Kaplan: "I Was Wrong, but So Were You - Parsing Bush's new mantra."
Edited on Tue Nov-15-05 03:11 PM by understandinglife
<clip>

For instance, in the late 1950s, many senators thought President Dwight Eisenhower was either a knave or a fool for denying the existence of a "missile gap." U.S. Air Force Intelligence estimates—leaked to the press and supplied to the Air Force's allies on Capitol Hill—indicated that the Soviet Union would have at least 500 intercontinental ballistic missiles by 1962, far more than the U.S. arsenal. What the "missile gap" hawks didn't know—and Eisenhower did—was that the Central Intelligence Agency had recently acquired new evidence indicating that the Soviets couldn't possibly have more than 50 ICBMs by then—fewer than we would. (As it turned out, photoreconnaissance satellites, which were secretly launched in 1960, revealed that even that number was too high; the Soviets had only a couple of dozen ICBMs.)

So, yes, nearly everyone thought Saddam was building WMDs, just as everyone back in the late '50s thought Nikita Khrushchev was building hundreds of ICBMs. In Saddam's case, many of us outsiders (I include myself among them) figured he'd had biological and chemical weapons before; producing such weapons isn't rocket science; U.N. inspectors had been booted out of Iraq a few years earlier; why wouldn't he have them now?

What we didn't know—and what the Democrats in Congress didn't know either—was that many insiders did have reasons to conclude otherwise. There is also now much reason to believe that top officials — especially Vice President Dick Cheney and the undersecretaries surrounding Donald Rumsfeld in the Pentagon — worked hard to keep those conclusions trapped inside.

President Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said today that the arguments over how and why the war began are irrelevant. "We need to put this debate behind us," he said. But the truth is, no debate could be more relevant now. As the war in Iraq enters yet another crucial phase—with elections scheduled next month and Congress finally taking up the issue of whether to send more troops or start pulling them out—we need to know whether the people running the executive branch can be trusted, and the sad truth is that they cannot be.

More at the link:

http://www.slate.com/id/2130295?nav=wp


They will not escape their lies or their lethal, illegal deeds.


Peace.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
25. "The President's taking us into the war and saying that so many Democrats
... supported him would be like my setting fire to a building, and validating my actions at my trial by saying “but your honor, yes I did it, but many of my friends thought that it was a good idea, so how can I be blamed?”

THE PRESIDENT WAS/IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING OUR COUNRY INTO THIS WAR. Not John Edwards, not John Kerry, and not any other Democratic that supported the resolution. The war was undertaken under his authority, and is his responsibility, and his responsibility alone. Quoting from the Senate resolution “…The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to…” He was authorized to, not ordered to go to war.

The administration and the Congress received “bad information” from the CIA. Isn’t the CIA failure the responsibility of the Executive branch of government? Notwithstanding all of this, the President had ALL of the information, the Congress less than that.

The war that we are in has been orchestrated by the Secretary Of Defense and has gone badly. Isn’t the Secretary of Defense responsible for this? Isn’t the Executive branch of the government responsible for this as well?

<clip>

From The Buck Should Stop You Know Where by Norman Horowitz on November 15, 2005

More at the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-horowitz/the-buck-should-stop-you-_b_10695.html


Doesn't get any clearer than this.

"It IS Tribunal Time in the United States of America." -- I call upon every legitimate member of the legal and law enforcement professions in the United States of America to bring Bush, Cheney, and their fellow neoconster criminals before the first American War Crimes Tribunal and hold them accountable before the law.


Peace.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
27. Rep Waxman: Iraq On The Record
An important, searchable resource:
http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord


Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC