Not only does he not know Shi...

[Yonivore]

...'ite from Sunni; he was for the surge before he was against it.

Inside the Beltway

On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an "exclusive." And for good reason.

"In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq," the story began, Mr. Reyes "said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a 'stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.' "

"We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq," the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, "I would say 20,000 to 30,000."

Then came President Bush's expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes' recommendation and argument word-for-word -- albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.

Wouldn't you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.

"We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level," he said.

The chairman's "double-talk" did not go unnoticed. Among others, Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says such blatant "hypocrisy" undermines both national security and the war on terrorism.

Unfortunately for the new House intelligence chief, this is his second (some would argue his third) major blunder in the space of one month. When asked by Congressional Quarterly reporter Jeff Stein whether al Qaeda was a Sunni or Shi'ite organization, he answered: "Predominantly, probably Shi'ite."

As Mr. Stein wrote later: "He couldn't have been more wrong. Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shi'ite showed up at an al Qaeda clubhouse, they'd slice his head off and use it for a soccer ball."

The reporter added: "To me, it's like asking about Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: Who's on what side?"

In the same interview, Mr. Stein had asked Mr. Reyes about the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.

His now-infamous reply: "Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah? ... Why do you ask me these questions at 5 o'clock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?"

Is anyone detecting a pattern here?

Democrats declaring the presence of WMDs in Iraq before they called the president a liar for declaring the presence of WMDs in Iraq.

Democrats for regime change in Iraq before they were against it.

Democrats for invasion before they were against it.

Democrats for funding the troops before they were against it.

Now, Democrats for the surge before they were against it.

[clambake]

Has bush been reduced to accepting suggestions from a "Reyes" or anyone else, for that matter? Is that how far he has fallen?

[Yonivore]

Has bush been reduced to accepting suggestions from a "Reyes" or anyone else, for that matter? Is that how far he has fallen?

You've missed the point of the post. I don't believe Reyes was the only Democrat preaching that talking point in December. Pretty much across the board, Democrats were demanding a "surge" to battle the militias.

It was only after the President made the policy decision that it became a bad idea.

You can pretty much find the same phenomena surrounding every major decision made by the President in the past 6 years.

[boutons_]

Yoni tries to distract from the disaster his side has created Iraq by picking on the Dems while refusing to say any negative about the moral/intellectual/governance/diplomantic/competence/honesty blackhole in the WH.

dubya said he was "absolutely" winning in Iraq, now he says he's not winning.

head said, repeatedly for years, that Saddam and al-Quaida and WTC were connected, then dubya says there is NO evidence.

dubya says he The Decider and A Uniter, then can't make or change his decisions, and divides the country at every possible chance.

etc, etc, etc.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yoni tries to distract from the disaster his side has created Iraq by picking on the Dems while refusing to say any negative about the moral/intellectual/governance/diplomantic/competence/honesty blackhole in the WH.

dubya said he was "absolutely" winning in Iraq, now he says he's not winning.

head said, repeatedly for years, that Saddam and al-Quaida and WTC were connected, then dubya says there is NO evidence.

dubya says he The Decider and A Uniter, then can't make or change his decisions, and divides the country at every possible chance.

etc, etc, etc.

No Boutons don't you get it it's ok for Bush to flip flop, lie about the situation in Iraq..he's a republican.. now let's ignore that and claim the dems flip flop..

[Yonivore]

Wow, y'all can't even talk about Democratic hypocrisy!

[George Gervin's Afro]

Wow, y'all can't even talk about Democratic hypocrisy!

WOW YOU WON'T ACKNOWLEDGE THE REPUBLICANS ARE GUILTY OF THE SAME THING. I'LL MAKE A DEAL WITH YOU ADMIT BUSH FLIP FLOPPED AND I WILL ADMIT THE DEMS HAVE FLIP FLOPPED.

[Yonivore]

WOW YOU WON'T ACKNOWLEDGE THE REPUBLICANS ARE GUILTY OF THE SAME THING. I'LL MAKE A DEAL WITH YOU ADMIT BUSH FLIP FLOPPED AND I WILL ADMIT THE DEMS HAVE FLIP FLOPPED.

That's another thread...go start it.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Wow, y'all can't even talk about Democratic hypocrisy!

Yes, it was hypocrisy. Does that mean the war's over?

[Yonivore]

“We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Cons ution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”

--October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry—all Democrats

So, what changed between 1999 and 2003?

“This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction.”

What changed between August of '02 and March of '03?

“It is Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states.”

What changed between October '02 and March '03?

“Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he’s miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.”

Why did Kerry's Position change after March 2003?

"He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983.”

Was Sandy Pants wrong?

[quote=Carl Levin, 09/19/02]“We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
What caused Levin to lose his certainty?

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

Has she really changed her mind on this?

“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

Said after inspectors were run out of Iraq and before President Bush could start his campaign of mischaracterizing the intelligence. How's that possible?

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of ‘98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.”

Not a hint of doubt there.

[quote=Al Gore, 09/23/02]“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
This is from the former Vice President of the United States, someone in a position to know. Was he lying?

“I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain.”

Okay, he seems less certain here but, he appears to want to err on the side of caution, no?

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

What nuclear, chemical, and biological programs?

“In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program.”

“(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you’ll get a debate about whether it’s one year away or five years away.”

Well?

“With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues.”

Has Russ changed his mind on this? Why?

“Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It’s just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.”

“If you don’t believe...Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.”

Yet many of you stupidly did vote for him.

“I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he’s trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us.”

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

Again, a former Vice President who made similar statements before Bush was President.

“The (Clinton) administration has said, ‘Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?’ That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so”

And, this was before we had been attacked by terrorists. In that context, reigning in Saddam Hussein became even more imperative.

The only thing that changed between the time these things were said and when they started singing the exact opposite tune is that our President decided to act.

[Yonivore]

Yes, it was hypocrisy. Does that mean the war's over?

No, but it's sure been a of lot more difficult to prosecute with this type of hypocrisy being engaged in by Democrats.

[Oh, Gee!!]

No, but it's sure been a of lot more difficult to prosecute with this type of hypocrisy being engaged in by Democrats.

war crimes?

[George Gervin's Afro]

--October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry—all Democrats

So, what changed between 1999 and 2003?


What changed between August of '02 and March of '03?


What changed between October '02 and March '03?


Why did Kerry's Position change after March 2003?


Was Sandy Pants wrong?


Has she really changed her mind on this?


Said after inspectors were run out of Iraq and before President Bush could start his campaign of mischaracterizing the intelligence. How's that possible?


Not a hint of doubt there.


Okay, he seems less certain here but, he appears to want to err on the side of caution, no?


What nuclear, chemical, and biological programs?




Well?


Has Russ changed his mind on this? Why?




Yet many of you stupidly did vote for him.




Again, a former Vice President who made similar statements before Bush was President.


And, this was before we had been attacked by terrorists. In that context, reigning in Saddam Hussein became even more imperative.

The only thing that changed between the time these things were said and when they started singing the exact opposite tune is that our President decided to act.

Hmmmm I wonder who gave Congress the information regarding the Iraq threat.. seems to me the folks who presented the 'evidence' should be looked into..oh wait that was Bush and his cronies..nothing to look at just keep on moving. Yoni don't you dare deny that Bush has the authority to release only bits of information to Congress. If he wanted to paint a picture he could have easily done so. So if Congress voted on what Bush gave them then Bush was wrong.. but what the war is fun..


Look at all of the 1998 quotes Yoni used.. I hope Bush didn't rely on 5 yr old information to rush into this war because that would be irresponsible to not want up to date intel..unless he was going to war no matter what..

[Yonivore]

Hmmmm I wonder who gave Congress the information regarding the Iraq threat.. seems to me the folks who presented the 'evidence' should be looked into..oh wait that was Bush and his cronies..nothing to look at just keep on moving.

Really? Many of those quotes were made when Bush was still the Governor of Texas.

Yoni don't you dare deny that Bush has the authority to release only bits of information to Congress. If he wanted to paint a picture he could have easily done so. So if Congress voted on what Bush gave them then Bush was wrong.. but what the war is fun..

Look at all of the 1998 quotes Yoni used.. I hope Bush didn't rely on 5 yr old information to rush into this war because that would be irresponsible to not want up to date intel..unless he was going to war no matter what..

Well considering that Clinton forbid practice that would have allowed human intel from within Iraq and/or al Qaeda (remember that executive order that prohibited the CIA from consorting with known bad people), just how the was intelligence going to get any better between 1998 and 2003?

I think the President drew a logical conclusion. I also believe it will eventually prove to have been true.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Really? Many of those quotes were made when Bush was still the Governor of Texas.

Correct that was the intel at that time. We can agree that we had more up to date info. Of course you yould probably be ok with invading a country on 5 yr old inter.


Well considering that Clinton forbid practice that would have allowed human intel from within Iraq and/or al Qaeda (remember that executive order that prohibited the CIA from consorting with known bad people), just how the was intelligence going to get any better between 1998 and 2003?

Dealing with bad people? Bush ing relied on an Iranian spy as a primary source of information to invade Iraq! SO I guess we don't really need any information at all let's go rushung off into unecessary wars on a hunch!! woohoo!!


I think the President drew a logical conclusion. I also believe it will eventually prove to have been true.[/QUOTE]


Let's see.. He saw that there was no connection between the 9/11 attack and Saddam so he attacked.

No relationship between Al-Qaeda and Iraq so he attacked anyway

UN inspectors say he has no more wmds so he attacked anyway

Tells the world he wants war as last result invades in 6 weeks..

[clambake]

Hey Yoni. They urged clinton. Clinton made the right choice. That's what leaders do. They are expected to make wise decisions.

waiting for "blowjob bad decision comments"............

[George Gervin's Afro]

Hey Yoni. They urged clinton. Clinton made the right choice. That's what leaders do. They are expected to make wise decisions.

waiting for "blowjob bad decision comments"............

I don't think accepting a blowjob is a bad decision..

[ChumpDumper]

Many Democrats are spineless hypocrites. That's their problem.

Bush ed up the invasion and occupation. That's his problem.

[FromWayDowntown]

They urged Clinton, but urged him to make "air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites," not to enter into a full-blown ground war and occupation.

One might think that there would be a rather significant difference in degree there -- one that makes the pleas to Clinton and the rebuking of Bush perfectly understandable.

[Yonivore]

Many Democrats are spineless hypocrites. That's their problem.

Bush ed up the invasion and occupation. That's his problem.

I think the invasion pretty much went without a hitch.

[johnsmith]

Many Democrats are spineless hypocrites. That's their problem.

Bush ed up the invasion and occupation. That's his problem.

Well said. Except I think the invasion part was good, just not the occupation part.

[clambake]

What invasion? Wouldn't some resistance first be required to qualify it as an invasion? The real enemy has decided to show up and fight, and win. So who are we in this fight? Shiite=Iran, Sunni=Saudi, US in the middle, leaning which way?

At least everyone will consider our side the target.

[2centsworth]

Many Democrats are spineless hypocrites. That's their problem.

Bush ed up the invasion and occupation. That's his problem.

Thank you for having some intellectual honesty.

[ChumpDumper]

I think the invasion pretty much went without a hitch.

But you said all the WMDs got away....

[exstatic]

But you said all the WMDs got away....

That would be classified as a hitch. I think some antiquities and a load of cash "got away", too.