Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    On January 26, 1998, PNAC members (including Cheney & Libby) made a formal request to Clinton urging him to act militarily against Saddam, that 1998 letter provides some interesting details....


    The Honorable William J. Clinton
    President of the United States
    Washington, DC


    Dear Mr. President:


    We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

    The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


    Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


    Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

    We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

    We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
    Sincerely,


    * Elliott Abrams

    * Richard L. Armitage

    * William J. Bennett

    * Jeffrey Bergner

    * John Bolton

    * Paula Dobriansky

    * Francis Fukuyama (strangely enough -- Fukyama resignrd grom PNAC, but he still shows up here)

    * Robert Kagan

    * Zalmay Khalilzad

    * William Kristol

    * Richard Perle

    * Peter W. Rodman

    * Donald Rumsfeld

    * William Schneider, Jr.

    * Vin Weber

    * Paul Wolfowitz

    * R. James Woolsey

    * Robert B. Zoellick


    So the guy which even hard-core wing-nuts are blaming for being the original Plamer leaker is a do ented NeoCon. The you say...Loose lips Armitage was written off by the M$M as a neutral bungling idiot on the Plame leak. Here's a clue: He's not neutral. I always thought it was su ious that we would keep someone in such a sensitive position when everyone knew he could not be trusted with a secret, and frankly, I never bought it. Now you see the truth.

    Armitage is a closet neo-con. Just not so closeted in that he signed the do ents that out him. So how can any reasonable person continue to buy this image of a neutral Armitage? Or an Armitage that was on no ones particular side?

  2. #2
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    When Armitage got the blame, likely under marching-orders from the VP's office as a good little-Neocon, the M$M immediately stopped investigating and wing-nuts went into full spin mode blaming the 'neutral' Armitage, but inconsistencies in Libby's and Matt Cooper's testimony shows that Armitage could not have been the only original leaker and also that despite what the wing-nut media says, Libby's obstruction of justice prevented the complete investigation of likely violations of both the Intelligence Iden ies Protection Act and the Espionage Act



    Media still repeating false claim that Armitage role in Plame leak exonerates Libby

    Following President Bush's decision to commute the prison sentence for former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, media figures have continued to repeat the false claim that former deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's role as columnist Robert D. Novak's original source for Valerie Plame's iden y as a CIA operative proves Libby was not involved in the leak of her iden y. However, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, the fact that Armitage was the original source for Novak's column revealing Plame's iden y is not inconsistent with Libby's disclosure of Plame's iden y -- specifically, to then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller -- before the publication of Novak's column.

    On the July 3 edition of NBC's Today, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol claimed: "Scooter Libby does not deserve to go to jail. I would remind Joe Wilson that Scooter Libby did not leak Valerie Plame's name. Richard Armitage told Robert Novak, we now know, about Valerie Plame's name, so this was an investigation that should never have happened. There was no underlying crime." Kristol was referring to former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, Plame's husband, who reportedly issued a statement saying that "the president's actions send the message that leaking classified information for political purposes is acceptable" and that "Mr. Libby not only endangered Valerie and our family, but also our country's national security."

    As Media Matters has previously do ented, journalist Murray Waas noted in his book The United States v. I. Lewis Libby (Union Square Press, June 2007), Miller testified on January 30 that Libby had disclosed Plame's CIA employment to her at a July 8, 2003, breakfast meeting at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, D.C., well before Novak publicly revealed it in his July 14, 2003, column. As Media Matters has also noted, it is likely of little significance whether Libby disclosed Plame's name, as opposed to the iden y of Joseph Wilson's wife as a CIA employee, to a reporter.

    Then-Time magazine White House correspondent Matthew Cooper, in his first-person account of his testimony before the grand jury in the leak investigation, identified Rove as his original source for Plame's iden y and Libby as his confirming source.

    Roberts also failed to challenge Romney's assertion that what was "unusual" was Fitzgerald's "decision ... to investigate a case when he knew there was no crime that had originally been committed." In fact, during the October 2005 press conference announcing Libby's indictment, Fitzgerald said that it was Libby's obstruction that prevented the special counsel's office from determining if an underlying crime had been committed. Moreover, Fitzgerald, in his sentencing memorandum, stated that the investigation turned up substantial evidence indicating that the leak itself may have cons uted a crime:

    During its investigation, the grand jury obtained substantial evidence indicating that one or both of the foregoing statutes [the Intelligence Iden ies Protection Act or the Espionage Act] may have been violated. The evidence obtained by the grand jury, and later presented at trial, established that information concerning Ms. Wilson's CIA-employment was disclosed to multiple members of the news media, including Robert Novak, Judith Miller, Matt Cooper, Walter Pincus and Bob Woodward, none of whom were authorized to receive that information. The disclosures were made by multiple high-level government officials, including defendant. The evidence demonstrated that defendant, in particular, made the disclosures deliberately and for the purpose of influencing media coverage of the public debate concerning intelligence leading to the war in Iraq.
    Media Matters

  3. #3
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Post Count
    15,842
    Commuting Libby is an impeachable offense, since Libby, according to his lawyers, was the fall guy, the sacrificial goat, for the real criminals, head and dubya.

    So commuting is to coverup a crime. dubya/ head commute Libby's sentence to protect themselves. Libby obviously has a deal to STFU in return for not going to prison. Armitage is diversion, part of the coverup.
    Last edited by boutons_; 07-05-2007 at 08:14 AM.

  4. #4
    Retired Ray xrayzebra's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    9,096
    OMG, now dan and boutons have a whole new conspiracy to
    deal with......

  5. #5
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    OMG, now dan and boutons have a whole new conspiracy to
    deal with......
    Honestly, I don't know how they keep them straight. Probably has more to do with our unwillingness to undertake the tedious task of debunking them ad nauseum than it does with their ability to make sure they don't create competing conspiracies.

  6. #6
    I love J.T. smeagol's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Post Count
    11,756
    So guys such as Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz wanted to invade Iraq as early as 1998.

    So when they finally make it to the government they convince Geroge Puppet Bush to invade Iraq using phony reasons.

    Why am I not surprised?

  7. #7
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    So guys such as Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz wanted to invade Iraq as early as 1998.

    So when they finally make it to the government they convince Geroge Puppet Bush to invade Iraq using phony reasons.

    Why am I not surprised?
    And what phone reasons would those be?

    Because, all of the justification contained in the AUMF in Iraq, seem pretty real to me.

  8. #8
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Post Count
    15,842
    All the "reasons", including the primary one the Powell used before the UN to obtain Security Council compliance, ie, WMD, have proven to have been bull .

    Bringing democracy to Iraq wasn't that big of deal/priority BEFORE invasion because the Repugs/neo- s knew that it wouldn't fly with thinking people. It was only after ALL the other "reasons" were proven to bull , that the Repugs moved the goalposts towards "bringing Iraqi democracy".

    We've been over this 1000 times before. The intel was cherry picked and hyped with fear-mongering (mushroom clouds,etc). yes-man Tenet let himself be compromised (not that the mofo had many principles to be compromised, then he got his Medal of Freedom as payoff, then he got scapegoated, and all serious doubts on every bit of "intel" were classified and/or suppressed.

    Now the WH says "sorry about, we received BAD intel. Not our fault. It was Tenet fault" Although head went to CIA several times to get the CIA to give him the intel he wanted. The Brits told us that the intel was being "fixed up" to fit the invasion policy.

    The ONLY real objective of the Repugs/neo- s/PNAC/AEI was the grab for Iraqi oil. That's why the Repug priority now is to get that Iraqi oil agreement settled and to get the US/UK-oico revenue-sharing contracts written.

    The problem is that the security is so bad (they can't get the $700M US embassy builit), that the oil is not reachable.
    Last edited by boutons_; 07-05-2007 at 01:30 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •