Holy Shit On A Stick
Sep 13
This must be some sort of April Fool’s prank. Because I cannot imagine a world in which George W. Bush actually takes responsibility for a failing of his administration:
“Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government,” Bush said at joint White House news conference with the president of Iraq.“To the extent the federal government didn’t fully do its job right, I take responsibility,” Bush said.
*THUD* *shakes head* Wha happen, did I pass out or something? I must have.
This must be part of some sort of sinister new Rovian scheme that I just haven’t figured out yet. Maybe they’ll claim that the feds didn’t do as good a job as they should have in informing the states that they were on their own, since this isn’t the federal government’s job in Groverland.
But still, any admission of fault from these people — especially this president — is mind-boggling! Next thing you know, they’ll be saying “You know, maybe those ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda weren’t quite what we thought…”
Nah, who am I kidding…
#1 by Kevin T. Keith at September 13th, 2005
| Quote
He didn’t really take responsibility for anything.
“To the extent that . . .” there were problems, he was responsible - but there weren’t any problems. The administration has already begun implementing its offensive to declare that all problems were the result of state-level Democratic officials. When Bush gets done “investigating” himself, he’ll declare himself innocent but still get credit for having “taken responsibility”.
#2 by bill smith at September 13th, 2005
| Quote
Bush Supports Home-Bred Terrorists
The administration and the Bush appointed Justice Department are so obsessed with a foreign “war on terror” that they have chosen to look the other way concerning home-bred terror perpetrated by our own government officials against U.S. citizens.
Below is a quote from an American prosecutor that President Bush and Alberto Gonzales’s Justice Department believe is just fine,
“The last claim involves a statement made to attorney xxxxxxx warning that the defendant would be charged with additional crimes if he did not clam[sic] down. The statement is a reference to the defendant’s continued harassment of the victim and the investigating officer in this case through the court process. The defendant has filed a civil action against the victim because of his participation in this criminal case. The State is currently reviewing a contempt charge against the defendants because of this activity. The statement was a proper warning made through the defendant’s representative.”
This is an actual written quote from a powerful republican prosecutor filed in court documents. It is a federal crime to threaten someone for filing civil litigation in federal court or for their participation in federal civil litigation. Threatening someone with adverse consequences whether it be breaking their arm or threatening them with an illegal and frivolous criminal prosecution is known as extortion and obstruction of justice. The above open-ended threat also constitutes violation of the federal racketeering statutes and federal civil rights crimes. The fact that the criminals in this instance carry government issued badges and guns heightens the terror, which is now also approved by the President and Attorney General Gonzales.
A glance at the legal system’s own ethical cannons explain very clearly why threats of this nature against civil proceedings are forbidden and criminal,
…“ The civil adjudicative process is primarily designed for the settlement of disputes between parties, while the criminal process is designed for the protection of society as a whole. Threatening to use, or using, the criminal process to coerce adjustment of private civil claims or controversies is a subversion of that process; further, the person against whom the criminal process is so misused may be deterred from asserting his legal rights and thus the usefulness of the civil process in settling private disputes is impaired. As in all cases of abuse of judicial process, the improper use of criminal process tends to diminish public confidence in our legal system.” …
Obstruction of federal civil litigation by the government itself is not only a crime against individual victims, it constitutes an attack on the integrity of the federal court system signaling a demise of the rule of law and adversary court process in this country. This trend is advocated by the current administration and the Justice Department. The courts have become a powerful tool for the government to abuse and manipulate.
In correspondence, President Bush failed to respond to this issue. Alberto Gonzales and his Justice Department indicated that the conduct was fine and not even a civil rights violation. Senator Elizabeth Dole had an equally callous and unethical response to this crime targeting the federal courts.
The above quote constitutes the on-going threat of violent arrest and incarceration for exercising a right clearly protected by the first amendment –redress of grievances in federal court. Government threats of criminal retaliation for a citizen’s pursuit a civil claims in federal court is also an impermissible coercion tactic violative of Due Process.
Constitutional rights of our own citizenry must be secured before preaching abroad concerning foreign constitutions, rights and freedoms.
In the same series of correspondences, the President, Attorney General Gonzales and Senator Dole expressed no concern about the threats of violent arrest and incarceration targeting citizens for merely attempting to exercise the clearly established first amendment right to attend and observe courthouse proceedings. Secret courts are not a precept that should be sheltered or embraced by our President or the Justice Department.
While the above instances reveal how this country is evolving into a police state with zero concern for rights, liberties and freedoms, ironically, we hold ourselves up as the example for others to emulate. President Bush, lets get it right here before we attempt to impose our system on others. Our military is risking their lives in foreign lands to protect rights, freedoms and liberties that currently exist only on paper in this country. The politicians that have directed our troops to engage in foreign conflict are the very same individuals who have waged a war to undermine our constitutional rights within our own borders.
The willingness of those in power to inspire fear in the public with threats of political imprisonment for stating a position, filing a paper in court or merely attending a court proceeding is terrorism. The President and Justice Department’s willingness to allow these practices support and encourages further terrorism.
Alberto Gonzales’ Justice Department concludes that the above, “does not involve a prosecutable violation of federal criminal civil rights statutes [18 U.S.C., §§ 241, 242].”. See statutes below. In the United States today, the mere exercise of basic First Amendment rights is met with terrorist threats of arrest and political imprisonment reminiscent of Stalinist Russia while the courts have become government manipulated secret tribunals hiding the terror acts.
Bill Smith
North Carolina
bush_crimes –at– yahoo.com
This piece authored under a penname to avoid retaliation.
UNITED STATES CODE Title 18
Sec. 241. - Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death
Sec. 242. - Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death
#3 by SayUncle at September 13th, 2005
| Quote
Wow! It is out of character. Must mean something is coming.
#4 by Matthew Goggins at September 13th, 2005
| Quote
Hi Tgirsch,
But still, any admission of fault from these people — especially this president — is mind-boggling! Next thing you know, they’ll be saying “You know, maybe those ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda weren’t quite what we thought…”
Nah, who am I kidding…
Well, there were some ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, you know.
Here’s an analysis of ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda from the website Cox and Forkum. If you follow the link below to the Cox and Forkum website, you’ll be able to click on links in the original that will send you to supporting documentation.
“When Worlds Collude”
[Paste-in of Cox and Forkum stuff deleted for space -- see above link for original. -- TJG]
#5 by Matthew Goggins at September 13th, 2005
| Quote
And here’s a timeline from a year ago that summarized publicly available information about contacts between Saddam’s regime and Al Qaeda.
If you follow the link below to the Obsidian Order weblog, you’ll be able to click on links in the original to supporting documentation.
” Saddam and Al-Qaeda: A Timeline”
[Actual list removed for space, see link above -- TJG]
#6 by tgirsch at September 14th, 2005
| Quote
Matthew:
Do the words “cherry picking” mean anything at all to you? Iraq and al-Qaeda had no significant relationship, a point I have covered extensively before. Looking at the region, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan; of these countries, Iraq had by far the fewest ties to al Qaeda, and our intelligence agencies knew this (indeed, they even complained about it when the administration started trumping up those ties). And of course Zarqawi didn’t ally himself with al-Qaeda until well after we invaded Iraq, which goes to my argument that our invasion has increased Iraq’s al Qaeda activity substantially; we’ve essentially created an al Qaeda presence where none previously existed. But hey, that’s success, because we can fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here, right?
In fact, I’ve been able to link Kevin Bacon with al Qaeda more directly than Iraq was.
So I’m sorry, but your “links” are largely insignificant, greatly trumped up, and almost completely abandoned even by the administration you support. Most of the stuff on the Obsidian Observer list has been discredited by our own intelligence agencies. Basically, he throws up any rumor that helps his cause as if it’s confirmed true, when in fact most of them are false. Had you even bothered to read the comment on that post, you’d see a few examples of this (e.g., ties with a Kurdish separatist group in Iraq do not constitute ties to Iraq or to Saddam Hussein — quite the contrary).
Oh, and I would ask that you never, ever source Little Green Footballs on this site. At least, not if you want to be taken seriously.
#7 by Matthew Goggins at September 14th, 2005
| Quote
Hi Tgirsch,
Looking at the region, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan; of these countries, Iraq had by far the fewest ties to al Qaeda, and our intelligence agencies knew this (indeed, they even complained about it when the administration started trumping up those ties).
This is very true, I agree with you. And I thank you for conceding that Iraq did have a few ties to Al Qaeda. You are being much more candid than the New York Times or the non-Fox T.V. networks.
As you point out in your self-link, Saddam seemed to be more interested in supporting Zarqawi than Al Qaeda. But Saddam did seem to have a kind of non-aggression pact with Al Qaeda, along the lines of “I’ll trumpet your talking points about the Great Satan, and give you token material support from time to time, if you give me a pass in your Islamist sermons and recruiting videos.”
Moreover, the “cherry picking” does indicate a level of contact over the years that cannot be dismissed. Saddam had to keep his contacts with Al Qaeda absolutely top secret. To do otherwise would have handed the United States a casus belli on a silver platter, at a time when he was already in direct contravention of several terms of his Gulf War ceasefire agreement.
Look again at the Andrew McCarthy quote from Cox and Forkum:
This is clear — if anything in this regard can be said to be “clear” — from the staff’s murky but carefully phrased summation sentence, which is worth parsing since it is already being gleefully misreported: “We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.” (Italics mine.) That is, the staff is not saying al Qaeda and Iraq did cooperate — far from it. The staff seems to be saying: “they appear to have cooperated but we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that they worked in tandem on a specific terrorist attack, such as 9/11, the U.S.S. Cole bombing, or the embassy bombings.”
[...]al Qaeda is a full-time terrorist organization — it does not have the same pretensions as, say, Sinn Fein or Hamas, to be a part-time political party. Al Qaeda’s time is fully devoted to conducting terrorist attacks and planning terrorist attacks. Thus, if a country cooperates with al Qaeda, it is cooperating in (or facilitating, abetting, promoting — you choose the euphemism) terrorism. What difference should it make that no one can find an actual bomb that was once in Saddam’s closet and ended up at the Cole’s hull? If al Qaeda and Iraq were cooperating, they had to be cooperating on terrorism, and as al Qaeda made no secret that it existed for the narrow purpose of inflicting terrorism on the United States, exactly what should we suppose Saddam was hoping to achieve by cooperating with bin Laden?
Mr. McCarthy points out that a simple application of logic to the findings of the 9-11 commission leads one to conclude that Saddam appears to have supported Al Qaeda in its terrorism. Since this is not a good talking point for bashing President Bush, this conclusion is not given play at the NYT, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and elsewhere.
Do you disagree with Mr. McCarthy’s analysis?
#8 by NoMoreBush at September 14th, 2005
| Quote
Don’t be too stunned that Bush is taking responsibility. Kevin in post #1 has got it right — the responsibility he is taking is CONDITIONAL. And these were the people who gufawed aloud about Clinton parsing what the meaning og “is” is. Same story, different political party.
#9 by tgirsch at September 14th, 2005
| Quote
Matthew:
Actually, I consider the gap between “no significant ties to al Qaeda” and “no ties to al Qaeda” to be a distinction without a difference. It’s an easy shorthand to say there were no ties to al Qaeda, even if what you mean is “no ties to al Qaeda that anyone really cares about or thinks are important, especially as compared to the rest of the region.”
Essentially — and this is the conclusion that our own intelligence agencies drew, as well as those of several Western European nations — whatever ties Hussien’s government may have had with al Qaeda were highly consistent with someone keeping tabs on an enemy. Hussein, of course, considered pretty much everyone a threat, but militant Islamists were high on the list of threats to his power.
And this is why I say the “ties to al Qaeda” thing is exaggerated. Nobody in the intelligence establishment thinks that Iraq and al Qaeda had any meaningful relationship, on anti-US terror or anything else. The 9/11 commission report lists anti-US terror specifically not because they felt Iraq did work with al Qaeda on other terror, but because they didn’t look at that question — they were strictly concerned with anti-US terror in the scope of their investigation. If you have evidence — actual, corroborated evidence, not discredited and considered accurate by our intelligence agencies — that al Qaeda and Iraq ever had any collaborative relationship on anything, I’d like to see it.
But the bottom line is that the United States had more direct links to al Qaeda than Iraq did. They had a history of aiding and funding Osama bin Laden, and they funded the Taliban as recently as August of 2001. That’s far more than can be said for Iraq at any point in its history.
So in a nutshell, I disagree strongly with Mr. McCarthy’s analysis. If, by that standard, Hussein supported al Qaeda’s terrorist operations, then so did the United States, and they did so more frequently, more directly, and more recently.
Last, we have the matter of Zarqawi. You claim that Hussein “supported” him, but there’s not much evidence of that. At best, Zarqawi’s presence was tolerated, but based on his close ties to the anti-Hussein Kurdish separatists, it’s doubtful that he was any darling of Saddam Hussein.
The prevailing opinion in intelligence circles is that Hussein would have considered any militant Islamists a threat, be they Zarqawi, al Qaeda, or otherwise, and I haven’t seen any evidence that the intelligence community has changed this assessment.
I’m sure that one could, with enough searching and cherry-picking, find a few intelligence agents who hold a different view of the matter; but that’s about as convincing as someone cherry-picking a few biologists who say that “there’s something to this whole ID thing.”
#10 by Matthew Goggins at September 14th, 2005
| Quote
Hi Tgirsch,
So in a nutshell, I disagree strongly with Mr. McCarthy’s analysis. If, by that standard, Hussein supported al Qaeda’s terrorist operations, then so did the United States, and they did so more frequently, more directly, and more recently.
I think that thou doth protest way too much in your last comment, sir. The United States supported Al Qaeda’s terror operations more than Saddam? Pass the Kool-Aid sir, I’m getting thirsty
I was trying to be restrained in comment #9 above, seeing how you had reasonably admitted a few connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. But if you insist on waving your hands and instructing your readers to ignore that old man behind the curtain, I’m going to have to respond with some more evidence.
Consider the eventful visit that then-Prime Minister of Iraq Iyad Allawi paid to the United States about fourteen months ago.
Besides being referred to as an American puppet by Senator Kerry’s men, he also had to endure a brief lecture from NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw about the history of his own country.
One of the best blog posts to cover the incident at the time was written by Donald Sensing over at One Hand Clapping. I strongly encourage anyone who might be interested to go read the whole thing himself.
At one point, Brokaw says to Allawi,
Prime minister, I’m surprised that you would make the connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq. The 9/11 commission in America says there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and those terrorists of al-Qaida.
To which Allawi responds,
No. I believe very strongly that Saddam had relations with al-Qaida. And these relations started in Sudan. …
Donald Sensing runs with the story and provides links that explain why Allawi was right despite Brokaw’s bold skepticism.
Tgirsch, instead of characterizing inconvenient facts as “cherry picking” or insignificant, why don’t you just acknowledge that the connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda were more ambiguous than you like to admit. The situation demands a more nuanced appraisal than just your scornful dismissal of anything that challenges the anti-Bush narrative.
#11 by tgirsch at September 15th, 2005
| Quote
Matthew:
FACT: The United States actively supported Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, when the commies were the bigger threat.
FACT: The US was funding the Taliban, who were al Qaeda’s biggest supporters, as recently as August of 2001, ostensibly as part of the “war on drugs.”
FACT: The US continues to support the wahabbist regime in Saudi Arabia, who privately support terror organizations even as they publicly deny this and claim not to support Islamofascism.
FACT: There’s no evidence that any of the above is true of Saddam Hussein.
But in any case, my point was not that the US actively supports al Qaeda. Quite the opposite, in fact: that the US doesn’t support al Qaeda. That said, they have done more to directly and indirectly benefit al Qaeda than Hussein ever did. So only by the (appropriately named, it seems) McCarthy’s standards does the US “support al Qaeda.” I was pointing out the absurd looseness of the standard, not claiming that the US is an active al Qaeda supporter.
You mean by throwing more against the wall to see what sticks? I’m sorry, but the little tidbits you throw out are meaningless unless we know where they fit in the whole picture. Raw bits of intelligence, in and of themselves, aren’t terribly meaningful; especially when, as with the lists you’ve posted, those lists are mostly either discredited or highly disputed even within intelligence circles.
In much the same way that I must rely on the prevailing opinion of the scientific community on the ID/evolution debate, I must rely on the prevailing opinion of the intelligence community with respect to Iraq and al Qaeda. And the overwhelming opinion is that there’s no “there” there.
I use Kevin Bacon as a tongue-in-cheek example to keep the mood light, but in many ways, it’s an appropriate example. The implication of the intelligence opinion that there were no siginificant ties between Iraq and al Qaeda is that what few ties did exist were insignificant.
Re: Allawi, just exactly how is he in a position to know about Hussein’s relationships, having himself been exiled from Iraq for a quarter of a century before we deposed Hussein? Upon what, exactly, does Allawi base these “very strong beliefs?” What personal knowledge did Allawi have, and why wasn’t it shared with our intelligence community, which continues to dispute the claim?
Because this is how the intelligence community itself classifies the information. A few shreds of mostly unrelated evidence can start to look impressive if listed in one place. But it’s only a small part of the picture. In the overall picture, the evidence against any substantial relationship overwhelms what few scraps might be construed to support it.
Now if you disagree with the US intelligence community (and the European intelligence community), that’s all well and good, but I would have to suspect that you’d have a good reason for this. Hopefully better reasons than that a right wing shill himself cherry-picked talking points (like pointing out that bin Laden sought to include Iraq in his broader Islamic army, without bothering to point out that his appeals were flatly rejected by the Iraqi regime — see how this works? You leave out the part that’s inconvenient, and it’s all better.)
So yes, I acknowledge that there were a few insignificant connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, but contend that these don’t add up to anything. And the intelligence community as a whole agrees with that assessment.
Anti-Bush narrative? Give me a break. Our debate concerning the Iraq/al Qaeda connections is in no way partisan. Sure, my original post picks on Bush for never taking responsibility for anything that goes wrong, but that’s only because Bush has never before taken responsibility (or even really held anyone else accountable) for anything that goes wrong. Tenet messed up so badly, he got the Medal of Freedom.
Throughout this debate, apart from the original post, I’ve completely avoided partisan mudslinging (except for calling Sensing a shill — he is, but that’s another matter).
But let me make one thing absolutely, positively clear: my opposition to the Iraq war has nothing at all to do with my distaste for Bush, and everything to do with the fact that I don’t want young Americans (or anyone else) killed in what I (and many others, including many moderate Republicans) consider to be an ill-advised war of choice. So I’ll thank you to NOT try to trivialize me with blanket assertions about Bush-hate-fests.
I don’t oppose the war because I hate Bush; I hate Bush because I oppose the war (among a myriad of other reasons, too long to list).
#12 by Leroy at October 16th, 2006
| Quote
I just woke up from a dream that G. Bush was preident of the u.s. Please tell me it was a dream. Signed sick of hearing all of you bitch. You got what you voted for twice.