CBSNEWS PUSHED BOOK IT OWNS; '60 MINUTES' DID NOT REVEAL PARENT COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STAKE IN CLARKE

[Shotgun]

CLARKE ON WMD
[Rich Lowry]
A White House official today highlighted these old comments by Richard Clarke. On NPR back in March 2003 he said of Iraq, “After all, they’ve had weapons of mass destruction now for about 20 years.” Back in 2000, before 9/11, he said, “We should have a very low barrier in terms of acting when there is a threat of weapons of mass destruction being used against American citizens. We should not have a barrier of evidence that can be used in a court of law.” This is certainly the standard the Clinton administration acted on, at least some of the time. It took out a pharmaceutical plant in 1998 in the Sudan based on the probably mistaken belief that it was manufacturing chemical weapons. Clinton officials defend that attack to this day, which makes it kind of rich that they so harshly criticize Bush for acting on much firmer evidence in Iraq.

 

[Shotgun]

Clarke two years ago (before he decided to write a book)

A lot of people looked at Sept. 11, and said "Massive intelligence failure. Haven't seen an intelligence failure like this since Pearl Harbor." What's your opinion on that allegation?

I think it's a cheap shot. I think when people say, no matter what event it is, they say, "Oh, it was an intelligence failure," they frequently don't know what the intelligence community said prior to the event. In June 2001, the intelligence community issued a warning that a major Al Qaeda terrorist attack would take place in the next many weeks. They said they were unable to find out exactly where it might take place. They said they thought it might take place in Saudi Arabia.

We asked, "Could it take place in the United States?" They said, "We can't rule that out." So in my office in the White House complex, the CIA sat and briefed the domestic U.S. federal law enforcement agencies, Immigration, Federal Aviation, Coast Guard, and Customs. The FBI was there as well, agreeing with the CIA, and told them that we were entering a period when there was a very high probability of a major terrorist attack. Now I don't think that's an intelligence failure. It may be a failure of other parts of the government, but I don't think that was an intelligence failure.

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Wow,nobody brings up the fact of cheney ties to Haliburton,who services every U.S.military base in the world ,right down to the knives and forks.All 130 of them.Nobody brings up the fact of bush's ties to ken lay of enron whom he met behind closed doors to furmulate our failed energy policy.I could go on and on.The right has no idea of truth or integrity <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Is this the same Haliburton that is currently held by over three hundred mutual funds, to which every single solitary state pension is invested in? That Haliburton? Nah maybe we let the French and Russians profit at the expense of an entire nation.

Food for oil is the epitomy of blood for money, nice to see it still has it's ignorant and naive supporters.

What failed energy policy are you babbling about? Lose money at Enron? nah not a chance in the universe, still won't stoip that oral diarrhea, remember

no such thing as personal accountability to the left wing, none, villify Ken Lay? Try villifying the idjit pesnion fund managers who bought stock in a company they knew less than nothing about. Have compassion for the employees that lost their vested benefits? If not for the scam they wouldn't have had a job to begin with.

 

[xpanda]

Food for oil is NOT the epitomy of blood for money ... the food for oil programme was introduced by the UN as a direct response to the entirely inhumane US/UK imposed sanctions the people of Iraq suffered through for nearly 12 years. The situation was so dire that it was deemed one of the largest human rights catastrophes by both the Red Cross and Amnesty International. It had been predicted that had these sanctions continued unchanged, the population of Iraq would have been seriously threatened within a few years. After the food for oil programme was introduced, the US then changed much of the nature of their sanctions, limiting them largely to military-related goods. The people then became moderately less dependent on Saddam for basic necessities, which could have helped pave the way for an internal insurgence, had this alternative been deemed suitable.

The 'blood for money' scam that you refer to actually occured in the eighties, when Reagan and then-VP Bush 1 built Saddam up to the capable monster he became. Where's this 'personal accountability' you purport when we're talking about Daddy Bush?

 

[Igetp2s]

And a nice handy list of some of Saddam's opposition groups:


Iraqi National Congress (INC)

An umbrella group founded in 1992. It has about 1,000 members, although many belong to its partner organizations. It has no armed forces.

Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP)

Based in northwest Iraq. Founded in 1946. Enjoys extensive self-government within an area off-limits to Iraqi military aircraft. The no-fly zone was set up by the United Nations after the Gulf War and is enforced by U.S. and British military jets. The KDP claims to have about 60,000 active and reserve forces. Others say it has 15,000 active troops and an additional 25,000 in its militia.

Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK)

Based in northeast Iraq, also within the northern no-fly zone. It claims it can mobilize 100,000 fighters. Others say it has about 15,000 members and fighters. Its arsenal includes T-54 tanks, 60mm and 120mm mortars, rifles, and anti-aircraft guns and missiles.

Constitutional Monarchy Movement (CMM)

A moderate organization aiming to restore the monarchy that was ousted in 1958. Based in London.

Iraqi National Accord (INA)

Based in London. Founded in 1976. Works closely with the United States. It has several hundred members.

Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI)

Based in Tehran, Iran. An umbrella group that claims to represent anti-government Shiite Muslims

_______________________________________

So, when you say that there was NO OPPOSITION, do you mean that there was no opposition, or that there was no opposition that fully satisfied US interests?
--------------------------------------

When I said there was NO OPPOSITION, I meant there was NO OPPOSITION WITH A CHANCE IN HELL of having any impact in removing Saddam. Most of them are not based in Iraq. Why do you think that is? Just a coincidence right?

Your claim that Saddam's hold on power was slipping is laughable. Your claim that the sanctions were weakening him are ridiculous, especially in light of the recent discovery he was skimming $10 billion from the UN oil for food program.

In short, there was no evidence whatsoever that internal groups posed any threat to Saddam. There is no evidence that they would become a threat anytime soon. Let me know when (if) you join us back in reality, maybe I'll continue this discussion.