[moki]

So the source of Blair's oft-derided claim has been revealed, and that source continues to assert that WMD are in Iraq. Interesting reading; at the very least it clears Blair of "lying" about this claim, and it also may very well be true that the second shoe has yet to drop regarding WMD in Iraq.

from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

.....

How the 45-minute claim got from Baghdad to No 10
(Filed: 07/12/2003)

It was the claim Tony Blair used to justify war, but who was the source? Con Coughlin, in Baghdad, tracked him down

Lieutenant-Colonel al-Dabbagh is not a man who is easily frightened. Having spied on Saddam's regime for British and American intelligence for more than seven years, the 40-year-old former Iraqi air defence commander lived with the constant fear that he might be caught, tortured and executed.

So when last week, shortly after I had interviewed him in Baghdad about his involvement in the infamous 45-minute claim, he received two death threats from Saddam's loyalists, his determination to describe his involvement in revealing details of the former Iraqi dictator's deployment of weapons of mass destruction remained undiminished.

The threats - one verbal and one written - warned him not to divulge any secrets about Saddam's regime, on pain of death. The week before our meeting, members of Saddam's Fedayeen had sprayed his house with machinegun fire.

"Saddam's people are doing this all the time," he said. "That is why it is so difficult to find the weapons of mass destruction. I am sure the weapons are hidden in Iraq just like I see you now. I am concerned that the chemical and biological weapons are there."

So why was he prepared to risk his life by disclosing to The Telegraph his involvement in smuggling top secret information about Saddam's WMD capability out of the country?

"I admire Mr Blair because he made Iraq secure from Saddam. If Saddam's people kill me for saying this, I do not mind. I have done my duty to my country and we have got rid of Saddam.

"And if the British Government wants me to come to London to tell the truth about Saddam's secret weapons programme, I am ready to help in any way I can."

Although Lt Col al-Dabbagh agreed to talk freely about his spying activities, he asked that we only publish his family name and that we did not photograph his face. In Arab culture, men are better known by their first name and patronym. "I have to protect my family somehow," said Lt Col al-Dabbagh, who is married and has several children.

In common with the rest of the Iraqi armed forces under Saddam, Lt Col al-Dabbagh was dismissed after the war as part of the de-Ba'athification programme introduced by Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary.

"I don't know why they did this to me. My name was passed to the US six months before the war as someone who was helping them." He now works as an adviser to Iraq's Governing Council.

Despite the threats, Lt Col al-Dabbagh reacted without hesitation when I showed him the controversial section of the British Government's intelligence document that claimed that Saddam's WMD could "be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them".

When I asked him whether the information in the document relating to the 45-minute issue was 100 per cent accurate, he responded with characteristic Iraqi enthusiasm: "It is 200 per cent accurate!" he exclaimed. "And forget 45 minutes. We could have fired them within half an hour."

When I asked him whether he was the original source of the intelligence, he replied simply: "I am the one responsible for providing this information."

British intelligence has admitted that it relied on a single source for the 45-minute claim, prompting several intelligence experts at the Ministry of Defence, including Dr David Kelly, to question its veracity.

Lt Col al-Dabbagh's claim to be the source of the 45-minute claim, however, is backed up by General A.J.M. Muhie, his brother-in-law, who helped to smuggle the intelligence out of Iraq to the Wimbledon headquarters of the Iraqi National Accord (INA), which was then one of the leading Iraqi exile groups and is now a key member of Iraq's Governing Council. "We only had one source for this information and that was Dabbagh," said Gen Muhie.

Dr Ayad Allawi, the head of the INA who is now a leading figure in Iraq's Governing Council in Baghdad, also confirmed that he personally made sure al-Dabbagh's reports were received by British and American intelligence.

"Yes, we passed this information on to the British and Americans," he said. "It was part of a constant stream of intelligence we passed on to both intelligence agencies. And I still believe it is true. You must remember the dedicated efforts that were undertaken by Saddam and his institutions to hide and conceal [WMD] was gigantic."

It was during the second phase of the Hutton inquiry in September that I realised it might be possible to track down the original source of the 45-minute claim.

In particular it was in the cross-examination of Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) - more commonly known as MI6 - that the likely origin of the controversial intelligence report - the one whose veracity a number of experts, including Dr Kelly, had questioned - started to emerge.

During cross-examination by James Dingemans, QC, counsel to the inquiry, Sir Richard confirmed that the intelligence had "come from an established and reliable source . . . a senior Iraqi military officer who was certainly in a position to know this information".

Like most people who have been closely involved with Iraq for many years, I was aware that both SIS and America's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had relied heavily on Iraqi exile groups for intelligence on what was going on inside Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Of those the most reliable were generally held to be the Kurds and the INA. Information provided by the Kurds was limited because, as their region was under the protection of the international no-fly zone, they had little if any direct contact with Saddam's regime.

The INA, on the other hand, was highly regarded at both the SIS's London headquarters in Vauxhall and the CIA in Langley, Virginia, and in the 1990s had been involved in a failed CIA attempt to overthrow Saddam. The INA's intelligence depended on a number of serving and retired Iraqi military officers and Ba'athists prepared to risk their lives to rid the country of Saddam. As Lt Col al-Dabbagh told me last week: "At any moment I could have been caught and hanged."

Of all the groups known to have provided intelligence on Iraq pre-war, the INA was the one that best suited Sir Richard Dearlove's description.

I also recalled an intriguing encounter that I had had with a retired Iraqi general in Baghdad in late May when I was reporting on the post-war situation in Iraq. The officer was introduced to me by Dr Allawi as "our great war hero".

Dr Allawi was referring to recent remarks that had been made by President George W. Bush in which he had paid tribute to "the brave soul" who had risked his life to help the coalition forces overthrow Saddam.

Dr Allawi told me that the general had provided a great deal of "priceless information" that had greatly assisted Western intelligence agencies, including the location of Saddam's main bunker during the conflict, which was bombed during the opening hours of the campaign.

Because of the uncertain security situation in Baghdad last spring, the general declined my request to be interviewed about his role in the war effort, and so I made a mental note to look him up next time I was in Baghdad.

As Sir Richard Dearlove gave his evidence to the Hutton inquiry, my thoughts went immediately back to the general and whether he was responsible for providing the information that lay at the heart of the increasingly bitter dispute over whether the British and American governments, during their respective attempts to justify the war with Iraq, had been misinformed in claiming that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction at his disposal, and that they could be "ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them".

The claim formed the cornerstone of the intelligence document issued by the British Government on September 24, 2002, called Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. The intelligence dossier, and in particular the 45-minute claim, was also taken up by President Bush and Ari Fleischer, his then press aide, to justify the war on Iraq.

It was this claim that Dr Kelly questioned during his now infamous interview with the BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan, in which he is alleged to have said that the 45-minute claim was deliberately inserted by the British government to "sex up" the intelligence dossier.

To get to see the general, however, was no easy task. With communications in post-war Iraq notoriously difficult, it took several weeks to establish that he was involved in providing pre-war intelligence on Iraq to London and Washington; and that he was prepared to talk to me.

Nor were my efforts to establish the general's bona fides in any way assisted by the British intelligence community. When I asked one senior official why, in view of the torrid political debate that had erupted over the validity of the British government's intelligence dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, more was not being done to trace the original source, I was informed: "I don't think that's feasible. In all probability he was killed during the war."

(continues)

[moki]

(continued)

Even after I had established that it would be possible to meet the general in Iraq, the journey to Baghdad was not without incident. Shortly before the 10-seat, twin-propelled plane in which I was travelling prepared to land at Baghdad airport, the two South African pilots were informed that the aircraft flying immediately in front of us, a DHL cargo plane, had been hit by a Strella surface-to-air missile fired by Saddam's Fedayeen, and had managed to make an emergency landing.

Without bothering to consult the decidedly nervy passengers, the pilots - veterans of similar missions to Angola, it later transpired - unilaterally opted to take us into Baghdad in a manoeuvre known as a "drop spiral descent", where the plane descends in a controlled, circular dive immediately over the air strip to avoid enemy fire.

Thankfully, the tactic worked, and as we taxied towards the terminal building we could see the still smoking remnants of the DHL cargo plane's fuselage.

My hunch about the general proved to be only half right. When I finally got to see him at the INA's new headquarters in Baghdad - a former Ba'ath party training college - it transpired that Gen Muhie had in fact been the middle man in the affair, and not the primary source.

Born in 1941 in Najaf, Gen Muhie enrolled at the prestigious Baghdad Military Academy aged 19 and spent the rest of his career in the Iraqi army, including a year seconded to Camberley Staff College in Surrey (in 1979 - when relations between London and Baghdad were more cordial).

He served in various positions during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, frequently falling foul of Saddam for criticising his leadership of the military campaign. After the 1991 Gulf war he was summarily discharged from the army by Saddam.

From 1995 onwards Gen Muhie worked secretly for the INA in Baghdad, smuggling hand-written information to the INA's office in Jordan on handwritten pieces of paper, which were then transmitted to the INA's London headquarters.

From there it was passed by Dr Allawi to intelligence officers at the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) in Vauxhall and the CIA station chief at the US embassy in Grosvenor Square, from where it went to the CIA's headquarters in Langley.

Gen Muhie says he joined the INA because he believed Saddam was ruining the country. "We never knew the reason why we went to war with Iran, which was a military disaster for Iraq. We had dreadful relations with every other country in the region, countries that should have been our friends. And then Saddam invaded Kuwait."

There was also a personal reason for the general's involvement with the INA. In 1995 his nephew Ahmed, a 23-year-old computer science undergraduate at al-Mansour University in Baghdad, was shot dead by Iraqi security agents four hours after he had voted "no" in a plebiscite on Saddam Hussein's continued presidency - which in Saddam's Iraq almost amounted to writing a suicide note.

Gen Muhie, like many other disillusioned Iraqis who worked for the INA under Saddam, was prepared to risk his life to smuggle material out of Iraq. "One of my relatives would travel to Amman with small pieces of paper hidden in his luggage. In seven years they never got caught," he said.

Although he was retired from the army, as a former staff commandant in Baghdad, Gen Muhie had many contacts in senior positions in the Iraqi military. "I could get a lot of information about what was going on within the Iraqi military. All this information was passed to Dr Allawi's office in London."

During our first meeting Gen Muhie revealed that he had one particular officer who had been a valuable source of information, especially on the issue of Saddam's WMD capability. At first he seemed reluctant to let me meet him, claiming the security situation in Baghdad made such a meeting too dangerous. But after a few days he relented and set up a meeting with Lt Col al-Dabbagh.

Apart from confirming that he passed information about Iraq's ability to launch WMD within 45 minutes to Gen Muhie, Lt Col al-Dabbagh was able to provide a fascinating insight into the war preparations undertaken by Saddam in the months leading up to the war.

According to one document that Lt Col al-Dabbagh sent to London - the minutes of a meeting Saddam held in Baghdad in December 2001 after the Afghan conflict - Saddam called a meeting of his top commanders to discuss how Iraq could defend itself against an attack that Saddam believed was "inevitable".

Saddam was well aware that Iraq could not possibly win a conventional military conflict against a US-led coalition, and in early 2002 he gave orders for large quantities of weapons to be hidden at strategic locations throughout the country. "The battle with America is inevitable," the document states. "What is of paramount importance is how to sustain the continuation of war after occupation."

To that end Saddam ordered that 30 per cent of the country's weaponry be hidden at secret locations which were to be marked by Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) co-ordinates. These were to include guns, rocket-propelled grenades, anti-tank weapons and Strella surface-to-air missiles (such as the one fired at the DHL cargo plane last month).

The only people who knew the precise location of all the arms caches were Saddam, his son Qusay and Abid Hamid Mahmud, his private secretary, since captured by coalition forces. "Saddam Hussein said that if any of these weapons were found by ordinary Iraqi people then the head of the military unit would be hanged immediately," said Lt Col al-Dabbagh.

According to Lt Col al-Dabbagh, it was at about this time that he and other senior commanders were informed that Saddam intended to deploy his WMD arsenal to defend the country against an American-led attack. At a meeting that took place six months before the war, one of Saddam's senior officials told a group of Iraqi air defence commanders that they had many weapons that could be used to attack the US and UK.

"They told us that they [coalition troops] cannot pass across Iraq because we will use everything, from the knife to nuclear weapons, to defend ourselves," said Lt Col al-Dabbagh.

At this juncture Lt Col al-Dabbagh was commanding one of four air-defence units based in the western desert, and managed to smuggle a detailed map of Saddam's troop deployments along Iraq's border with Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia back to the INA's south London headquarters.

"It was very difficult to get this information out," he told me. "The Ba'athists never trusted the military, and as a senior officer I had two Ba'athist officials watching me 24 hours a day."

Lt Col al-Dabbagh cannot remember precisely when he sent information about Saddam's decision to deploy WMD, but thinks it was probably sometime in the spring. As a frontline officer, he had no way of knowing how long it would take information that he passed to Gen Muhie to reach London.

The weapons themselves were finally deployed at his own unit towards the end of last year. "They arrived in boxes marked 'Made in Iraq' and looked like something you fired with a rocket-propelled grenade," Lt Col al-Dabbagh explained.

"They were either chemical or biological weapons; I don't know which, because only the Fedayeen and the Special Republican Guard were allowed to use them. All I know is that we were told that when we used these weapons we had to wear gas masks."

According to information he learnt subsequently from his military colleagues, the weapons were made at factories at Habbaniyah, al-Nahrawan, Nabbai and al-Latifia.

Saddam's officials also gave elaborate instructions on how to use the weapons. Because of their limited range, those responsible for firing them were to dress in civilian clothes and drive in civilian vehicles with yellow number plates.

"Each military unit was given two four-wheel drive Isuzu cars," said Lt Col al-Dabbagh. "We were not allowed to use them and they had to be kept in good condition." If the war reached a critical stage and Iraq's forces were in danger of being overrun, then designated officers would be given the task of driving the vehicles towards coalition positions and firing the weapons.

"We were instructed that when we got the order we must use these cars and use the secret weapon. We were also told that if any of us discussed this weapon with any of our colleagues we would be hanged immediately."

He believes that the only reason these weapons were not used during Operation Iraqi Freedom last spring is that the bulk of the Iraqi army refused to fight for Saddam.

"The West should thank God that the Iraqi army decided not to fight," he said. "If the army had fought for Saddam, and used these weapons, there would have been terrible consequences."

Lt Col al-Dabbagh has no idea what became of the weapons because shortly before hostilities commenced he was recalled to Iraq's air defence headquarters in Baghdad, although he believes that most of them were taken away by Saddam's Fedayeen and hidden away.

He did, however, see a group of Fedayeen attempt to use one of the warheads against an American position on the outskirts of Baghdad on April 6. "They were going to use this weapon, but then they realised that they would kill lots of Iraqis who did not have masks, so they put them in their cars and drove off."

Convinced that the weapons are still hidden in Iraq, Lt Col al-Dabbagh doesn't believe any of them will be found until Saddam is caught or killed. "All the people who worked on these weapons have either escaped or disappeared. Only when Saddam is captured will these people talk openly about these weapons. Then they will reveal where they are."

Con Coughlin is the author of 'Saddam: The Secret Life', published by Macmillan

[perryp]

ha! conrad black's daily telegraph finds evidence. what a surprise. i bet richard perle (on the board) is happy.

[SimeyTheLimey]

I saw the article this morning. Unfortunately, it doesn't answer the obvious question. Where the hell are these granades?

There are two answers, neither of them good. One is that this colonel was full of it. That doesn't mean that Blair was wrong to rely on it, but it does mean that the intelligence source (if it really was him) was wrong or lied.

The other possibility is that these weapons have been hidden someplace, or perhaps have been smuggled away (perhaps wherever Saddam is, or out of the country). That's not good news.

[moki]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The other possibility is that these weapons have been hidden someplace, or perhaps have been smuggled away (perhaps wherever Saddam is, or out of the country). That's not good news.

Well, according to al-dabbagh, the weapons are hidden in Iraq, and no one will talk about the weapons programs until Saddam is caught.

I agree with you that we're faced with two equally bad alternatives: the informant was lying (and is continuing to lie), or the WMD are hidden somewhere in Iraq (or scattered abroad).

The latter is unfortunately worse than Saddam having them.

[moki]

Originally posted by perryp:
ha! conrad black's daily telegraph finds evidence. what a surprise. i bet richard perle (on the board) is happy.

This story is being carried far and wide, and not everyone is single-sourcing the Telegraph. The story seems to be quite legitimate, and the content is fairly important.

[eklipse]

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by moki:
This story is being carried far and wide, and not everyone is single-sourcing the Telegraph. The story seems to be quite legitimate, and the content is fairly important.

He he. There is nothing wrong with anyone questioning the source. Of course, if the situation were reversed and a story appeared in the Guardian and you or I questioned it, we'd be flamed for attacking the source and not discussing the subject. Just another little inconsistency in the Macnn pol lounge.

[theolein]

Originally posted by eklipse:
...

You had me weeping with laughter on my chair. I'm not commenting on the article but that was damn funny.

Now, on to the article. Isn't the Telegraph the same paper that had similarly hyped claims earlier this year, one of those being about apparent Russian ties to Iraqi intelligence? If I remember correctly, we argued about it here, and nothing was ever heard about it again.

I have no idea what to make of this. If it's true, then it still leaves open the question as to where those weapons are now, but it would at least vindicate Blair's "45 minute" assertion (even if basing a case for war on a single source is very questionable I would think), and if it's a guy exagerating the story for some reason, it still leaves the question as to what exactly was going on open i.e. we're back where we were before.

[mr. natural]

moki: still trying to cover-up your arse. lol.

eklipse: bravo

45 minutes and how many months now, and still counting... tick tock tick tock...

[tie]

Originally posted by moki:
I agree with you that we're faced with two equally bad alternatives: the informant was lying (and is continuing to lie), or the WMD are hidden somewhere in Iraq (or scattered abroad).

The latter is unfortunately worse than Saddam having them.

No it isn't. Anybody who supported the war knew that losing track of WMD was an almost certain possibility, especially considering Iraq's vast stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, well advanced nuclear program, and close alliance with Al Qaeda. How can you say now that you hadn't thought of this possibility? If you thought this possibility was worse than the status quo (Saddam having them), then you wouldn't have supported the war.

This article shows yet again the stupidity of relying almost entirely on Iraqi exile groups for information. They told us what we wanted to hear, and we lapped it right up.

[moki]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
moki: still trying to cover-up your arse. lol.

I've nothing to cover. I'm not in political office, and I don't mind being wrong. I admit that I'd like WMD to be found, because based on the UNSCOM history, I firmly believe that WMD have to be in Iraq somewhere. They were know to be there as recently as 1997, and even Hans Blix had a "strong presumption" that they were still there.

Thus, I want them found because I don't want them in other people's hands, such as terrorists. I also want them found because it will certainly make the US look better.

However, there's no ass covering here. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. We're all wrong about many things, on a daily basis; some are willing to accept that, others aren't.

Mocking someone because you believe them to be wrong on an issue is just juvenile.

[moki]

Originally posted by tie:
This article shows yet again the stupidity of relying almost entirely on Iraqi exile groups for information. They told us what we wanted to hear, and we lapped it right up.

...except that the Colonel isn't part of any Iraqi exile group -- read the article. He was an air defense commander under Saddam. Let's just say this: it would be extremely odd if he was STILL lying about this information, because it would serve no purpose.

[moki]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
45 minutes and how many months now, and still counting... tick tock tick tock...

Well, since everyone appears determined to make a big deal out of it... yes, I did say that if no WMD were found in Iraq in 6 months, that Mr. Bush should be impeached. That's something I believed when I said it, in part because I was confident that WMD would be found, and in part because I really do feel that public officials who mislead their electorate have no place in this country.

So why, then, have I backed down? Because it's become clear to me that there is nothing to impeach Bush for. It's become very clear (as this article points exemplifies) that neither Bush nor Blair lied. In a worst-case scenario, they relied on intelligence assessments that were faulty.

I'm rather sure that I'm right about this as well, because if there was any wrongdoing at all, the Dems would be all over this. The self-interest of other parties drives them to use anything and everything to take down the opposition. If there was any substance to anything that could possibly be used to impeach Bush, the wheels of that justice will be under way.

So based on what I knew then, I stand by what I said. Based on what I know now, I feel that I spoke too rashly, and the situation doesn't merit impeachment, and it is still possible (though increasingly unlikely) that WMD will be found in Iraq.

If you find that to be worthy of public mocking, then by all means, continue. I don't think it serves you well, though.

[perryp]

the source makes this information completely valueless

[moki]

Originally posted by perryp:
the source makes this information completely valueless

So you are saying the Telegraph fabricated the information? Do they have a history of fabricating stories and entire people?

It seems odd to me that they'd go through such an elaborate ruse, given how easy it would be to verify the information. The story is being carried all over the place:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ed...nG=Search+News

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by moki:
...except that the Colonel isn't part of any Iraqi exile group -- read the article. He was an air defense commander under Saddam. Let's just say this: it would be extremely odd if he was STILL lying about this information, because it would serve no purpose.

You mean, once his previous lies - if he *was* lying - had served their purpose of removing Saddam from power and killed thousands of his people and hundreds of coalition troops in the process, there is absolutely no reason for him not to turn about-face and say "Hah-hah! No WMD here, you SUCKAS! - But thanks for helping out."

Do I get you right there, moki?

Occasionally, I find you a little rich.

I mean, amusement only carries so far in the face of absurdity.

-s*

[theolein]

Originally posted by moki:
So you are saying the Telegraph fabricated the information? Do they have a history of fabricating stories and entire people?

It seems odd to me that they'd go through such an elaborate ruse, given how easy it would be to verify the information. The story is being carried all over the place:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ed...nG=Search+News

Moki, that's not entirely true. ALL of those news sources are sourcing the Daily Telegraph for that article, from what I can see.

I don't know whether the claim has any justification, but I do remember (and I could fish it out of the forum archives) the fight we had here over the last wild claim that the Telegraph made about the alleged links between the Russian and Iraqi intelligence services, which surprisingly was never heard of again, even though it made all the newspapers as this claim is doing now. I personally find it a bit strange that the same newspaper as before manages to make two very important scoops with no other newspapers even having a wiff of the same story. I just can't believe that no other newspaper didn't also do any research along similar lines.

But I'll leave it there because one should give them the benefit of the journalistic doubt, even if it is questionable.

[moki]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
You mean, once his previous lies - if he *was* lying - had served their purpose of removing Saddam from power and killed thousands of his people and hundreds of coalition troops in the process, there is absolutely no reason for him not to turn about-face and say "Hah-hah! No WMD here, you SUCKAS! - But thanks for helping out."

sigh. If you think this man was lying the entire time, bully for you. However, speaking of absurd, it's rather absurd for you to claim to be in the know on this one, is it not?

What would have made sense, using your supposition, is that if he lied to begin with, he would have simply melted away. Rather than having to reiterate his lie, or face up to it, it would make far more sense that he'd simply duck out of sight, or at most, offer a "no comment" or "it wasn't me that said that"

He certainly wouldn't be talking to the press, proudly reiterating his claims, which incidentally put his life at risk, now would he? That would have indeed been absurd.

I suppose it's easier to just consider only one alternative, and hurl out personal attacks though, no?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by moki:
sigh. If you think this man was lying the entire time, bully for you. However, speaking of absurd, it's rather absurd for you to claim to be in the know on this one, is it not?

I didn't claim to know anything. You said it would be "odd" for him to STILL be lying, if he had been lying earlier.

I used that premise to show how it wasn't odd at all.

Originally posted by moki:
What would have made sense, using your supposition,

YOUR supposition, moki.

Stop misrepresenting my posts.

Originally posted by moki:
if he lied to begin with, he would have simply melted away. Rather than having to reiterate his lie, or face up to it, it would make far more sense that he'd simply duck out of sight, or at most, offer a "no comment" or "it wasn't me that said that"

He certainly wouldn't be talking to the press, proudly reiterating his claims, which incidentally put his life at risk, now would he? That would have indeed been absurd.

Have you talked to the man?

It is absurd to think that the man had no agenda in spreading the 45-minute claim, whether it was true or not.

Have you spoken to him personally? Do you know that agenda? Do you know what his goals might be? Do you think that supplying the coalition with a strong case in favor of ousting his own government makes it likely that he would just "melt away"?

Would he then make a point of stating that his name was passed on to the US pre-war, but he was still dismissed:

"I don't know why they did this to me. My name was passed to the US six months before the war as someone who was helping them." He now works as an adviser to Iraq's Governing Council.

To me, that, and this entire situation, sound an AWFUL LOT like he was expecting a lot more from his coalition friends.

Wouldn't you agree?

And if that is so, he would be immensely stupid not to stick with his story.

Wouldn't you agree?

Originally posted by moki:
I suppose it's easier to just consider only one alternative, and hurl out personal attacks though, no?

On the "only one alternative" point, I vehemently point it back to you.

For the personal attack, I apologize.

-s*

[moki]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
To me, that, and this entire situation, sound an AWFUL LOT like he was expecting a lot more from his coalition friends

I would agree that you are making suppositions exactly as I am, only I'm not deriding you for doing so. I find either supposition to be plausible, but of course I think mine is more plausible (otherwise I wouldn't have suggested it)

[theolein]

Originally posted by moki:
So you are saying the Telegraph fabricated the information? Do they have a history of fabricating stories and entire people?

It seems odd to me that they'd go through such an elaborate ruse, given how easy it would be to verify the information. The story is being carried all over the place:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ed...nG=Search+News

At the risk of being redundant, here is my post yet again.

Moki, that's not entirely true. ALL of those news sources are sourcing the Daily Telegraph for that article, from what I can see.

I don't know whether the claim has any justification, but I do remember (and I could fish it out of the forum archives) the fight we had here over the last wild claim that the Telegraph made about the alleged links between the Russian and Iraqi intelligence services, which surprisingly was never heard of again, even though it made all the newspapers as this claim is doing now. I personally find it a bit strange that the same newspaper as before manages to make two very important scoops with no other newspapers even having a wiff of the same story. I just can't believe that no other newspaper didn't also do any research along similar lines.

But I'll leave it there because one should give them the benefit of the journalistic doubt, even if it is questionable.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by moki:
I would agree that you are making suppositions exactly as I am, only I'm not deriding you for doing so. I find either supposition to be plausible, but of course I think mine is more plausible (otherwise I wouldn't have suggested it)

If you find it so much more plausible, then tell me why he would give this interview, if it endangers his life?

Saddam has already been ousted; his job must be done, right?

Why then this interview? And why the passage about "I don't know why they have done this to me"?

Why all of this?

Note that I'm not - and haven't been - arguing that he was lying. I'm merely saying that, true or false, he must have VERY good reasons for sticking with his story - since he's apparently risking his life for it -, so the argument that "it must be true because he's still claiming so" is not a very good one.

-s*

[moki]

Originally posted by theolein:
Moki, that's not entirely true. ALL of those news sources are sourcing the Daily Telegraph for that article, from what I can see.

Right, all of those stories are based on the Telegraph story. My point was that it was rather foolish of them to fabricate such an elaborate story, fabricate people, etc. when it was receiving so much attention (all of the other articles written that are based on it).

But I'll leave it there because one should give them the benefit of the journalistic doubt, even if it is questionable.

If the story ends up being false, it'd be a rather elaborate and incredible ruse.

[theolein]

Originally posted by moki:
Right, all of those stories are based on the Telegraph story. My point was that it was rather foolish of them to fabricate such an elaborate story, fabricate people, etc. when it was receiving so much attention (all of the other articles written that are based on it).



If the story ends up being false, it'd be a rather elaborate and incredible ruse.

I pointed out that this is the same paper that came up with that "scoop" on the alleged Russian connections, which was as widely published then as this is now, only to never hear anything about it again.

I don't think it would be as difficult to make this one up as one would think. All that would be needed would be a Journalist with more greed than integrity, of which there are many in this world, and an Iraqi bent on making some cash and getting better career opportunities.

Given that information obtained from the Iraqis prior to the war has been anything but good and that there have truly been many documented cases of Iraqis making up pretty wild fictions I don't somehow see that this must necessarily be different.

That isn't to say that it is a cheap hack story, but the possibility is there. In any case we'll see shortly when the story is either officially confirmed by the UK or discounted.

[moki]

Originally posted by theolein:
That isn't to say that it is a cheap hack story, but the possibility is there. In any case we'll see shortly when the story is either officially confirmed by the UK or discounted.

There is a *possibility* that any story you read is fabricated, no matter from what source.

[gadster]

Originally posted by perryp:
ha! conrad black's daily telegraph finds evidence. what a surprise. i bet richard perle (on the board) is happy.

BINGO!

[Troll]

This still doesn't address the primary allegation levelled at Blair's government. It still doesn't prove that Blair is not a liar. There were two central allegations made against his government:

1) That they had lied when they said that the claim came directly from an Iraqi officer high in Saddam Hussein's command structure and that the lied when they denied that the intelligence was single source and uncorroborated. In fact it came through an informant, who had heard it from someone else and passed it on to MI6 and it was indeed uncorroborated. That is, the government made out that the evidence they had was more reliable than the hearsay it actually was.

2) They sexed up the 45 minute claim. Amongst a number of edits to the original intelligence, there were some edits to the 45 minute intelligence. There was never a denial that the government had received the 45 minute information; the allegation was that they had put spin on the information and vaulted it to higher importance in the documents. The 45 minute claim made it all the way to the opening page of the report and into Tony Blair's speech even though it was third or fourth hand and uncorroborated. Apparently, the original intelligence said something like short range weapons once they had been put in place could be fired within 45 minutes of an order to use them. That wasn't time from the secret bunker to missile passing over Israel. It apparently related to battlefield weapons and was a best case scenario. The deputy head of defence intelligence admitted in the Hutton enquiry that the final wording in the report was somewhat different to the intelligence received. In fact, he admitted that Alistair Campbell had suggested that the words "could deploy" or "could be ready" were changed, in the published version, to "are deployable".

This article doesn't address those issues. As you point out, all it does is identify the original source of the information.

[christ]

Originally posted by moki:
Right, all of those stories are based on the Telegraph story. My point was that it was rather foolish of them to fabricate such an elaborate story, fabricate people, etc....

No it wasn't, your point was "This story is being carried far and wide, and not everyone is single-sourcing the Telegraph."

moki-revisionism 101.

(although, as Simey pointed out, there is no point complaining about the telegraph, any more than there is any point complaining about the Grauniad, what I am pinting at here is yor use of the data, not the data itself).

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
(although, as Simey pointed out, there is no point complaining about the telegraph, any more than there is any point complaining about the Grauniad, what I am pinting at here is yor use of the data, not the data itself).

Grauniad? Pinting? Has someone been partaking of the Christmas spirit early?

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Grauniad? Pinting? Has someone been partaking of the Christmas spirit early?

*hic*



(although the Grauniad was deliberate - its an attempted joke, referring to the Guardian's startling lack of type-setting skills over the decades - I guess people who live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones!)

[Nicko]

Hahahahahaha and how many billions has this war cost? oh and not to forget the thousands of casualties.

[BlackGriffen]

Even I have to admit that no matter how mad Saddam is, he has to realize that any military victory from using WMD would be extremely fleeting. Thus, he has good motive not to use them and to hide them if he has them.

Having said that, I'm still dubious about the accuracy of the WMD claims that were made before the war. We'll see, one way or another, eventually.

BlackGriffen

[perryp]

This story is being carried far and wide, and not everyone is single-sourcing the Telegraph. The story seems to be quite legitimate, and the content is fairly important.

LIAR

People should be aware that The Telegraph is owned by Conrad Black's Hollinger International. Richard Perle, perhaps the most rabid ideologue behind the idea going to war with Iraq (and who recently admitted it was illegal), is on the Hollinger board. Both men are close friends of Ariel Sharon. Perle is probably the most corrupt high-ranking official connected to the Bush administration

[eklipse]

What I find amusing is that some people are still insisting that Iraq was an imminent threat to world peace - the tanks rolled into Baghdad with barely any serious resistance - no chemical/biological/nuclear weapons were used even in the dying regime's hour of need - and, so far, no WMD have been found (or appear likely to be found) - yet - bizarrely, some people are still terrified of Saddam's ability to send us all to hell in 45 minutes!

It's over. Who cares what some Iraqi traitor thinks?

[teszeract]

Originally posted by theolein:
Moki, that's not entirely true. ALL of those news sources are sourcing the Daily Telegraph for that article, from what I can see.

Try this search:

Lieutenant-Colonel al-Dabbagh -telegraph

I got two hits.

[edit]
sorry, 35 hits without the "-"

[mr. natural]

posted by eklipse:

What I find amusing...[snip]...so far, no WMD have been found (or appear likely to be found) - yet - bizarrely, some people are still terrified of Saddam's ability to send us all to hell in 45 minutes!

Don't forget, with rocket propelled WMD grenades no less!

This is what I am "mocking."

This Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh -- about whom it must be noted allegedly "spied on Saddam's regime for more than seven years," yet moki insists wasn't part of "any Iraqi exile group," but the article clearly shows how this information was passed along to and through the Iraqi National Accord (INA), "which was then one of the leading Iraqi exile groups" headquartered in Wimbledon -- admits he was the "source" for this infamous 45 minute.

Leaving aside all the questions one might raise about this, let's take him at his word and look at what he actually says.

According to the article Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh was "told" six months before the war by one of Saddam's senior officers "that they had many weapons that could be used to attack the US and UK."

Now, it is one thing to assert as this article does that Saddam had, as one is led to understand but without exactly saying so, many WMD that could be used to attack the US and UK, and something entirely different when directly following this bit of journalistic hyperbole the Lt. Col. himself is quoted as saying: "They told us that they [coalition troops] cannot pass across Iraq because we will use everything, from knife to nuclear weapons, to defend ourselves."

The point being, for those who are unused to critical thinking, such defense does not amount to attacking the US and UK. Yet, this is a linch-pin of our stated propaganda for preemptively attacking Iraq.

Furthermore, as al-Dabbagh makes clear Saddam didn't trust his regular military commanders; in fact that he wisely suspected some of them were passing such information outside Iraq. So, what better way, when one has concluded, as Saddam has, that an attack is inevitable, then to pass along information that is false as part and parcel of a game which may have hoped to buttress moral among the front lines, as well as give second thoughts to the opposition. Obviously, it didn't work, but he had nothing to lose in trying it and something to gain if it worked.

As to what al-Dabbagh actually says about these WMD:

"They arrived in boxes marked 'Made in Iraq' and looked like something you fired with a rocket-propelled grenade," Lt Col al-Dabbagh explained.

"They were either chemical or biological weapons; I don't know which, because only the Fedayeen and the Special Republican Guard were allowed to use them. All I know is that we were told that when we used these weapons we had to wear gas masks."

According to information he learnt subsequently from his military colleagues, the weapons were made at factories at Habbaniyah, al-Nahrawan, Nabbai and al-Latifia.

Frankly, this is where I start giggling to myself. A rocket-propelled grenade, no matter what it is filled with, is no WMD! Certainly not in comparison to all the very real and big bad WMD we have stockpiled and sitting in silos, or submarines, or ready to be attached to our air craft both on land and at sea.

This was a commander of the Iraqi air defense systems and all he can say that he ever saw of WMD are "boxes" which "looked like something you fired with a rocket-propelled grenade."

No missiles, no big honking bombs filled with WMD death, just a box or two filled with RPG's! Albeit, they allegedly were guarded and hoarded by the Fedayeen and SRG, who were dressed in civies and driving them around in Isuzu's.

OK, let's take this for real. Given that Saddam supposedly had several hundred tonnes of biological and chemical material, now packed into RPGs, how many boxes of this stuff has got to be floating around?

Hundreds? Thousands? Only Saddam knows!

And we have not found a single box full, or a single such WMD RPG.

Yet, we've had a survey team of 1,400 US, British, and Australian experts in WMD scouring Iraq since June and they haven't found a damn thing!

And before that we had Lt. General James Conway of the US Marines, whose mission it was to uncover these WMD, say: "We were simply wrong," of the assessment that chemical or other weapons were likely to be used by Iraqi forces. Such shells have not been found even in ammunition storage sites, even though "We've been through every ammunition site between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad. But they're simply not there."

And even though we have uncovered plenty of other hidden munitions, including RPGs, not a one has been revealed as armed with biological or chemical WMD material.

Also the coalition forces have captured and interrogated thousands of people, a few of whom one would suspect could tell them something about where to find something, and the story is still the same... WMD = ZILCH!

Even, according to this article, Abid Hamid Mahmud, Saddam's private secretary, who would of been privy to the locations of the hidden WMD arm caches, who has been captured, and I'm sure has been subjected to all sorts of quasi-legal interrogation techniques, and yet not a single such RPG WMD or other type has been trumpeted as having been located.

Maybe, just maybe, there were no such WMD after-all as alleged.

One would also think that if Saddam destroyed them in the months leading up to the invasion we'd find the evidence of that too. Some of this stuff has to leave a mark even in its destruction, no?

So, while moki worries about where it all went, I think it better to worry what this says about our intelligence gathering. Does "cherry-picking" what one wants to believe matter to moki? Apparently not. Yet, according to numerous national security professionals, among them Patrick Lang, former head of worldwide human intelligence gathering for the Defense Intelligence Agency, there was a "Cabal" within the Pentagon which reviewed material gathered by the other assorted intelligence agencies. And what Lang says is that: This team "cherry-picked the intelligence stream" in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat. The DIA was "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD," he added in a phone interview. He said the CIA had "no guts at all" to resist the allegedly deliberate skewing of intelligence by a Pentagon that he said was now dominating U.S. foreign policy.

Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of Central Intelligence Agency counterterrorist operations, said he knew of serving intelligence officers who blame the Pentagon for playing up "fraudulent" intelligence, "a lot of it sourced from the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi."

"There are current intelligence officials who believe it is a scandal," he said in a telephone interview. They believe the administration, before going to war, had a "moral obligation to use the best information available, not just information that fits your preconceived ideas".

Therefore, I also think it much MUCH more significant to worry about how easily we can be mislead into preemptive acts of war based on this whole WoT fiasco as managed by Bush et al.

Unlike you, moki, I think it among the highest honor and duty as a committed citizen to one's country to always be skeptical of those in power.

I also believe it significant to hold oneself to word and deed. To in fact stand by one's words!

You were the one to make a "big deal" about how if no WMD were found in six months you would move to impeach Bush, but now, as it suits you, you change your tune!

Posted by moki:

...yes, I did say that if no WMD were found in Iraq in 6 months, that Mr. Bush should be impeached. That's something I believed when I said it, in part because I was confident that WMD would be found, in part because I really do feel that public officials who mislead their electorate have no place in this country.

It is the latter "part" about deceitful public officials I am and have always as a committed citizen been concerned with, but for you, with Bush et al, it serves you now to play a new spin and in the effort accuse me of being "juvenile."

Mind you, I never posted your infamous quote in my signature, yet you accuse me of being juvenile.

You, Sir, "el Presidente" as you call yourself, are a cheap skate wimp and deserve to be, if you think that is that is all I am doing based on your quote, of being mocked.

I am however mocking your apparent inability to think with any good critical thought about this article and the corresponding complete and utter failure after SEVEN months of finding any WMD and the implications about us as fools who are easily manipulated.

According to you now, none of this suggests that maybe Bush et al deserve to be called account as you once said so.

The fact of the matter is that it is our government which MOCKS us!

Who is fooling whom here and being the real juvenile?

[tie]

Originally posted by moki:
sigh. If you think this man was lying the entire time, bully for you. However, speaking of absurd, it's rather absurd for you to claim to be in the know on this one, is it not?

What would have made sense, using your supposition, is that if he lied to begin with, he would have simply melted away. Rather than having to reiterate his lie, or face up to it, it would make far more sense that he'd simply duck out of sight, or at most, offer a "no comment" or "it wasn't me that said that"

He certainly wouldn't be talking to the press, proudly reiterating his claims, which incidentally put his life at risk, now would he? That would have indeed been absurd.

He certainly has an agenda. He is not a credible source. You don't know why he is talking to the press. And yet you're falling for it. Again. You should go work for the CIA.

[Lerkfish]

The strangest quirk of this whole episode is that it appears all one has to do is say or do something that appears to support the Bush (neocon) agenda, and some people will believe it, swimming upstream against evidence to the contrary, even evidence that the original evidence is provably false. It doesn't matter. Evidence is irrelevant, logic is irrelevant. "Bush (or neocon representative) said it, and I believe it, and that's the end of it."

I'm awestruck at the chilling efficiency that is a hallmark of this administrations' propaganda.

[mr. natural]

Posted by Lerkfish:

I'm awestruck at the chilling efficiency that is a hallmark of this administrations' propaganda.

Not only am I awestruck but truly alarmed by the indifference of supposedly bright folks to ever dare second guess this administration's propaganda campaign. They hardly ever seem to care or be bothered, and yet continue to assert we are the greatest freedom fighting country and democracy (ha ha) on earth.

Where is the critical thinking when we we need it most? Derided and scorned as unpatriotic.

What a supreme tragedy this all is in the making.

Hermann Goering was right.

[moki]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
I also believe it significant to hold oneself to word and deed. To in fact stand by one's words!

You were the one to make a "big deal" about how if no WMD were found in six months you would move to impeach Bush, but now, as it suits you, you change your tune!

I said I would supported such a move; and if there was any basis whatsoever to move to impeach Mr. Bush, it'd already be underway.

Clearly keeping ones word is important; but more clearly not changing your opinion when the circumstances change, and new information becomes available is ignorance and foolishness.

I'm not calling you either of those labels, but rather I'd apply them to myself if I chose to continue to wish for Bush to be impeached when there's clearly no basis for it.

You, Sir, "el Presidente" as you call yourself, are a cheap skate wimp and deserve to be, if you think that is that is all I am doing based on your quote, of being mocked.

I don't think cheap shots are necessary for any political discussion, and I don't think that I "deserved to be mocked" because I changed my opinion based on changing circumstances. I've been upfront about everything.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm going to continue to state mine. And as the circumstances change, my opinions may change again, however insulting someone is no way to bring them over to your way of thinking.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
I said I would supported such a move; and if there was any basis whatsoever to move to impeach Mr. Bush, it'd already be underway.

Clearly keeping ones word is important; but more clearly not changing your opinion when the circumstances change, and new information becomes available is ignorance and foolishness.

I think where people have a problem is when the "new information" was exactly what you stated would be the deciding factor in your decision....that if WMDs were not found, you would do X. Now that WMDs are not found, you appear to consider that new information which absolves you from the previous statement, but in fact it actually (if you were wanting to be true to your word) adheres you to the statement.


However, I feel like people have given you enough grief over it. Obviously, you never though in your wildest dreams Bush would lie to you about WMDs, so you didn't think your were going out on a limb to make that statement...basically your keyboard made a bet your tush won't cash. You made what you considered a marker that would never be called.

The fact is, you wanted to appear openminded and balanced in your views of the war and the administration when you thought it would cost you nothing. Now that it has come and bit you in the butt, you have no intention of following through with. I think people expected you to be a follow through type person, and when you weren't, they felt it was ok to rub your nose in it.

I, on the other hand, never expected you to follow through on your statement, because I realized it was a hyperbolic jest, like "I'll eat my hat if there are no WMDs found".

but I DO find it amusing to see you twist and turn, trying to justify not following through.

But cm'on guys, moki's been sheared enough. He's not going to follow through, and to continue to badger him on it is just pointless and bordering on harrassing.

[theolein]

Originally posted by moki:
... I've been upfront about everything.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm going to continue to state mine. And as the circumstances change, my opinions may change again, however insulting someone is no way to bring them over to your way of thinking.

Moki, I don't mean to get personal, but if there is one label that I really don't think fits you, it is being upfront.

Changing one's mind is certainly appropriate and a sign of intelligence when the situation and the facts warrant it, but, for the life of me, I can't see where you have changed your mind on anything. Your attitudes and comments towards GW seem remarkably similar to those you had six months ago, even though you constantly state that that isn't so, which brings me back to the point about being upfront...

I think thats your thing, honestly, in that you remain with your opinion consistently, but only admit it openly under duress. There's nothing wrong with that, though, it's simply the way you are I think.

[moki]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
However, I feel like people have given you enough grief over it. Obviously, you never though in your wildest dreams Bush would lie to you about WMDs, so you didn't think your were going out on a limb to make that statement...basically your keyboard made a bet your tush won't cash. You made what you considered a marker that would never be called.

Well, Bush hasn't lied about WMDs -- that's exactly why I don't support impeachment, and that's why impeachment isn't forthcoming, or being pressed by any of the rabid Dem's who'd love nothing less: there is no case for it.

When I made the statement I did, I believe it, because I believed that if no WMD were found, that we were clearly lied to. I no longer believe that there are only two alternatives, based on what I've read. It's more likely that Bush was being quite genuine in his motivations and statements, but the intelligence somewhere in the chain was faulty.

So if you would support a case for impeachment, by all means, make it. What would the grounds be?

The fact is, you wanted to appear openminded and balanced in your views of the war and the administration when you thought it would cost you nothing. Now that it has come and bit you in the butt, you have no intention of following through with. I think people expected you to be a follow through type person, and when you weren't, they felt it was ok to rub your nose in it.

I am a follow through type of person; I freely admit when I'm wrong, and I don't think you're in a position to judge my character or motivations and intentions.

[moki]

Originally posted by theolein:
think thats your thing, honestly, in that you remain with your opinion consistently, but only admit it openly under duress. There's nothing wrong with that, though, it's simply the way you are I think.

...and you are once more demonstrating "your thing": making sweeping generalizations and stereotypes about people based on pop-psychology and your own biases. Please, debate me all you like, but spare me your keen insight into what I'm thinking. I know, you do not.

[theolein]

Originally posted by moki:
...and you are once more demonstrating "your thing": making sweeping generalizations and stereotypes about people based on pop-psychology and your own biases. Please, debate me all you like, but spare me your keen insight into what I'm thinking. I know, you do not.

I seem to have touched a nerve there. I'm sorry, but there is no way that I will not post what I think here. I am not insulting you, but posting what I see to be true about you until I see evidence to the contrary, which, I might add, has not yet been forthcoming.

If you feel so wrongly portrayed, why not simply state what is so wrong with the portrayal? As it is, it seems as you are angry for having been unmasked, so to speak.

[moki]

Originally posted by theolein:
If you feel so wrongly portrayed, why not simply state what is so wrong with the portrayal? As it is, it seems as you are angry for having been unmasked, so to speak.

Wow, such arrogance. Not only do you have the arrogance to decide for me what I'm thinking on a broad range of topics, inventing ridiculous biases and stereotypes, but now you tell me that when I object to this kind of obnoxious behavior, I'm upset because you're "right."

::shakes head::

You really need to get over yourself.

Can we actually debate the issues now?

[theolein]

Originally posted by moki:
Wow, such arrogance. Not only do you have the arrogance to decide for me what I'm thinking on a broad range of topics, inventing ridiculous biases and stereotypes, but now you tell me that when I object to this kind of obnoxious behavior, I'm upset because you're "right."

::shakes head::

You really need to get over yourself.

Can we actually debate the issues now?

I am not deciding anything for you. I think that you're fully capable of deciding things for yourself. What I am doing is stateing what I think you are, and am inviting you to disprove my mental picture, if you so feel. Not only this, but there is nowhere where I claim that I am "right", but only what I see, and again, I invite you to disprove my "stereotype".


I truly fail to see any obnoxious behaviour there, but if you feel abused, why not simply complain to the moderators and show them your case of abuse and let them decide.

[eklipse]

Sorry to interrupt the counseling session........


Let's say Saddam did have WMD - has anyone uncovered a motive for him using them? - particularly, against America and 'her allies'? If an invading army that eventually toppled his government wasn't enough - what else could possibly motivate him to press the hypothetical button?

Lot's of countries have weapons of mass destruction - the majority of which belong to the good ol' US of A - yet they don't all seem overly keen to use them - why is everyone so scared of Saddam?

[mr. natural]

Posted by moki:

Can we actually debate the issues now?

I'd like to note that I did post a reply to this article, but did you notice or care?

If you didn't like the tangent that followed you really have only yourself to blame for bringing it up.

::shakes head::

You really need to get over yourself.

My annoyance with you isn't over your infamous quote, as if I expected you to actually push for impeachment.

However, you did also just say: "I really do feel that public officials who mislead their electorate have no place in this country."

And although it got lost in translation, and that is my fault, this is what I was specifically pointing out about you that I find so unbearable. To wit: You say one thing that one hopes you actually mean, but when it comes down to it, you do not STAND BY YOUR WORDS!

E.G., Bush et al has misled the electorate over and over but in your book he gets a continual free pass from being judged by your own stated standard!

Just where the hell do you ever stop and stand by what you say matters?

As far as I can tell, no where.

Anyway, I'm done with this theme...

BOT next post.