Maybe Bush Didn't Lie [Political]

[R. Richard]

Three named witnesses and three stories that there were WMDs in Iraq at the time of the war in Iraq. There are claims that Iraqis know where the WMDs are hidden in Syria. The claims of WMDs in Iraq at the time of the war in Iraq are either true or false.

There is a politician in the US who claims that the US government can productively talk to the heads of terrorist states. Here is the chance to prove [or disprove] the claim. I challenge the politician to go to Assad in Syria and tell Assad that the US has the claimed location of Iraqi WMDs hidden in Syria. The US wants to verify the truth or the falsity of the claims. I challenge the politician to put up or shut up. Why not?

U.S. official: Iraqis told me WMDs sent to Syria
Former head of prisons says incarcerated ex-Saddam forces disclosed move

A former American overseer of Iraqi prisons says several dozen inmates who were members of Saddam Hussein's military and intelligence forces boasted of helping transport weapons of mass destruction to Syria and Lebanon in the three months prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Don Bordenkircher – who served two years as national director of prison and jail operations in Iraq– told WND that about 40 prisoners he spoke with "boasted of being involved in the transport of WMD warheads to Syria."

A smaller number of prisoners, he said, claimed "they knew the locations of the missile hulls buried in Iraq."

Some of the inmates, Bordenkircher said, "wanted to trade their information for a release from prison and were amenable to showing the locations."

The prisoners were members of the Iraqi military or civilians assigned to the Iraqi military, often stationed at munitions facilities, according to Bordenkircher. He said he was told the WMDs were shipped by truck into Syria, and some ended up in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley.

Other Iraqi military personnel, including former top Saddam associates, have made the same claim.

In early 2006, Saddam's No. 2 Air Force officer, Georges Sada, told the New York Sun Iraq's WMDs were moved into Syria six weeks before the war started.

WND also reported in 2006 a former general and friend of Saddam who defected alleged WMDs were hidden in Syria and said the regime supported al-Qaida with intelligence, finances and munitions. Ali Ibrahim Al-Tikriti, the southern regional commander for Saddam's militia in the late 1980s, said the regime had contingency plans established as far back as the 1980s in the event either Baghdad or Damascus was taken over.

Saddam knew the U.S. eventually would come for the weapons, Al-Tikriti said at the time, and had "wanted since he took power to embarrass the West, and this was the perfect opportunity to do so." So he denied they existed and made sure they were moved into hiding, the former general said.

Among other claims, WND also reported a former U.S. federal agent and counter-terrorism specialist deployed to Iraq before the war said he waged a three-year, unsuccessful battle to get officials to search four sites where he believed the former Saddam regime buried weapons of mass destruction.

Bordenkircher said four of the Iraqi prisoners who separately offered to speak to the "right" people about Saddam's alleged transport of WMD later became involved with U.S. and Iraqi intelligence agencies.

Some prisoners said the drivers, upon return from transporting the WMDs out of Iraq, discussed the movement. They said, according to Bordenkircher, the materials shipped out would return once Iraq got "a clean bill of health from the U.N., and then the program could be kick-started easily."

Four of the prisoners – civilians attached to the Iraqi military – said they worked at the al-Muthana Chemical Industries site. They said the cargo included nitrogen mustard gas warheads for Tariq I and II missiles.

Bordenkircher said the stories of the military personnel and the civilians matched and did not contradict one another.

Bordenkircher also said prisoners confirmed al-Qaida had a presence in Iraq before Operation Iraqi Freedom began, specifically in Mosul and Kirkuk.

Iraqis under the command of Uday Hussein, one of Saddam Hussein's sons, supported the al-Qaida elements in the country with training and providing safe harbor, they said.

Bordenkircher also was a senior adviser to South Vietnam's correctional system during the war in Southeast Asia, from 1967-72. His task was to improve conditions for 80,000 civilian prisoners. The U.S. Department of Justice asked him to play a similar role in Iraq, sending him first to Baghdad's infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad in March 2006 to shut it down.

Bordenkircher previously served as Marshall County sheriff of Moundsville, W.Va., and police chief and warden of the state penitentiary at Moundsville.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Jeez. Saddam had them when he murdered the Kurds and fought with the Iranians. I suppose they just turned into toxic farts and blew away in the wind.

Lessee. Did he send the to Iran? Not likely. Howsabout Kuwait? Get real! Maybe the Kurds got them? Nope. That leaves Jordan and Syria.

 

[keeblercrumb]

There is a politician in the US who claims that the US government can productively talk to the heads of terrorist states. Here is the chance to prove [or disprove] the claim. I challenge the politician to go to Assad in Syria and tell Assad that the US has the claimed location of Iraqi WMDs hidden in Syria. The US wants to verify the truth or the falsity of the claims. I challenge the politician to put up or shut up. Why not?

U.S. official: Iraqis told me WMDs sent to Syria

WTF???????

You want to know why OBAMA doesn't confront the Syrians????

Why on God's Green Earth doesn't Bush?????????? HE is the one who forgot that Al Quida attacked us on 9/11....... But he was so enamored with our ability to succesfully invade and depose Sadam.....that he was itching for a reason to do it!

If this evidence is at all credible....WHY ISN'T HE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT?????

Moreover.... IF IT IS TRUE.....THEY WERE GONE 6 WEEKS BEFORE THE WAR......WHY DID WE INVADE????? IT WAS ALREADY TOO LATE.

For the record... I do not think Bush lied..... He was just stupid.... He and his advisors... Cheney and company were operating on the Cheney's One percent doctrine and went to war because the wanted to long before 9/11.
That allowed them to accept the flimsiest.... and totally erroneous... rumor that Sadam had bought enriched uranium....

And to make it all utterly ludicrous..... this twisted logic to somehow blame Obama.... for Syria acquiring weapons from Iraq during Bush's watch.....

You are both just being silly.

-KC

 

[Belegon]

There is a politician in the US who claims that the US government can productively talk to the heads of terrorist states. Here is the chance to prove [or disprove] the claim. I challenge the politician to go to Assad in Syria and tell Assad that the US has the claimed location of Iraqi WMDs hidden in Syria. The US wants to verify the truth or the falsity of the claims. I challenge the politician to put up or shut up. Why not?

[

Um, because he doesn't yet have any authority to do so?

And tell me... just how much progress is usually made in a discussion where no one is talking?

A foreign policy that consists of "If you don't play by my rules, I'm taking my ball and going home!" is not very adult, very rational or very likely to create any thing but resentment in the other children on the playground.

One that says, "If you don't play by my rules, I'm going to beat you up because I'm bigger than you!" is even more juvenile.

 

[R. Richard]

WTF???????

You want to know why OBAMA doesn't confront the Syrians????

Why on God's Green Earth doesn't Bush?????????? HE is the one who forgot that Al Quida attacked us on 9/11....... But he was so enamored with our ability to succesfully invade and depose Sadam.....that he was itching for a reason to do it!

If this evidence is at all credible....WHY ISN'T HE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT?????

Moreover.... IF IT IS TRUE.....THEY WERE GONE 6 WEEKS BEFORE THE WAR......WHY DID WE INVADE????? IT WAS ALREADY TOO LATE.

For the record... I do not think Bush lied..... He was just stupid.... He and his advisors... Cheney and company were operating on the Cheney's One percent doctrine and went to war because the wanted to long before 9/11.
That allowed them to accept the flimsiest.... and totally erroneous... rumor that Sadam had bought enriched uranium....

And to make it all utterly ludicrous..... this twisted logic to somehow blame Obama.... for Syria acquiring weapons from Iraq during Bush's watch.....

You are both just being silly.

-KC

Obama claims that he can negotiate with the terrorist states, to some benfit for the US. I claim he's either a liar or insane.

Bush won't try to confront Assad, because he know the effort would be a total waste of time. In order to 'do something about it,' Bush would have to invade
Syria.

The US invaded Iraq, because they didn't know that Saddam had transferred substantially all of his WMD to Syra and couldn't have know until AFTER we invaded Iraq.

'the flimsiest.... and totally erroneous... rumor that Sadam had bought enriched uranium.' You leave out the worst part. We sold many, many tons of the non-existant yellowcake uranium that Saddam didn't have to Canada [Google it up.]

If you will read what I wrote, I'm NOT blaming Obama for Syria acquiring Saddam's WMD. I'm simply asking Obama to do some of the productive negotitating with terrorist governments that Obama claims he can do.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Some of the inmates, Bordenkircher said, "wanted to trade their information for a release from prison and were amenable to showing the locations."

There's a reliable source of information.

How about this: how about having Obama talk to Iran about making them all wear dresses and high heels? He should be able to do that too, right?

 

[Belegon]

If you will read what I wrote, I'm NOT blaming Obama for Syria acquiring Saddam's WMD. I'm simply asking Obama to do some of the productive negotitating with terrorist governments that Obama claims he can do.

And we will see whether or not he can do so once he has some authority with which to do it. Obama, at this time, has no authority to speak to them nor do they have any reason whatsoever to pay attention to him.

However, not speaking with people is CLEARLY not going to result in "productive negotiating."

To quote Michael Jordan, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

Obama claims that he can negotiate with the terrorist states, to some benfit for the US. I claim he's either a liar or insane.

Bush won't try to confront Assad, because he know the effort would be a total waste of time. In order to 'do something about it,' Bush would have to invade
Syria.

The US invaded Iraq, because they didn't know that Saddam had transferred substantially all of his WMD to Syra and couldn't have know until AFTER we invaded Iraq.

'the flimsiest.... and totally erroneous... rumor that Sadam had bought enriched uranium.' You leave out the worst part. We sold many, many tons of the non-existant yellowcake uranium that Saddam didn't have to Canada [Google it up.]

If you will read what I wrote, I'm NOT blaming Obama for Syria acquiring Saddam's WMD. I'm simply asking Obama to do some of the productive negotitating with terrorist governments that Obama claims he can do.

Well I am all in favor of electing Obama and seeing what he can do.... if that is what you mean... Hard to believe he can do any worse than Dubya...

And Google exactly what up? That we sold Canada yellow cake uranium? I am not sure how this relates to Sadam alledgedly seeking to buy it... unless you are saying we would have sold it to him but we got a better price from Canada....

Did somebody spike the coffee put with acid today? Where is all this absurdity coming from??????

-KC

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

Some of the inmates, Bordenkircher said, "wanted to trade their information for a release from prison and were amenable to showing the locations."

There's a reliable source of information.

How about this: how about having Obama talk to Iran about making them all wear dresses and high heels? He should be able to do that too, right?

I can even provide him with a web site address for the shoes!!!

-KC

 

[R. Richard]

Well I am all in favor of electing Obama and seeing what he can do.... if that is what you mean... Hard to believe he can do any worse than Dubya...

And Google exactly what up? That we sold Canada yellow cake uranium? I am not sure how this relates to Sadam alledgedly seeking to buy it... unless you are saying we would have sold it to him but we got a better price from Canada....

Did somebody spike the coffee put with acid today? Where is all this absurdity coming from??????
-KC

We sold Iraqi yellowcake uranium, in many, many ton quantity to Canada for processing. Read it and peep.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/index.html
updated 6:10 p.m. EDT, Mon July 7, 2008

500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq, Pentagon says Pentagon: U.S. secretly shipped Iraq's low-grade uranium dating back to Hussein era

Officials: U.S. military spent $70 million for the transport of materials to Canada

"Yellowcake" uranium transfer was requested by the Iraqi government

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States secretly shipped out of Iraq more than 500 tons of low-grade uranium dating back to the Saddam Hussein era, the Pentagon said Monday.

In this 2003 photo, UN inspectors work at the nuclear facility in Iraq.

The U.S. military spent $70 million ensuring the safe transportation of 550 metric tons of the uranium from Iraq to Canada, said Pentagon spokesman Brian Whitman.

 

[Belegon]

What relevance does the sale of yellow cake uranium to Canada have to Obama's ability or credibility in pursuing negotiations with Syria?

Or about whether or not Bush lied?

 

[R. Richard]

What relevance does the sale of yellow cake uranium to Canada have to Obama's ability or credibility in pursuing negotiations with Syria?

Or about whether or not Bush lied?

The reference to yellowcake uranium,was a reply to an issue brought up by a previous poster.

You might recall that Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband stated categorically that Saddam didn't buy yellowcake in Niger, Africa and that Bush lied. Well obviously Saddam acquired some 500 TONS of yellowcake somewhere. Iraq doesn't have unranium mines. Thus, said yellowcake uranium was obtained elsewhere. There are several places that Saddam might have obtained siad yellowcake uranium. The most likely place is Niger. It's not really practical to assume that Saddam stole 500 TONS of yellowcake uranium. Thus we're left with the conclusion that Saddam did indeed buy some 500 TONS of yellowcake uranium somewhere.

Joe Wilson then states: "Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa."

If Saddam didn't buy the 500 TONS of yellowcake uranium in Africa, then where did the 500 TONS of Iraqi yellowcake uranium come from? Either the IAEA knows [they're responsible for control of atomic material] or Saddam managed to sneak some 500 TONS of yellowcake uranium past the watchers. Even Saddam couldn't hide 500 TONS of yellowcake uranium in his pocket.

 

[R. Richard]

Some of the inmates, Bordenkircher said, "wanted to trade their information for a release from prison and were amenable to showing the locations."

There's a reliable source of information.

Doc:
If you have an inmate who wants to trade the location of supposed WMD in Syria for his freedom and a politician who can productivly deal with the head of a terrorist nation, then you have a checkable source of information. Either the US gets to check the claimed site for WND and we find out if the inmate is lying or not or the politician is lying. There's a reliable source of information.

I might also point out that there are also two high ranking former members of the Saddam government who tell the same kind of story. Certainly Obama could productively talk with said high ranking former members of the Saddam government and find out the true situation. Else Obama is a lying politician [but wait, I'm repeating myself with the last two words.]

 

[Belegon]

The reference to yellowcake uranium,was a reply to an issue brought up by a previous poster.

You might recall that Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband stated categorically that Saddam didn't buy yellowcake in Niger, Africa and that Bush lied. Well obviously Saddam acquired some 500 TONS of yellowcake somewhere. Iraq doesn't have unranium mines. Thus, said yellowcake uranium was obtained elsewhere. There are several places that Saddam might have obtained siad yellowcake uranium. The most likely place is Niger. It's not really practical to assume that Saddam stole 500 TONS of yellowcake uranium. Thus we're left with the conclusion that Saddam did indeed buy some 500 TONS of yellowcake uranium somewhere.

Joe Wilson then states: "Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa."

If Saddam didn't buy the 500 TONS of yellowcake uranium in Africa, then where did the 500 TONS of Iraqi yellowcake uranium come from? Either the IAEA knows [they're responsible for control of atomic material] or Saddam managed to sneak some 500 TONS of yellowcake uranium past the watchers. Even Saddam couldn't hide 500 TONS of yellowcake uranium in his pocket.

That still has nothing to do with your original post. The only WMD's specifically referenced in the article are Mustard Gas warheads.

And just because Saddam had 500 tons and the most likely source was Niger doesn't mean that Niger WAS the source.

Besides, the important thing about the whole Wilson/Plame issue to me was that the administration committed treason by revealing the existence of an American covert agent. Whether or not Joe Wilson was correct in saying Bush lied about it is completely incidental both to the betrayal of Plame and to the existence or non-existence of WMD's at the time of the invasion.

Your thread title is about Bush. Your first post is mostly directed at Obama. The issue you are addressing has nothing to do with that first post.

So I guess we can sidebar the whole thing and ignore it. Now...

How is Obama supposed to accomplish anything without the authority to do so and how does NOT speaking with Syria make us safer than talking with Syria?

Skipping the logical step of negotiation with anyone makes us appear less open to communication in general. It enhances and supports our enemies position that we are simply bullies uninterested in anything but flexing our muscles.

I see absolutely no harm in maintaining lines of communication with everyone and anyone. How we respond to information obtained through these sources is open to debate. But to say that we are safer and smarter to not have more information seems counterintuitive at best and absolutely foolish in most cases.

 

[Belegon]

Certainly Obama could productively talk with said high ranking former members of the Saddam government and find out the true situation. Else Obama is a lying politician [but wait, I'm repeating myself with the last two words.]

*sigh*

In exactly what capacity is he supposed to talk with them and why should they agree to do so?

At this time, he is nothing more than the junior senator from Illinois and has no formal position upon which to base such conversations. He has no legal basis upon which to perform international negotiations on behalf of the US government.

Something Obama, a lawyer and former law professor, certainly knows.


Talking to the American public ABOUT how he WOULD conduct business IF elected President is a far different thing than acting like he IS ALREADY President by conducting negotiations with foreign states.

 

[R. Richard]

Besides, the important thing about the whole Wilson/Plame issue to me was that the administration committed treason by revealing the existence of an American covert agent. Whether or not Joe Wilson was correct in saying Bush lied about it is completely incidental both to the betrayal of Plame and to the existence or non-existence of WMD's at the time of the invasion.

It pains me to have to point this out again. Valerie Plame was NOT a covert agent under the law. It was known to the prosecuter in the case, before the investigtion of Scooter Libbey, that Richard Armitage was the one who told a newspaper columnist that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. You will note that Richard Armitage was never charged with anything. One reason that Richard Armitage was never charged with anything was that he violated no law.

Skipping the logical step of negotiation with anyone makes us appear less open to communication in general. It enhances and supports our enemies position that we are simply bullies uninterested in anything but flexing our muscles.

I see absolutely no harm in maintaining lines of communication with everyone and anyone. How we respond to information obtained through these sources is open to debate. But to say that we are safer and smarter to not have more information seems counterintuitive at best and absolutely foolish in most cases.

"maintaining lines of communication with everyone and anyone" is, in effect, conducting foreign policy for the US.

The Logan Act is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

The text of the Act is broad and is addressed at any attempt of a US citizen to conduct foreign relations without authority. However, there is no record of any convictions or even prosecutions under the Logan Act.

Did Speaker Pelosi Commit a Felony?
Setting aside whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's amateur effort at shuttle diplomacy was wise or effective, did she violate the Logan Act and commit a felony during her visit to Syria? Robert Turner thinks the answer could be "yes."

Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.

The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flout the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries.

 

[Belegon]

"maintaining lines of communication with everyone and anyone" is, in effect, conducting foreign policy for the US.

The Logan Act is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

The text of the Act is broad and is addressed at any attempt of a US citizen to conduct foreign relations without authority. However, there is no record of any convictions or even prosecutions under the Logan Act.

...Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.

The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress... to flout the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries.

Obama HAS NOT YET kept ANY lines of communication open... because why? (Whole class: "He has no authority to do so.")

Thank you for pointing out with exactly such clarity EXACTLY why Obama has not and will not go to Syria and engage in negotiations with them and why he should not and will not engage in discussions with the former Saddam officials.

I removed your references to a democrat other than Obama, since they are, again, not relevant to the original post with which you tried to flame Obama.

 

[Belegon]

There is a politician in the US who claims that the US government can productively talk to the heads of terrorist states. Here is the chance to prove [or disprove] the claim. I challenge the politician to go to Assad in Syria and tell Assad that the US has the claimed location of Iraqi WMDs hidden in Syria. The US wants to verify the truth or the falsity of the claims. I challenge the politician to put up or shut up. Why not?

Just to make sure we are being very clear.

The Logan Act is your answer to "Why not?"

We appreciate you answering your own question and clearing this up.

 

[R. Richard]

Obama HAS NOT YET kept ANY lines of communication open... because why? (Whole class: "He has no authority to do so.")

Thank you for pointing out with exactly such clarity EXACTLY why Obama has not and will not go to Syria and engage in negotiations with them and why he should not and will not engage in discussions with the former Saddam officials.

AFAIK, the former Saddam officials are not members of the current Iraqi government and would therefore not come under the Logan act.

I removed your references to a democrat other than Obama, since they are, again, not relevant to the original post with which you tried to flame Obama.

Law is based on precedents. The Pelosi trip to Syria is a precedent and thus relevant.

Also, AFAIK, Obama hasn't requested authority to meet with officials of the Syrian government. Apparently, Obama has no desire to negotiate with Syria at the present time. Obama's lack of desire to negotiate with Syria apparently continues despite the fact that Syria may harbor WMDs belonging to Iraq. It would seem to be a major item of interest to determine if Assad did indeed conspire with Saddam to hide Saddam's supposed WMD. Of course, Obama may have a better method of determining if Assad is trustworthy.

 

[Belegon]

Also, AFAIK, Obama hasn't requested authority to meet with officials of the Syrian government. Apparently, Obama has no desire to negotiate with Syria at the present time.

Yes, because he has no authority to do so. I will continue to point this out as long as you continue to try and attack him for not doing so.

And why would he be trying to negotiate with Syria when what he should be doing is negotiating with the American voter anyway?

Who the fuck are you, Shawn Hannity? Karl Rove? Just because you repeat the same ridiculous statement over and over again doesn't make it anymore true or relevant.

We are NOT talking about Plame, Wilson or even Pelosi.

Next you will be comparing Obama to Paris Hilton. Or showing video of him sinking a jump shot surrounded by soldiers as proof that he doesn't visit soldiers. Or preparing two ads, one claiming he disrespects soldiers by not visiting a hospital and another claiming he is politicizing them by visiting hospitals.

Meanwhile, let's vote no on the GI Bill and then claim responsibility for passing it.

Thank you for providing such a perfect example of the Politics of Distraction and Deception and showing why we desperately need to grow beyond it.

 

[DesertPirate]

Bush didn't lie, period.
The CIA, Britains intelligence service, and several East European services blew it, plain and simple. They all agreed he had them.

They question is why did Clinton cut the CIA's budget by over 30% in the 90's? That is a good place to start the blame for intelligence failures over a dozen years. Remember it take 3 to 4 times as long to build something as it does to tear it down.

 

[Belegon]

Bush didn't lie, period.
The CIA, Britains intelligence service, and several East European services blew it, plain and simple. They all agreed he had them.

They question is why did Clinton cut the CIA's budget by over 30% in the 90's? That is a good place to start the blame for intelligence failures over a dozen years. Remember it take 3 to 4 times as long to build something as it does to tear it down.

Distraction.

Did Clinton cut the budgets of British Intelligence 30%? That of "several East European services" as well?

If it were that simple, that the cut in funding (and I admit I would have to look up those numbers and am not disputing them at this point) created the fault, then the other people must have had a parallel slashing of their funding, correct?

And the bit about Bush lying was only the title, not the point. The first post (post, not the accompanying article) says next to nothing about Bush. It is an attack on Obama, claiming that he should prove that he can accomplish change through non-military diplomacy by negotiating with Syria, despite the fact that he has no legal right to do so.

Edited to add: Actually, the post says NOTHING about Bush at all.

 

[shereads]

Maybe Bush didn't lie

Maybe hamsters are gnus.

 

[shereads]

The Dark Side: The Inside Story Of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals

by Jane Meyer

Editorial Reviews

"If you intend to vote in November and read only one book between now and then, this should be it.” —Los Angeles Times

“Some of “The Dark Side” seems right out of “The Final Days,” minus Nixon’s operatic boozing and weeping…. Nixon parallels take us only so far, however. “The Dark Side” is scarier than “The Final Days” because these final days aren’t over yet and because the stakes are much higher.” —Frank Rich, New York Times

“In The Dark Side, Jane Mayer, a staff writer for the New Yorker, documents some of the ugliest allegations of wrongdoing charged against the Bush administration. To dismiss these as wild, anti-American ravings will not do. They are facts, which Mayer substantiates in persuasive detail, citing the testimony not of noted liberals like Noam Chomsky or Keith Olbermann but of military officers, intelligence professionals, "hard-line law-and-order stalwarts in the criminal justice system" and impeccably conservative Bush appointees who resisted the conspiracy from within the administration.”
—Washington Post Book World

“Whatever it takes to get those bastards. The true nature of our Faustian bargain would not become clear until later, and maybe it needed a journalist as steely and tenacious as Jane Mayer to give us the full picture. "The Dark Side" is about how the war on terror became "a war on American ideals," and Mayer gives this story all the weight and sorrow it deserves. Many books get tagged with the word "essential"; hers actually is.”
—Salon.com

“In Jane Mayer's angry and important book ``The Dark Side,'' the tenacious New Yorker reporter takes us, step by step, through the process by which practices and methods we associate with tyrannies became official U.S. policy.” —Bloomberg

“(In) The Dark Side, Jane Mayer’s riveting and shocking new book, and not the least of the themes to emerge from it is that we’ve witnessed something new in American history: the imperial vice presidency.” —New York Observer


Product Description
A dramatic and damning narrative account of how America has fought the
"War on Terror"

In the days immediately following September 11th, the most powerful people in the country were panic-stricken. The radical decisions about how to combat terrorists and strengthen national security were made in a state of utter chaos and fear, but the key players, Vice President Dick Cheney and his powerful, secretive adviser David Addington, used the crisis to further a long held agenda to enhance Presidential powers to a degree never known in U.S. history, and obliterate Constitutional protections that define the very essence of the American experiment.

THE DARK SIDE is a dramatic, riveting, and definitive narrative account of how the United States made terrible decisions in the pursuit of terrorists around the world-- decisions that not only violated the Constitution to which White House officials took an oath to uphold, but also hampered the pursuit of Al Qaeda. In gripping detail, acclaimed New Yorker writer and bestselling author, Jane Mayer, relates the impact of these decisions—U.S.-held prisoners, some of them completely innocent, were subjected to treatment more reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition than the twenty-first century.

THE DARK SIDE will chronicle real, specific cases, shown in real time against the larger tableau of what was happening in Washington, looking at the intelligence gained—or not—and the price paid. In some instances, torture worked. In many more, it led to false information, sometimes with devastating results. For instance, there is the stunning admission of one of the detainees, Sheikh Ibn al-Libi, that the confession he gave under duress—which provided a key piece of evidence buttressing congressional support of going to war against Iraq--was in fact fabricated, to make the torture stop.

In all cases, whatever the short term gains, there were incalculable losses in terms of moral standing, and our country's place in the world, and its sense of itself. THE DARK SIDE chronicles one of the most disturbing chapters in American history, one that will serve as the lasting legacy of the George W. Bush presidency.




http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Inside-Terror-American/dp/0385526393/ref=pd_sim_b_4

 

[incubus666]

What Bush really Said

President Bush said was: British intelligence reports Saddam Hussein tried to buy Yellow Cake uranium from Niger. Or words to that effect. As of today The Brits say that information was and is correct.

Part of the problem with Joe Wilson's trip was there was never a written report. So he could deny what ever he actually reported to the CIA. He also only spent a very few days in country. He relied almost exclusively on a short conversation with the Minister of Trade. A man who should have been more concerned with selling exports to Saddam then telling the truth to an ex U.S. Ambassador

As to Valerie, She had not been an undercover agent for over 5 years. Which means who ever gave away her identity to the press was not in violation of any law. BTW the "Whistle Blower" was Richard Armitage. He was an Under Secretary of State at the time.

You will note no one has been prosicuted for disclosing her "under cover" identity.

My understanding is Ken Star knew almost at the beginning of the investigation who the "leaker" was. How can someone(read Scooter Libby) be prosecuted for a crime that never happened?

As the Nazi Regime in WW II Germany said the bigger the lie and the more often it is repeated the more who will believe.