Friday, March 17, 2006

Truth Doesn't Matter To Lefties

I work with a raving moonbat who is convinced that--well, you know what he's convinced of. He's a moonbat, you know what he believes. He asked me to post this little "essay" he wrote on my blog. Here it is.

He's upset that I won't refute his points one by one. I told him that God himself could tell him he was wrong and he wouldn't accept it, so I see no reason to spend my time doing it. If you want to know what the life of a conservative teacher is like, the kind of people I interact with on a daily basis, read this so-called essay in that light.

Veep Dick Cheney is the point man to try and shore up W’s popularity that has plummeted in large part because of alleged distortions of prewar intelligence by the CIA and White House. Cheney is calling those making the allegations of distortion of prewar intelligence “liars”, ”dishonest” and “reprehensible.”

Here’s my rationale for questioning the integrity and accuracy of the prewar intelligence that came out of the CIA and the White House. It is my belief that after reading this we all have the responsibility to question not only the CIA, but our president. Those that question the prewar intelligence are neither liars, dishonest nor reprehensible.

1) Cheney said repeatedly that Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, had met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague in 2000, a claim that the CIA has reported to be iffy at best. Contrary to Cheney’s claim, a CIA report from 2002 reported that the issue was “contradictory” and “not verified.”

2) Why has the Senate GOP leadership refused to allow an investigation into the validity of the prewar intelligence that was presented to Congress to move forward?”

3) Bush in the State of the Union speech stated that yellow cake uranium was being smuggled out of Niger into Iraq even though 3 separate CIA reports PRIOR TO Bush giving his State of the Union speech claimed the information was based on forged documents. When Joseph Wilson did the right thing and reported on the President’s inaccuracy in an editorial in the New York Times, his wife’s identity as a CIA operative was leaked. The White House’s response was not the sort of apology I was looking for. The president didn’t say a thing and a statement out of the White House said that the Presidents statement on yellow cake uranium “did not rise to the level of inclusion in the President’s State of the Union speech.” DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF INCLUSION? That’s the apology for this unimaginable misstatement? Thank you Captain Obvious. Of course inaccurate statements shouldn’t be included in the State of the Union speech. We all know that. What I want to know is how intelligence that was reported to be false in 3 separate reports made it into the speech to start with. How’s about an apology for the monumental error to boot. It did not rise to the level of inclusion is neither an explanation nor an apology. One GOP representative from New York said that Valerie Plame “got what she deserved.” Really? Let’s say hypothetically that the information Wilson wrote in his editorial was false (WHICH IT WASN’T), did Valerie get what she deserved? Let’s say hypothetically that Wilson was wrong to point out the blatant inaccuracy of Bush’s statement (WHICH HE WASN’T), did Valerie get what she deserved?

4) The German equivalence to the CIA known as the BND, warned the US PRIOR TO the US going into Iraq, that the intelligence that Colin Powell used in the UN to justify military force, had been repeatedly exaggerated and were based on an unreliable informant. Of course I found this story in the liberal media on page 23. Makes perfect sense for the liberal media to bury such a story on page 23. Don’t you think that the Germans alleging that the US went to war based on exaggerated and an unreliable source resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and a quarter of a trillion dollars thus far to be a front-page story? I guess those wacky liberal media types don’t know how to spin a story or could something else be at play?

The unreliable Iraqi informant known as “Curveball” was offered a salary, housing and protection for information on Iraq. Curveball still lives in Southern Germany with his family in a furnished apartment, with a stipend and language lessons for his entire family. You think an Iraqi cab driver might fabricate stories for this sort of deal?

Here’s the real skinny. Based on Curveball’s information, Bush said that Iraq had at least 7 known mobile biological factories that were producing agents. This was a claim he made in speeches and radio addresses on several occasions. Powell also repeated these claims to the UN when laying out the US’s rationale for support of an Iraq military action. He claimed “eyewitness testimony” for the allegations and that the intelligence was “solid.” Powell went on to say that the Iraqi trucks could produce enough weapons grade microbes “in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people.” Powell has since admitted that Curveball was the eyewitness he referred to in the UN address. Since that time even Powell has said the case “ has totally blown up in our faces.”

Before giving you background on Curveball, here’s what the BND was telling the US prior to the US military action in Iraq shortly after Powells speech to the UN.

a) “He is not a stable psychological guy.”
b) “We made clear that we (BND) could not verify the things he (Curveball) said.”
c) “We were shocked (at Powell’s UN testimony). We had always told them (CIA) it was not proven…It was not hard intelligence.”
d) Curveball “only heard rumors. He gave a third hand account.”
e) “The Iraqis were all laughing when we asked about him. They were saying ‘This guy? You’ve got to be kidding.’”

Keep in mind that Curveball was the chief source of inaccurate prewar intelligence according to a commission appointed by Bush earlier this year. Also keep in mind that we never interviewed him until a year after the invasion. Only the BND interviewed him prior to the invasion and they said not to trust the information. Yet that didn’t stop those advocating going into Iraq from citing Curveball as an “eyewitness” that was “solid intelligence.” To make matters worse the US ignored evidence that the UN weapons inspectors disproved all of Curveball’s accounts before the war. Senior CIA officials embraced the bogus intelligence nonetheless and only admitted error 14 months after the invasion.

Here’s what Curveball told the BND. He said he had assembled equipment on only one truck and had heard secondhand about others. Furthermore he could not identify what the equipment was designed to produce. David Kay, who headed the post invasion search for weapons said, “He (Curveball) was not in charge of trucks or production. He had nothing to do with actual biological agents. He never actually saw them producing agents.” Kay now says that Curveballs motive was to receive a German visa not start a war. Kay also found that Curveball had been fired from his job at the alleged mobile weapons facility in 1995. His claims to working on germ weapons were posed 1995. Another former CIA official found that Curveball had previously been jailed for a sex crime and had been working as a taxi driver after being fired in 1995.

Curveball’s information was the foundation and primary basis for invading Iraq resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and a quarter of a trillion dollars? Sadly, I believe it was. Put your self in the place of the Iraqis. Wouldn’t you be just a bit upset about the US occupation in your country based on this justification? Of course the White House justification has since evolved into spreading democracy to the region, but that wasn’t the pitch to the UN in February of 2003. That pitch wouldn’t have gone over too well here at home either.

5) CIA agents were passively pressed to provide intelligence that supported an invasion of Iraq.

6) The 9/11 Commission spent millions of dollars and found no credible link between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda. But of course. Allow me to explain. These guys hate each other. Indeed they share a hatred of the US and Israel, but that’s where the commonality ends. Hussein was anything but Muslim. Creating an Islamic state was far from his goal. Not so with bin Laden. For one thing women in Iraq had more rights and freedoms then almost any other Middle Eastern nation. Certainly much more than they’re going to get under this Islamic based constitution. DON’T GET ME WRONG. The world is a better place with this murderous and torturing dictator out of power. It simply wasn’t worth the price the US has had to pay though, but I digress.

Bin Laden on the other hand is a hard core Islamic fundamentalist. The rights that women had in Iraq were reprehensible to him and directly violated the Koran in his eyes. Bin Laden is similar to Don Corleone from The Godfather. Corleone, although a cold-blooded murderer, was a devoted family man. An odd moral dichotomy to be sure. Bin Laden, although a mass murderer, is a fundamentalist Muslim fiercely devoted to God. Again, an odd moral dichotomy. Hussein could give two squirts of piss about the Islamic religion. He would allow torture and rape of his fellow Muslims without a flinch. Bin Laden would never be a part of this disgusting practice. His religion would never allow it. Odd for a guy that murders but true. In short, there never was an Al Qaeda link with Iraq. With Hussein out however, there is one now, the invasion of Iraq has created it unfortunately.

7) The Downing Street Memos show that the White House had intentions of invading Iraq prior to the 9/11 hijackings.

8) Not a single 9/11 hijacker was Iraqi. That was al Qaeda and Osama that was responsible and if you’ve forgotten, he’s still on the loose though we haven’t heard about it for awhile. He’s likely in a cave between Pakistan and Afghanistan. That’s where our military focus should be. Most of the hijackers were Saudis, but for some reason that’s never mentioned.


Of course there’s much more, but isn’t that enough to question the White House and CIA without Cheney calling those that question “liars”, “dishonest” and “reprehensible?” HOW DARE YOU! I’m one angry American. All Americans need to call for an honest investigation now without further obstruction from the republican senate leadership. The stalling must end. Truth now. All democracies require truth in order to properly make decisions. I don’t believe we’re getting it. To quote my sis, “I just wish that someone would give this guy a blow job so that we could impeach him (Bush).” As if manipulation of intelligence wasn’t enough.

6 comments:

elementaryhistoryteacher said...

This leftie has way too much time on his hands. I applaud you for not negating his points one by one. What's the point?

Amerloc said...

I spent more time today looking for something that might entertain the previous commenter than I will on chewing you out for not finding a monkey who could type better than that.

Darren said...

In my defense, Amerloc, I didn't seek him out. He presented the material to me unsolicited.

Darren said...

Oddly enough, I've already refuted several of his points. Months ago. Here:
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2005/11/presidents-veterans-day-speech.html

Darren said...

And here:
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2006/02/saddams-weapons.html

rightwingprof said...

That's one of those "where do you start?" moments.