Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.

By Sidney Blumenthal

http://www.salon.com/opinion/b…../bush_wmd/

Good find!

Another blowback from Tenet?

watching Bill Clinton on Larry Kind – ya’ know what he’s really good at? He’s really good at reframing the situation… right now he’s talking about “why people hate Hillary”…

we should take notes…

Nah, that’s a Republican tactic to set up a strawman and then show you really do want to support his view after all. See, we don’t “hate” Hillary, but that doesn’t mean the alternative is to support her either. We just look at her record, her positions and her intransigence on Iraq and then we look elsewhere.

Elliott @ 133

I find your theory plausible

I’ve been wondering about the “send a message” and have been trying to come at this from a State Dept angle . . .

Rattling a saber this big is not done lightly. Invading Iraq is small potatoes, compared with sending this “message” in this form. Simply mentioning nukes as a possible option is a big, big diplomatic deal. Sending a message that you’re moving them around . . . huge.

But sending the message via a cover story scheme that says “Gosh, we don’t have as firm a control on these things as we thought” is madness.

Sending a message is intended to provoke/entice a certain response. But if you send a mixed message, you’re going to get a mix response — the exact opposite of what you want to happen.

This is not to say they were or were not sending a message. But if they were, they likely just stirred the pot with a very, very large spoon . . . and will get an answer they can’t make sense of.

It’s Magic 8 Ball time at the DOD . . . Reply hazy, ask again later.

Some of us were a little concerned when Obama mentioned nukes with regard to Pakistan. But, THIS is Bush… It has a whole different meaning after someone has already done the things he’s done.

Unless….. Unless there’s a schism in the military and there’s a rogue element being barely contained by the ‘good guys’. It’s scary to consider. But, remember, someone in the military had to go along with selling hardware that went to Iran in the Arms-for-Hostages deal. Did the military publicly admit to it? No.

Who IS in charge?

OK. I always have trouble with conspiracy theories. It’s a temperament thing. What are y’all suggesting would be target of these mystery nukes, assuming this was something other than an accident?

anywhere that would distract America’s attention from George Frickin’ Bush who is currently not around these parts, being in Oz

Five nuclear tipped cruise missiles accidentally being shipped is a Klaxon going off in my head… Military security protocols precludes accidents such as that, it’s clearly prepositioning and Barksdale blew the whistle… Be very wary…!!! 8-(

If they are always prepositioned before being loaded onto an airplane AND they were loaded onto an airplane here in America, then what does that say about where the target might’ve been … if they were gonna drop ‘em?

OTOH, only one person fired? Can’t be right. Has to be a coverup! No ONE person has that kind of authority to make a mistake of such importance.

Peterr @ 167

I’ve been wondering about the “send a message” and have been trying to come at this from a State Dept angle . . .

Rattling a saber this big is not done lightly. Invading Iraq is small potatoes, compared with sending this “message” in this form. Simply mentioning nukes as a possible option is a big, big diplomatic deal. Sending a message that you’re moving them around . . . huge.

But sending the message via a cover story scheme that says “Gosh, we don’t have as firm a control on these things as we thought” is madness.

Sending a message is intended to provoke/entice a certain response. But if you send a mixed message, you’re going to get a mix response — the exact opposite of what you want to happen.

This is not to say they were or were not sending a message. But if they were, they likely just stirred the pot with a very, very large spoon . . . and will get an answer they can’t make sense of.

It’s Magic 8 Ball time at the DOD . . . Reply hazy, ask again later.

The way I read this in “diplomatese” is Deadeye and company want simply for the Iranians to ignore the how and why of the cover story and read the following message between the lines:

1. Don’t feck with us!
2. We mean business!
3. We mean nuclear business!
4. We ain’t feckin’ kidding!

This follows other parts of the saber-rattlin’ script for Iran that magically has popped up in recent weeks in both US and Foreign media.

Actually, this may be as much for domestic consumption as international. The “I’m a crazy fucker” card. With everyone distracted by preventing nuclear war, more judges get nominated and confirmed, more regulations eviscerating medicare, environment, oversight go unnoticed. And when he gets “sane”, the relief that our brave POTUS has avoided another catastrophe is to strong, he gets to ramp it all up again.

Peterr @ 167

I’ve been wondering about the “send a message” and have been trying to come at this from a State Dept angle . . .

Rattling a saber this big is not done lightly. Invading Iraq is small potatoes, compared with sending this “message” in this form. Simply mentioning nukes as a possible option is a big, big diplomatic deal. Sending a message that you’re moving them around . . . huge.

But sending the message via a cover story scheme that says “Gosh, we don’t have as firm a control on these things as we thought” is madness.

Sending a message is intended to provoke/entice a certain response. But if you send a mixed message, you’re going to get a mix response — the exact opposite of what you want to happen.

This is not to say they were or were not sending a message. But if they were, they likely just stirred the pot with a very, very large spoon . . . and will get an answer they can’t make sense of.

It’s Magic 8 Ball time at the DOD . . . Reply hazy, ask again later.

The way I read this in “diplomatese” is Deadeye and company want simply for the Iranians to ignore the how and why of the cover story and read the following message between the lines:

1. Don’t feck with us!
2. We mean business!
3. We mean nuclear business!
4. We ain’t feckin’ kidding!

This follows other parts of the saber-rattlin’ script for Iran that magically has popped up in recent weeks in both US and Foreign media.

Then why not simply move them and tell them you’re moving them? Why the “oops, we slipped up there” story? It kind of muddies the “we’re serious and know how to take you out” strength of the message.

Elmer Fudd is not a terribly effective messenger, even if he has nukes.

solai @ 160

No embarrassing the candidates by announcing their polling stats. Really, that was so tacky of George.

I know it is OT but I think it is hilarious that Fred rolled out his announcement video an hour before the debate began and then went on Leno. Talk about mean stuff !

They’ll eat anyone.

I’ve been wondering about the “send a message” and have been trying to come at this from a State Dept angle . . .

Rattling a saber this big is not done lightly. Invading Iraq is small potatoes, compared with sending this “message” in this form. Simply mentioning nukes as a possible option is a big, big diplomatic deal. Sending a message that you’re moving them around . . . huge.

But sending the message via a cover story scheme that says “Gosh, we don’t have as firm a control on these things as we thought” is madness.

Sending a message is intended to provoke/entice a certain response. But if you send a mixed message, you’re going to get a mix response — the exact opposite of what you want to happen.

This is not to say they were or were not sending a message. But if they were, they likely just stirred the pot with a very, very large spoon . . . and will get an answer they can’t make sense of.

It’s Magic 8 Ball time at the DOD . . . Reply hazy, ask again later.

The way I read this in “diplomatese” is Deadeye and company want simply for the Iranians to ignore the how and why of the cover story and read the following message between the lines:

1. Don’t feck with us!
2. We mean business!
3. We mean nuclear business!
4. We ain’t feckin’ kidding!

This follows other parts of the saber-rattlin’ script for Iran that magically has popped up in recent weeks in both US and Foreign media.

raven @ 132

namaste?

Bowing to you.

ditto