How McCain tried to tie anthrax scare to Iraq

Brandon, as I've said before, McCain has a long reputation for his "wink wink" public comments. For example, "I don't know if Barack Obama is a Socialist." Wink Wink. He's inferring that Obama is a socialist. McCain, of course, knows that Obama is not a socialist, but he's trying to lead his uninformed base to believe that Obama is, indeed, a socialist.

Does McCain's campaign style meet his reputation myth of being honorable and positive? NO! He's at war with Barack Obama and, as McCain often says, "I know how to fight wars." McCain is tarnishing his long and carefully prepared reputation. The Press is finally wising up to his myth.

When will you wise up?

BBB

edgarblythe wrote:

He was feeding into the hysteria that led to the bogus war.

It wasnt [sic] bogus at all. I'm sure you won't dare speculate on what a world containing a Saddam Hussein armed with nuclear and biological weapons would have been like. At the time of the invasion, there was plently [sic] of reason to believe that Iraq hadn't completely destroyed the development labs. It turned out not to be true, but hindsight is 20/20.

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Brandon, as I've said before, McCain has a long reputation for his "wink wink" public comments. For example, "I don't know if Barack Obama is a Socialist." Wink Wink. He's inferring that Obama is a socialist. McCain, of course, knows that Obama is not a socialist, but he's trying to lead his uninformed base to believe that Obama is, indeed, a socialist.

Does McCain's campaign style meet his reputation myth of being honorable and positive? NO! He's at war with Barack Obama and, as McCain often says, "I know how to fight wars." McCain is tarnishing his long and carefully prepared reputation. The Press is finally wising up to his myth.

When will you wise up?

BBB

It's a great pity that you feel the need to present everyone you disagree with politically as being dishonest.

Brandon9000 wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

He was feeding into the hysteria that led to the bogus war.

It wasnt [sic] bogus at all. I'm sure you won't dare speculate on what a world containing a Saddam Hussein armed with nuclear and biological weapons would have been like. At the time of the invasion, there was plently [sic] of reason to believe that Iraq hadn't completely destroyed the development labs. It turned out not to be true, but hindsight is 20/20.

Those were outright lies and it's clear that with such a limited count of brain cells, a mere 9000, it's well beyond your powers to reason.


=================
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0wbpKCdkkQ

February 24, 2001 - Colin Powell

He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to Weapons of Mass Destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.

July 2001 - Condelezza Rice

We are able to keep arms from him, his military forces have not been rebuilt.

=====================

FBI was told to blame Anthrax scare on Al Qaeda by White House officials

WASHINGTON - In the immediate aftermath of the 2001 anthrax attacks, White House officials repeatedly pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller to prove it was a second-wave assault by Al Qaeda, but investigators ruled that out, the Daily News has learned.

After the Oct. 5, 2001, death from anthrax exposure of Sun photo editor Robert Stevens, Mueller was "beaten up" during President Bush's morning intelligence briefings for not producing proof the killer spores were the handiwork of terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden, according to a former aide.

"They really wanted to blame somebody in the Middle East," the retired senior FBI official told The News.

On October 15, 2001, President Bush said, "There may be some possible link" to Bin Laden, adding, "I wouldn't put it past him." Vice President Cheney also said Bin Laden's henchmen were trained "how to deploy and use these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together."

But by then the FBI already knew anthrax spilling out of letters addressed to media outlets and to a U.S. senator was a military strain of the bioweapon. "Very quickly [Fort Detrick, Md., experts] told us this was not something some guy in a cave could come up with," the ex-FBI official said. "They couldn't go from box cutters one week to weapons-grade anthrax the next."

Revel, McCain was one of Bush's wink wink liars for public consumption.

BBB

edgarblythe wrote:

He was feeding into the hysteria that led to the bogus war.

It wasnt bogus at all. I'm sure you won't dare speculate on what a world containing a Saddam Hussein armed with nuclear and biological weapons would have been like. At the time of the invasion, there was plently of reason to believe that Iraq hadn't completely destroyed the development labs. It turned out not to be true, but hindsight is 20/20.

Brandon9000 wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

He was feeding into the hysteria that led to the bogus war.

It wasnt bogus at all. I'm sure you won't dare speculate on what a world containing a Saddam Hussein armed with nuclear and biological weapons would have been like. At the time of the invasion, there was plently of reason to believe that Iraq hadn't completely destroyed the development labs. It turned out not to be true, but hindsight is 20/20.

Oh, yawn. You've held this position for what, five years now? And have you ever convinced anyone who believed the war was bogus?

The tide of opinion is against you, but hold the line!

Your response is essentially an appeal to majority opinion, which is an invalid argument. I hope that you don't advocate that everyone adhere to the "tide of opinion." There wouldn't be much progress in the world. Had you a real argument, you could make a real response.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Your response is essentially an appeal to majority opinion, which is an invalid argument. I hope that you don't advocate that everyone adhere to the "tide of opinion." There wouldn't be much progress in the world. Had you a real argument, you could make a real response.

No, my response is essentially an appeal for you to get a life. Nobody is interested in "debating" this point any more.

Your response is essentially an appeal to majority opinion, which is an invalid argument. I hope that you don't advocate that everyone adhere to the "tide of opinion." There wouldn't be much progress in the world. Had you a real argument, you could make a real response.

Tuesday Aug. 5, 2008 06:54 EDT
The FBI's emerging, leaking case against Ivins

Glenn Greenwald

(updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)

It's certainly possible that once the FBI closes its investigation and then formally unveils its evidence -- which apparently will happen tomorrow -- a very convincing case will be made that Bruce Ivins perpetrated the anthrax attacks and did so alone. But what has been revealed thus far -- through the standard ritual of selected Government leaks which the establishment media, with some exceptions, just mindlessly re-prints no matter how frivolous -- is creating the opposite impression. The FBI's coordinated leaking is making their claim to have solved the anthrax case appear quite dubious, in some instances laughably so.

One glaring and important exception to the dynamic of uncritical media recitation is this morning's New York Times article by Scott Shane and Nicholas Wade, which evinces very strong skepticism over the FBI's case thus far and discloses facts that create more grounds for skepticism. Given everything that has happened over the last seven years -- not just with the anthrax attacks but with countless episodes of Government deceit and corruption -- it's astonishing (and more than a little disturbing) how many people are willing, even eager, to assume that the Government's accusations against Ivins are accurate even without seeing a shred of evidence to support those claims.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/05/anthrax/index.html

Name one outright lie told by president Bush to initiate the war. Don't give me more than one, and don't give me a link to someone else's words.

Ron Suskind: White House ordered forgery to link al-Qaeda/Saddam to 9/11 attacks

...

In the months before the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq, British intelligence had secret meetings in Amman, Jordan, with Habbush, chief of Saddam's intelligence network. Habbush demanded a safe way out, if-and-when the U.S. invaded. Habbush repeatedly told the British that Saddam had no WMD; all programs had ended in the 1990's; and the book says the Bush White House didn't want to hear it - and didn't want to hear more reports on what Habbush was saying.

The U.S. invaded in March ?'03. Habbush was ready. He slipped out of Baghdad with the help of U.S. intelligence and into Amman…

In October ?'03, CIA paid Habbush $5 million as part of his resettlement. By then, the White House had finally thought of a way to use Habbush. … The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001. It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq ?- thus showing, finally that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda… The letter also mentioned suspicious shipments to Iraq from Niger set up with al Qaeda's assistance. The idea was to take the letter to Habbush and have him transcribe it in his own neat handwriting on a piece of Iraqi government stationery, to make it look legitimate. CIA would then take the finished product to Baghdad and have someone release it to the media.

Even five years later, (Rob Richer, who worked in CIA for 30 years and was in charge of "clandestine ops" in the Middle East-now working as an executive at Blackwater USA and in line to be CEO of Blackwater according to this book) remembers looking down at the creamy White House stationery on which the assignment was written. "The guys from the Vice President's office were just barraging us in this period with one thing after another: Run down this lead, find out about that. It was nonstop. Of course, this was different. This was creating a deception." Richer passed the directive down the chain, to the Iraq Operations Group. ((IOG was a CIA team co-led by John Maguire, clearly also a source for Suskind))

…"When it was discussed with me, I just thought it was incredible," Maguire recalls. "A box-checking of all outstanding issues in one letter, from one guy."

…Suskind is NOT able to report exactly how it was done, whether Habbush himself definitely did it, but reports what you can find through Google searches: The Sunday Telegraph reported the letter; it caused a sensation. Suskind does report that Richer remembers George Tenet passing to him the White House's orders to concoct that letter. Suskind asserts that it's an apparently illegal act, to forge or concoct that fake letter to Saddam.:

Under a 1991 amendment to the statutes that in 1947 created CIA and that govern its actions, there is a passage that reads, "No covert action may be conducted which is intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media." The operation created by the White House and passed to the CIA seems inconsistent with those statutory requirements. …It is not the sort of offense that brings jail time. It is much broader than that… the sort of thing generally taken up in impeachment proceedings."

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/05/ron-suskind-white-house-ordered-forgery-to-link-al-qaedasaddam-to-911-attacks/#more-31571

Seriously. Go out and talk to a real person. Preferably a girl, if you can do so with freaking her out.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Your response is essentially an appeal to majority opinion, which is an invalid argument. I hope that you don't advocate that everyone adhere to the "tide of opinion." There wouldn't be much progress in the world. Had you a real argument, you could make a real response.

As Glenn Greenwald says;

"--- what minimally rational person would be willing to assume that the Government's uncorroborated, unexamined, untested claims are accurate?"

For Brandon's edification.

Quote:

Tuesday Aug. 5, 2008 06:54 EDT
The FBI's emerging, leaking case against Ivins

Glenn Greenwald

(updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)

It's certainly possible that once the FBI closes its investigation and then formally unveils its evidence -- which apparently will happen tomorrow -- a very convincing case will be made that Bruce Ivins perpetrated the anthrax attacks and did so alone. But what has been revealed thus far -- through the standard ritual of selected Government leaks which the establishment media, with some exceptions, just mindlessly re-prints no matter how frivolous -- is creating the opposite impression. The FBI's coordinated leaking is making their claim to have solved the anthrax case appear quite dubious, in some instances laughably so.

One glaring and important exception to the dynamic of uncritical media recitation is this morning's New York Times article by Scott Shane and Nicholas Wade, which evinces very strong skepticism over the FBI's case thus far and discloses facts that create more grounds for skepticism. Given everything that has happened over the last seven years -- not just with the anthrax attacks but with countless episodes of Government deceit and corruption -- it's astonishing (and more than a little disturbing) how many people are willing, even eager, to assume that the Government's accusations against Ivins are accurate even without seeing a shred of evidence to support those claims.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/05/anthrax/index.html