Frank Gaffney on WMD
 

Mr. Gaffney prefaced his remarks by stating that Saddam Hussein's WMDs were but one of three things that, in combination, made the removal of his regime from power in Iraq necessary. The other two factors were the Iraqi despot's "absolute and ruthless control over the resources of his oil-rich nation" and "his support for international terrorists."

Mr. Gaffney's testimony drew on the 2004 findings of the Iraq Survey Group, which - despite concerted efforts by critics of the Bush Administration and its liberation of Iraq to obscure a number of the ISG's most important conclusions - established that Saddam maintained active chemical and biological weapons programs until he was toppled, programs that he intended to greatly expand once sanctions were lifted. Of particular concern was the Group's discovery that the despot's henchmen had plans to place sarin nerve gas and sulfur mustard in "perfume sprayers and medicine bottles which they would ship to the United States and Europe."

In his prepared remarks and in response to questions from Committee members, Mr. Gaffney dismissed as absurd the notion that Iraq was a "WMD-free zone" prior to 2003. He also challenged assertions by some that the 500 chemical munitions thus far found were harmless and somehow not among the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam was obliged to destroy, and that constituted a potential threat to the United States and other freedom-loving nations."



CenterForSecurityPolicy

So why do we only here these things from crackpot right-wing vanity pages, and not the administration itself? Could it be that they're FOS? Naawwwwwwwwwwww!

I never had success arguing with children.

Nor I teaching pigs to sing.

Irrespective of the source--interestingly a right-wing source--the sources are unimpeachable. Gaffney is citing the ISG and the UN list of WMD.

You are a short-sighted little piggy.

Fit and Unfit to Print
June 30, 2006; Page A12

....... The problem with the Times is that millions of Americans no longer believe that its editors would make those calculations in anything close to good faith. We certainly don't. On issue after issue, it has become clear that the Times believes the U.S. is not really at war, and in any case the Bush Administration lacks the legitimacy to wage it.

.......... Perhaps Mr. Keller has been listening to his boss, Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who in a recent commencement address apologized to the graduates because his generation "had seen the horrors and futility of war and smelled the stench of corruption in government.

"Our children, we vowed, would never know that. So, well, sorry. It wasn't supposed to be this way," the publisher continued. "You weren't supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land. You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights," and so on. Forgive us if we conclude that a newspaper led by someone who speaks this way to college seniors has as a major goal not winning the war on terror but obstructing it.....

On the other hand, leaks are generally a healthy diversion in democracies - they are a free market response and check to corruption hidden by false secrets. Perhaps when those in power practice what they preach regarding leaks and stop using leaks for personal or political gain - people will take their concerns about leaks more seriously.

"Leaks" also change current focus on embarassing faux pas to totally different subjects. Wise politicians understand the limited attention span of the average citizen and take advantage of this at every opportunity.

The question should be rephrased to read "Who did the leaking and for what reason?" rather than "Why did the paper print the story?"

If Watergate were to happen today, would the two reporters be cooling their heels in a federal prison, found guilty of "treason"?

Amazing how eager people are to allow their freedoms to be slowly eroded away in the name of "National Security".

Really? How is that wise? I would call such behavior, "opportunistic", "callous" or "political".

Vote out those who think otherwise...

"Wise" in the sense of self serving.

Is opportunistic or political bad ? Agree on callous, btw, but political behavior is not, by definition, corrupt or evil. I'd define political behavior as a skill to see and act upon common but different needs to unite them. Seeing and acting on factors that divide and conquer would be callous - but still political behavior.

I guess it depends which opportunity one chooses.

The leaker is a spy.

The Times is most influential newspaper in the country and their actions are horrible. I don't think charging the Times is a good idea if you look at it in a big picture way. Special prosecutors are deviant enough in methods. Starting a new campaign against any newspaper can lead to other socially complicated situations.

Hang the spy to send a message.

This incident has surely stirred up the uninformed.

SWIFT was no secret. Our use of SWIFT was referenced in the NYT in 2003 as one of the contributing factors in a prior capture. Any real enemy of the US would have assumed SWIFT was cooperating with the US government.

The Bush administration can count on poor memories and poor information among its 'base' to allow them to stir up outrage on demand.

Another great example os the NK missile launch. Suddenly, it's important that we all worry about that. But NK dropped a dummy warhead on Alaska about three years ago, and the US media said nothing about it. Nor did the administration. they just didn't need the fear and outrage then as much as they do now.

According to Tony Fratto, Treasury's Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, he first contacted the Times some two months ago. Mr. Fratto went on to ask the Times not to publish such a story on grounds that it would damage this useful terror-tracking method.

Secretary John Snow invited Times Executive Editor Bill Keller to his Treasury office to deliver the same message.

Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, the leaders of the 9/11 Commission, made the same request of Mr. Keller.

Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte also urged the newspaper not to publish the story.

The Times decided to publish anyway, letting Mr. Fratto know about its decision a week ago Wednesday.

Mr. Fratto says he believed "they had about 80% of the story, but they had about 30% of it wrong." So the Administration decided that, in the interest of telling a more complete and accurate story, they would declassify a series of talking points about the program.

Treasury contacted WSJ reporter Glenn Simpson to offer him the same declassified information. At no point did Treasury officials tell the WSJ not to publish the information. What Journal editors did know is that they had senior government officials providing news they didn't mind seeing in print.

Times' Keller's argument that the terrorists surely knew about the Swift monitoring is his own leap of faith. The terror financiers might have known the U.S. could track money from the U.S., but they might not have known the U.S. could follow the money from, say, Saudi Arabia. The first thing an al Qaeda financier would have done when the story broke is check if his bank was part of Swift.

In this asymmetric war against terrorists, intelligence and financial tracking are the equivalent of troop movements. They are America's main weapons. The Times itself said as much in a typically hectoring September 24, 2001, editorial "Finances of Terror": "Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities." Isn't the latter precisely what the Swift operation is?

The obligation of the press is to take the government seriously when it makes a request not to publish.

Hmmmmmm..

80% + 30% = ? (reference to Mr. Fratto's quote posted above..and he works for the Treasury?)

50% of story right and 30% of story wrong.

Probably, but ya gotta admit it sure reads funny!! The second "it" would lead one to the conclusion that it referred to "the story", and 80% of "it" right and 30% of "it" wrong kinda tickled my funny.bone

Yep.. I had to read it over to figure the crazy wording in the quote.

this may be true if you are referring to a Communist or other totalitarian government, but the exact opposite is true here in the U.S.

What's with the neocon loonie right and democracy-lite?

Democracy isn't easy boys. Scaring people is, sure, but real Democracy takes balls. Either live with the consequences of Freedom -- yes that means that you too can die for it, not just our brave men and women in the military -- or get the f**k out of the country and quit trying to subvert the basis for our country. Cya.

The lefty loosers are making it easy for the Reps to get reelected whithout reforming themselves. I hear Laura B will be sending out thank you cards.