Please critique my LTTE on Iraq lies & also suggest ways to trim it down

here is the editorial I'm responding to:
...
Accusing President Bush of misleading the American people on Iraq is not exactly treasonous in the context of vigorous political discourse over a highly controversial war. Yet to Vice President Cheney, those who are saying Mr. Bush misrepresented intelligence on Saddam Hussein's unfound weapons of mass destruction are engaging in "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired" in Washington.
...
But did Mr. Bush believe before the war that there were no such weapons? Did intelligence agencies brief him accurately? Did they assert that the evidence was irrefutable? Did Mr. Bush probe his briefers or merely listen? Did he fudge the evidence?

Those questions have yet to be fully answered. But they will be eventually.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are right on one point. Many of the Democrats accusing them are being hypocritical because those accusers, too, supported toppling the Baathist regime by force. Their claims that their support for the war was based on what the administration told them on WMDs is disingenuous. Congressional committees have ways to ascertain the facts before voting to support the invasion of another country.
....

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-lies....


and, my LTTE. Please make suggestions to cut it down. I've had one lengthy LTTE published in the Courant (they reserve the longer ones for Saturday), but this may be too long.

Disappointingly, the editorial in The Hartford Courant this past Sunday basically seemed to dish out the latest Republican talking points on Iraq and whether or not President Bush intentionally deceived Congress and the country in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. However, information that has been made public over the past year, starting with the Downing Street Memo, indicates that the Bush Administration clearly and intentionally lied to both Congress and the American public prior to the war.

First, just because Congress did not do their due diligence while being railroaded with the Iraq War resolution does not let Team Bush off the hook for lying. That sounds like the Republican congressional staffer who broke into the computer files of Democrats and then blaming the Democrats for not adequately securing their information.

Second, as recently exposed in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post on Sunday by former Sen. Bob Graham, Congress did not have access to the same intelligence as the White House. A lot of very important information was left out, and Graham thoroughly disproves the White House claim that Congress had the same intelligence as they did. It was also the Bush White House that revoked the security clearance of 92 senators so they were not allowed to look at all of intelligence that the White House claims that they could access.

Furthermore, on August 26, 2002, Dick Cheney said, “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” One of the main sources for this claim, it has been recently revealed in the New York Times, was purported Al Qaeda operative Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. As early as February of 2002, six months before Cheney’s claim, the Defense Intelligence Agency had exposed Mr. “I Been A Shaky Alibi” as a fraud who could not be trusted. Yet, the White House continued to use al-Libi’s claims as 100% reliable, or “no doubt,” as Mr. Cheney said. Al-Libi later completely recanted his testimony.

Of course, we also already know about what Joe Wilson didn’t find in Africa, which completely debunked the now infamous 16 words in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union Address. Soon after Wilson’s article, the White House admitted that those 16 words should not have been in there. It has also recently come to light that Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, had pleaded with the White House not to include this in the speech. A quick Google search will also reveal that ElBaradei was publicly on record before the invasion stating that Iraq had no WMD, which discredits another Republican history-revising talking point that goes, “Everybody thought Saddam had WMD.”

Another quick Google search will reveal the words of Scott Ritter, who headed the UN weapons inspection team in Iraq for seven years in the 1990s. He was also positive that Iraq had no WMD. “After 1998," Ritter said in the 2002 book War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You to Know, "Iraq had been fundamentally disarmed. What this means is that 90%-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability…had been verifiably eliminated." Ritter went on to say that any leftover chemical or biological weapons that had remained would have been long degraded into sludge by 2002. Is that everybody minus two now? Yet, despite this Colin Powell claimed on February 5, 2003, “There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.”

Moreover, the centerpiece of Colin Powell’s UN speech on Iraq was the terrifying mobile biological weapons lab, evidence for which was based on a CIA white paper. Chemical and biological weapons expert, Brad Spencer, PhD, does not mince words about this so-called white paper, “…it was false from the start. There are obvious fabrications in the white paper, fabrications that fly in the face of science. It's garbage. It's a lie. It is the most easily proved of all the lies.” Despite this, “We know for a fact that there are weapons there,” was uttered by Ari Fleischer on December 2, 2002.
Finally, the Courant’s own front page article on Sunday, Nov. 21, 2005 further reveals that the illusion of the Iraqi threat portrayed by the McCarthyesque fear mongers in the White House was just that, an illusion. German intelligence, the article says, told the White House that another prime source, code name Curveball, was not reliable. Yet, we were told this Curveball was a sure thing by the White House, who remained certain, as Bush himself stated on March 17, 2003, “intelligence…leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

Anybody who disputes the idea that Team Bush did not flat out knowingly lie before the war is either unwilling to look at the record, unwilling to admit a mistake, or afraid of being Swift-Boated for speaking out against the White House. While the editorial writers of the Courant may be entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts.

Our positions aren't soundbytes. Theirs are, so we can't really combat in the LTTE department.

But, I don't think I'm a good enough writer for that. If offered, I'd probably just refer them to Will Pitt, as I got a few tidbits from his recent truthout articles.

you could expand it a touch, you know? Find a way to make it cohesive. If I get a chance I'll see if I can edit this down a little. I have lots of writing I have to do, so I'm not sure if I'll get a chance.

I was a much better writer 15-20 years ago. All this time in Corporate America has ruined my writing skills.

Hey, I think you're just trying to be nice to me so I can hook you up with one of my cousins! ;-)

:)

I'm an obsessive writer. Except I don't write frequently enough. I spend most of my time doing research for stuff I want to write about, lol.

No you did a nice job on this, take it from a former columnist, you could easily make it into an op-ed. No problem.

I'll let you know if I get anything more than an automated response.

be sure to let me know, PM me if you want.

Bush knew
Bush lied

That is why the "W"'s polls are so bad.

Is he an idiot or a liar - Which is really worse??

I think Carl really must be his brain, because otherwise he seems to have none.

Can't spin this one. Even O'Reilly has come out agaist the "Stupid War", now.

A lot of true conservatives did - to their credit.

Proving the fact that this guy is NOT EVEN a conservative - to this day, I do not know what he is.

This is the Dems fight, our fight. Murtha is right. We need to back him. Dems better back him - because I can sure feel a third party coming that will. It really is about this damn war.

Joe

The editorial in The Hartford Courant this past Sunday seemed to dish out the latest Republican talking points on Iraq and whether president Bush intentionally deceived Congress and the country in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. However, information that has been made public over the past year, starting with the Downing Street Memo, indicates that the Bush Administration clearly and intentionally lied to both Congress and the American public prior to the war.

First, just because Congress did not do their due diligence while being railroaded with the Iraq War resolution does not let Team Bush off the hook for lying. That sounds like the Republican congressional staffer who broke into the computer files of Democrats and then blamed the Democrats for not adequately securing their information.

Second, as exposed in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post on Sunday by former Sen. Bob Graham, Congress did not have access to the same intelligence as the White House. A lot of very important information was left out, and Graham thoroughly disproves the White House claim that Congress had the same intelligence as they did. It was also the Bush White House that revoked the security clearance of 92 senators so they were not allowed to look at all of intelligence that the White House claims that they could access.

Furthermore, on August 26, 2002, Dick Cheney said, “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” One of the main sources for this claim, it has been recently revealed in the New York Times, was purported Al Qaeda operative Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. As early as February of 2002, six months before Cheney’s claim, the Defense Intelligence Agency had exposed al-Libi as a fraud who could not be trusted. Yet, the White House continued to use al-Libi’s claims as 100% reliable, or “no doubt,” as Mr. Cheney said. Al-Libi later completely recanted his testimony.

Of course, we also already know about what Joe Wilson didn’t find in Africa, which completely debunked the now infamous 16 words in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union Address. Soon after Wilson’s article, the White House admitted that those 16 words should not have been included. It has also recently come to light that Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, had pleaded with the White House not to include this in the speech. A quick Google search will also reveal that ElBaradei was publicly on record before the invasion stating that Iraq had no WMD, which discredits another Republican history-revising talking point that goes, “Everybody thought Saddam had WMD.”

Another quick Google search will reveal the words of Scott Ritter, who headed the UN weapons inspection team in Iraq for seven years in the 1990s. He was also positive that Iraq had no WMD. “After 1998," Ritter said in the 2002 book War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You to Know, "Iraq had been fundamentally disarmed. What this means is that 90%-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability…had been verifiably eliminated." Ritter went on to say that any leftover chemical or biological weapons that had remained would have been long degraded into sludge by 2002. Is that everybody minus two now? Yet, despite this Colin Powell claimed on February 5, 2003, “There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.”

The centerpiece of Colin Powell’s UN speech on Iraq was the terrifying mobile biological weapons lab, evidence for which was based on a CIA white paper. Chemical and biological weapons expert, Brad Spencer, PhD, does not mince words about this so-called white paper, “…it was false from the start. There are obvious fabrications in the white paper, fabrications that fly in the face of science. It's garbage. It's a lie. It is the most easily proved of all the lies.” Despite this, “We know for a fact that there are weapons there,” was uttered by Ari Fleischer on December 2, 2002.
Finally, the Courant’s own front page article on Sunday, Nov. 21, 2005 reveals that the illusion of the Iraqi threat portrayed by the McCarthyesque fear mongers in the White House was just that, an illusion. German intelligence, the article says, told the White House that another prime source, code-named Curveball, was not reliable. Yet, we were told this Curveball was a sure thing by the White House, who remained certain, as Bush himself stated on March 17, 2003, “intelligence…leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

Anybody who disputes the idea that Team Bush did not flat-out knowingly lie before the war is either unwilling to look at the record, unwilling to admit a mistake, or afraid of being Swift-Boated for speaking out against the White House. While the editorial writers of the Courant may be entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts.

*******************

I edited a small bit, but it won't make a big difference in the word count. I think they want 200 or less, if I recall correctly.

I don't know what their standards are for an op-ed piece. You're not under 30 by any chance, are you? I think they're doing something with younger voices... they seem to be soliciting contributions for that.

Good luck with it -- I'll be looking for it!

They do run longer LTTEs on Saturday, which is what I was shooting for - I had one a few months back that was at least 500 or more words in response to a RWer on why movies weren't doing well this year, and I know I've seen longer in there.

The one I just did in the OP was a little more than 800, however.

and, I'll be 39 in a few weeks.

for the cabal of liars and "end game players" who they surrounded themselves with. A few people obviously lied or really didn't care about the truth. Karl Rove told the Brits that he would give them till '04 to sign onto the war in Iraq.

So for many reasons - the various groups in the WH power-structure went after the intelligence they needed to get what they wanted. And put down and stopped investigation into WMD that could have avoided war.

Who lied - who was fooled - who didn't care what the truth was. That would be interesting to know. But I doubt we ever will.

IMHO

Something like this:

On Jan. 26, 1998, PNAC wrote Pres. Bill Clinton a letter signed by Elliott Abrams, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and other key Bush-amdinistration demanding that we abandon weapon inspections and cooperation with the international community in favor of the immediate unilateral military overthrow of the Iraqi government.

In Sept. 2000, PNAC released its paper announcing that their goal of unilateral American global dominance to the exclusion of any other global partnerships will take a long time to achieve "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

On Feb. 24, 2001, Colin Powell said Iraq "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."

On Sept. 11, 2001, a group primarily of Saudi Arabians (no Iraqis) who trained in Afganistan (not Iraq) attacked America -- their leader, a Saudi (not an Iraqi) named Osama bin Laden, remains at large, presumably in Afganistan (not Iraq).

On Sept. 12, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld advocated invading Iraq.

On Sept. 16, 2001, Dick Cheney said "The focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein's bottled up."

On Sept. 21, 2001, the presidential briefing confirmed that . . .

etc., etc., etc.