Morning Joe: Scarborough and Buchanan want hearings over NIE
By Nicole Belle Tuesday Dec 04, 2007 2:21pmHear that, Joe Biden?
Download | play QT later... (h/t JL) DailyKos:
So this morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough had Pat Buchanan on the phone to discuss the recent NIE revelations about Iran, and Bush's pathetic performance yesterday in saying that he didn't find out about it until just now. Both Pat and Joe were absolutely incredulous at that statement.
Buchanan went one step further. He said Joe Biden needs to get back to Washington and HOLD HEARINGS on who knew what, and when. He actually called on Biden to haul Condi Rice and Stephen Hadley before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to ask them if they knew about the NIE report, and if they had ever told Bush. Pat and Joe were both adamant that if either of those two knew about this report, and didn't let the President know about it, they should be fired immediately. And if they DID tell Bush, and yet Bush still went on warmongering with the knowledge that Iran had stopped its nuclear program in 2003, then, well... they didn't exactly define what the consequence should be then. Read on...
I've got a few suggestions for some very apt consequences, how about you?
Partial transcript below the fold:
Buchanan: The Republican candidates including Giuliani and the others are talking about using nuclear weapons, tactical atomic weapons on Iran to rip it of nuclear weapons when it stopped its own program four years ago. This is incredible.
Scarborough: Does Congress need to subpoena Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Steven Hadley and the Director of the CIA and the Secretary of Defense and ask them what they knew and when they knew it?
Buchanan: Exactly. And the President of the United States should tell us what he knew and when he knew it, what he said yesterday is noncredible. If the head of the CIA walks in and says we've got new intelligence on Iran and Bush doesn't ask him what exactly are you talking about 'new intelligence' that's not credible. But Joe you're right. Biden ought to get off the campaign trail, get back here and chair that committee and say 'look, what exactly were you told?' -- bring up the CIA and bring up Negroponte. He was the number one guy in intelligence. Look, we are being stampeded towards war with Iran, the second war in this administration on the basis of intelligence which was false and that is incredible. It looks as though the Iranians when they said this may be a peaceful nuclear program may have been telling the truth.
Scarborough: If Steven Hadley and Condoleezza Rice and Gates and all of these other people knew then while the President was ramping us up to war and talking about the possibility of a World War III and allowing our allies in Europe to climb back on board with America, finally, but allowed him to do that and didn't say anything, do you think they should be fired today?
Buchanan: Look, I'm not going to fire anybody today. I want to find out the entire truth of what these people knew and when they knew it. It suggests to me, Joe, that Gates, the Fallon group and the Pentagon generals and the others basically are against a war and they said this guy is driving us to war, and somebody said let's get this intelligence out and blow a hole in the policy of our administration which is to go towards war. But that raises another question: why is the President and why is Cheney and why are the neocons and why are all the others driving us to war if they knew that Iran had stopped its program four years ago? This is incredible.
Login or Register to post comments.
FRIIIIISTPEACH!!!
When should I start holding my breath that something, anything, will come of this??????
Really? Sounds like the boys are trying to shift blame and make a case for the "bush did know" scam. This is about finding an angle that can be manipulated to get Bush off the hook...nothing more.
The audio is messed up.
Perhaps. Some sort of conservative tipping point would be expected, given that Bu$hCo. are a bunch of bad conservatives. Then again, much like the media--these cats are vastly more wedded to their original positions than to reality.
I know it will be said a million times but CRIPES, how many people would be alive/unmaimed today if this had taken place four years ago.
Blows my mind that Pat Buchanan is making sense to me.
You've gotta admit he's forceful and penetrating and knows what he's talking about.
Wouldn't want to get on his bad side.
As much as I would love to see most of this administration frog marched away in hand cuffs another hearing that the republicans will block every attempt to get to the truth is useless. The administration will claim national security. The MSM will report what the administration and the Republicans say without challenge. All truth will be met with lies and the MSM will treat them equally. I just don't know if it would be worth it.
RayC @ 8:
Thank you Ms Pelosi.
It comes to something when Pat Buchanan is the voice of reason.
Impeach. Indict. Incarcerate.
NOW!
Kucinich '08
Dr. Acula @ 9:
"I’ve got a few suggestions for some very apt consequences, how about you?"
Like impeaching the idiot-in-chief & war-criminal, then prosecuting & putting him in prison, where he belongs.
Those hypocratic morons always try to shift stupidity & incompetence away from their devine one.
I M P E A C H
It is the only thing in the constitutional toolbox that is appropriate in a case like this.
Impeachment, of course. It's about time.
They would have to bleep out so much of the testimony due to "security" concerns, the hearings would sound like Two Live Crew on a Pat Boone special.
Impeach. Impeach? Impeach. Come on. It's time for President Pelosi.
Strange reason for a parting of ways with the BA. The long list of equally egregious activities by the BA would seem to have presented many opportunities for these reformed cheerleaders to call for oversight. Why did they jump on this one in particular?
Pat Buchanan was against the Iraq war from the beginning and he wrote a great editorial about it at the time. I hardly agree with him on a lot of subjects, but when it comes to war, I listen to him. I agree with the writer of the Kos piece, this morning when Pat mentioned the Downing Street memo, I too about fell off my chair. I think the true republicans who aren't part of the wing-nut group are pissed because they see what bush is doing to their party and they don't like it. Hagle was one of the first to jump ship and now I think others may follow.
So much of what we dirty hippies have been saying all along is now proving to be true. This fiasco with NIE will hopefully begin to pull back the curtain and reveal the ugliness that has been going on. Maybe some reporters will be yanking on that curtain.
Hell yes, bush knew about the info in the NIE when he gave that speech in Oct about WWIII, the wording in the speech proves it. Now if his speech writer knew and worded his speech to keep it safe without telling bush, I would think now bush would be mad as hell. But then I thought bush should be mad as hell after he invaded Iraq and there were no WMD there as he had been told. But just like today, he acts like it's no big deal.
What about this report from the Weekly Standard:
"NIE: An Abrupt About-Face
"As many recognize, the latest NIE on Iran’s nuclear weapons program directly contradicts what the U.S. Intelligence Community was saying just two years previously. And it appears that this about-face was very recent. How recent?
"Consider that on July 11, 2007, roughly four or so months prior to the most recent NIE’s publication, Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee (emphasis added):
"Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.
"This paragraph appeared under the subheading: "Iran Assessed As Determined to Develop Nuclear Weapons." And the entirety of Fingar’s 22-page testimony was labeled "Information as of July 11, 2007." No part of it is consistent with the latest NIE, in which our spooks tell us Iran suspended its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003 "primarily in response to international pressure" and they "do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."
"The inconsistencies are more troubling when we realize that, according to the Wall Street Journal, Thomas Fingar is one of the three officials who were responsible for crafting the latest NIE. The Journal cites "an intelligence source" as describing Fingar and his two colleagues as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials." (The New York Sun drew attention to one of Fingar’s colleagues yesterday.)
"So, if it is true that Dr. Fingar played a leading role in crafting this latest NIE, then we are left with serious questions:
Why did your opinion change so drastically in just four months time?
Is the new intelligence or analysis really that good? Is it good enough to overturn your previous assessments? Or, has it never really been good enough to make a definitive assessment at all?
Did your political or ideological leanings, or your policy preferences, or those of your colleagues, influence your opinion in any way?
Many in the mainstream press have been willing to cite this latest NIE unquestioningly. Perhaps they should start asking some pointed questions. (Don’t hold your breath.)"
Posted by Thomas Joscelyn on December 5, 2007 12:01 PM | Permalink
Scarborough should be more careful. If he continues to air segments like this, his rating may go up. That of course could mean pay cuts or possible dismissal in his world.
JasonS @ 10:
I totally agree! WoW Kudos for you PB for making that statement. Everyone should hear this, it might start something...although enough has been said on this issue and nobody seems to care...
RayC @ 12:
No RayC, I'm afraid what you said IS true and that's the problem.
Gee, you think maybe them thar librul traiters wuz right 'bout ole George aways back when?
...
NAH!
ysbaddaden @ 16:
hahahahah--chokes and wheezes
*honk, sniffle* But seriously, the fact that I'm finding Buchanan to be reasonable about anything makes me feel the need to find a therapist. Damn, I wish we were just squaring off on whether or not single-parenthood ruins kid's lives or something that doesn't have a literal nuke it in. It's a strange world when someone who I've spent so much time hating says something I can whole-heartedly support.
Not that I'd invite the bastard over for tea and hugs or anything.
jharp @ 7:
Yep, even a blind hog can on occasion find a ripe acorn.
I would have liked for Scarborough to ask Buchanon to spell out those strategic interest that he referred to.
We know the interest but it does bare repetition.........yah know.....for those 20%ers........
Some sort of conservative tipping point would be expected, given that Bu$hCo. are a bunch of bad conservatives.
BushCo are not conservatives, they're conservatists.
That is, they do not embody the (legitimate, necessary, woe-betide-us-for-the-state-its-in) values of American conservatism. Rather, they use conservatism as brand name to promote a completely different set of ideals that have nothing whatsoever to do with: a) maintaining the dignity of time-honored American institutions b) limiting the size, power and scope of government or c) promoting individual liberty and local decision making.
This is, in many ways, the chickens hatched by Reagan coming home to roost. I'm not just talking about the obvious devil's bargain between Rockerfeller "cash, cock and cocaine" Republicans and the Falwell "god, guns and gays" Republicans. I'm talking about the way Reagan destroyed the word "liberal."
See, once the (legitimate, necessary, woe-betide-us-for-the-state-its-in) values of American progressivism were tarnished with this smear, then conservatism had no counterweight to maintain its integrity. Without liberalism, conservatism became just another popular brand name instead of an actual, cohesive, reasonable political philosophy.
We need these two great traditions back. We need a legitimate political force for change and growth. We also need a legitimate force for stability and consistency. Without these counterweights, our flywheel, well, flies apart.
But what happened is that each side got so caught up in the game of POWER that they've stopped imagining that the other side is anything but an enemy of the good. And so each side becomes that enemy. So, all the more reason to resist them. So all the more radical they become. So all the less dialogue.
Is there a difference between Democrats and Republicans? Of course, just as there is a difference between Sunni and Shia.
My suggestion: stop identifying ourselves as "conservative" or "liberal." Refuse to be pigeonholed in some media-driven game of Risk. Instead, emphasize the need for both political philosophies to be healthy.
I hold mostly liberal views myself, but I recognize that for those views to have any value whatsoever, conservatism MUST be legitimate. I don't want to win by default.
Bush & Co. will simply ignore the subpoenas the way they have been doing...
but Joe, YOU said this was YOUR PRESIDENT just the other day when the news reporter called him the "monkey in the middle".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HgvQgGDJuw
jharp @ 7:
I don't usually agree with Pat, but he is consistent . . .
and then, to top it all off, you got Fathead Facial Fungus Bolton saying he doesn't believe the NIE report and Israel pushing for war on Iran.
So, is our govmint for us or is it for the Zionists?
Joe Scarborough Rips Bush On Iran NIE: He’s Either ‘Lying’ Or ‘Is Stupid’:
Joe: "We are left with only two options here. Either the President of the United States is lying to the American people about what happened during that meeting, or the President of the United States is stupid."
Joe has been questioning bush's actions before even this came up. I imagine he said bush was his president because he is republican and voted for bush, probably twice.
I would love to hear the conversations going on between bush and cheney and condi the past couple of days. If we had a recording of that, we would probably be home free and impeachment bound.
Dems won't do jack.....as usual.
Bunch of cowards.
Which rice and hadley will ignore until the dems roll over and play dead.
I think I've seen this movie before.
There are so many things that the WH has done while the Shrub has been in power that this is hardly the most extreme of impeachable offenses.
Dr. Matt @ 32:
How could anyone come to any other conclusion? That's why Bolton et al are trying to toss in the straw man about the CIA trying to take bush down. That's all they can do.
About bloody time. Impeach Bush and the rest of the bastards.
Busholini: Iran still has more clarifications to make about their nuke-u-ler program.
F*CK YOU, COKEHEAD!
Well...lets see...invade Iraq because of Saddam and OBL being best buddies? Not true.
Saddam had WMD ability and would lead Iraq(population about 26 million) after years of sanctioned debasement of Iraq social fabric,fiscal ruination and military strangulation in attack on USA(population 300 million+,global super military power)? Not true.
Were Saddam's WMD found? No. There were none.
Americans invaded for what was not there,have put in military super-bases,a fortress embassy in Baghdad and plan on staying to do 'overwatch' for decades to come. Why? For Iraqi oil control and ability to extract it,the profits it represents in coming decades and to keep others (China,India,Europe,SE Asia) under American global economic and militarism hegemony.
So why would Bush/Cheney,the WashDC warmongers(both DEM and PUB) not want to attack Iran and wipe out any final impediment to American West Asian hegemony?
Iran has signed the NPT and is afforded rights to do what it is doing by having done so.
Israel on the other hand has not signed NPT and yet has atomic weapons in high multiples of ten in not hundreds.
It was never about Iranian atomic issues.
It has always been about American West Asian dominance,unfettered American global militarism and oil/energy/economic lash-ups.
Attacking and occupying Iraq was fully about American West Asian dominance.
Attacking and suppression of Iran is fully about American West Asian dominance.
So what happened four years ago in Iran was never really central to any American neo-con militarism expedition desires against Iran.
Clearly the truth and facts do not support Bush/Cheney and the quest they are on.
But that has not ever mattered to Bush/Cheney and the WashDC warmonger gang.
It is safe to conclude even after this NIE blow-out/expose that truth and fact still do not matter to these warmonger war criminals.
JasonS @ 27:
I agree; it is easier to and has by far been the popular choice to define by opposite and use the other party as balance (whether or not there was actually an opposition). The balance process is (and I know this has been said a lot) an essential part of the way our government was designed to work, and the thing that, until now, had saved us from something far more totalitarian, fascist, or (to borrow Wolfe) just plain closed was the fact that there was a lot of arguing and/or opposition which made the process of getting things done subject to having to navigate differences of opinion. While I still watched TV, I kept seeing lots of 'the noble good-doing cop-social worker-outsider' battling that evil red tape and it struck me that this trope was directly denigrating our government processes in an emotionally attractive way. When I go to school, we talk (okay, mostly I badger people about it and they tolerate me) about incoming froshies' seeming inability to disagree and relegation of the process of dissent to either verbal or physical violence. I'm not blaming the evil TV, I have other targets of blame. But we ought to recognize, if we mean to really effect change, that this is a powerful and effective trope that has to be combated, lest we become a docile slav- I mean work- force.
I heard joe was leaving for faux snooze, and pat was being forced to the PBS Mclaughlin Group retirement home.
Neither one has anymore credibility that karl rove, george bush or dick cheney or any of the rest of the PNAC neocons.
Are those contempt of congress citations going to be issued this week for rove, bolten and miers?
pissed off patricia @ 37:
He should have taken it on step further and said "Either the President of the United States is lying to the American people about what happened during that meeting, or the President of the United States is stupid....OR BOTH!"
I am really interested to see who, besides O'Reilly, is going to let Bolton run unchecked and won't challenge his asinine remarks. How dare Bolton challenge U.S intelligence during a time of war!!! How treasonous!
Dr. Matt @ 32:
Why can't it be both?
Dr. Acula @ 39:
The reich-wingers are going to start claiming, very soon, that we should bomb Iran because of what they did in the past. Anyone want to bet?
Buchanan is a racist ass! However, he must have recently slammed his melon into something because he's been making a little sense as of late in regards to the GOP. Does that give him a free pass into my gord....abosulutely not! I'm just sayin'....
CNN: Seymour Hersh 'vindicated' by new Iran intel estimate
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Wednesday December 5, 2007
Reporter believes Cheney 'kept his foot on the neck of' report
A new National Intelligence Estimate released on Monday indicates that 16 US intelligence agencies have concluded with a high level of confidence that Iran has not had an active nuclear weapons program since 2003 and that even if it resumed weapons development, it would be unlikely to obtain a nuclear bomb in less than 5 to 10 years.
The NIE apparently came as a surprise to President Bush, who insisted at a news conference the next day that "I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was, John – Mike McConnell – came in and said, 'We have some new information.' He didn't tell me what the information was. He did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze."
However, the NIE was no surprise to veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, who has been writing about it since November 2006. Hersh told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday that he believes the White House deliberately kept the NIE bottled up for over a year because the vice president was dissatisfied with its conclusions.
"At the time I wrote that, there was a tremendous fight about it because Cheney ... did not want to hear this," Hersh recalled. "I think the vice-president has kept his foot on the neck of that report. ... The intelligence we learned about yesterday has been circulating inside this government at the highest levels for the last year -- and probably longer."
As early as July 2006, Hersh had reported that the US military was resisting administration pressure for a bombing campaign in Iran, because "American and European intelligence agencies have not found specific evidence of clandestine activities or hidden facilities."
By November 2006, Hersh's sources had told him of "a highly classified draft assessment by the C.I.A.," which concluded that satellite monitoring and sophisticated radiation-detection devices planted near Iranian facilities had turned up absolutely no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. However, Bush and Cheney were expected to try to keep those conclusions out of the forthcoming NIE on Iran's nuclear capabilities.
As Hersh explained to Wolf Blitzer at the time, the White House was attempting to counter the CIA assessment with an Israeli claim, based on a "reliable agent," that Iran was working on a trigger for a nuclear device. "The CIA isn’t getting a good look at the Israeli intelligence." Hersh explained. "It’s the old word, stovepiping. It’s the President and the Vice President, it’s pretty much being kept in the White House."
RAW STORY's Larisa Alexandrovna further reported in January 2007 that the NIE on Iran was intended to be released later that month, but that John Negroponte's was being replaced as Director of National Intelligence because he had refused to tailor the NIE to Vice President Cheney's specificiations.
Despite feeling vindicated by the latest developments, Hersh warned Blitzer that the White House push for war with Iran is "still not over. ... There's always Israel." He explained that "the Israelis were very upset about the report. They think we're naive."
However, Hersh was confident that there was very little chance the NIE could be mistaken, because "It's been four years since we've had any positive evidence of a parallel secret program to build a bomb -- and we've been all over the country."
Hersh and Blitzer then recalled Hersh's past appearances on CNN -- including several long interviews discussing the Abu Ghraib scandal -- and how the White House would regularly accuse him of using "anonymous sorces" or just "throwing crap against the wall."
Hersh concluded by emphasizing what a serious problem the NIE poses for Bush. "It's a lose-lose for them," he stated. "The fight I'm talking about began last year. ... This is going to pose a serious credibility problem. ... That's not what we pay the guy to do."
However, Hersh's sources tell him that despite the NIE, Bush's negotiating position is still that the Iranians "have to stop everything ... destroy it. ... Inspectors have to come in that we pick. ... He's not saying that publicly, but that's the private standard."
This video is from CNN's Situation Room, broadcast on December 4, 2007.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/CNN_Seymour_Hersh_vindicated_by_new_1205.html
Comments
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/rawstory/8468a/?a=51121
Hah! Well, I guess that's ONE right wing fruitcake that won't be getting any more invitations to be on The O'Reilly Factor.
Al Hidalgo @ 11:
I am OliverDreams, and I support this message. Every word of it.
The knights who say NIE?
BigTallMatt @ 44:
Look at 1:07 PM ....beat you by a minute. ;)
redratio1 @ 34:
Here here... They're tryin' ta be diplomatic about stuffs!
mouthyb @ 25:
How about tea enemas?
These pigs all need to go,Dennis in 08!!
Pat Buchanan is sure a lot smarter than his sister.
And it must pain him to have to hide his intelligence in order to be a republican. I guess you could call him a closet-left-leaning-rationalist-with reality-based-tendencies.
Probably doesn't get him laid much, but who wants to screw around on a toilet seat with an aging republican pervert like Craig, anyway?
Let me just be the first to invite Pat on over to C&L. It took too long, but it was INCREDIBLE to hear the Downing memo mentioned out loud on Fox!!!!!!
At this point, I have a difficult time believing that anything is going happen. This, like everything else, is just going to be swept under the rug and forgotten.
Larry Craig, on the other hand, is a cornholeycaust-denier.
Dr. Matt @ 45:
No, the neo-cons have already trotted out Bolton to float a trial balloon about bombing Iran because they're still ENRICHING Uranium when they have 'no need for civilian nuclear reacotrs.'
(Uh...last time I checked, Canada is sitting on top of a massive amount of oil, and are also mining and enriching Uranium like crazy, and building nuclear reactors for electric power. So, by Bolton's batshit-crazy logic, the U.S. should be bombing Ottawa right now.)
Make no mistake, however, let's not fall into a Republican talking point trap, here. The Iranian Republican Guard is a rogue organization which even Iranian moderates can't control, and which does support Hezbollah, which organizes attacks against Israel. So, there is no problem with Hillary Clinton and others voting for a resolution which states that. But to translate that, or the enrichment of Uranium, or the development of nuclear reactors into a pretense for an attack is just nuts, as everybody would agree.
ysbaddaden @ 53:
Is that a tea bag near you nut bag?
Probability of Joe Biden holding hearings on this?
0-20% chance. Inotherwords, not likely.
ysbaddaden @ 53:
Yes, or something with a nice strong soap in it. If I really felt like it, there might be a figging in order*.
*think a shaved ginger root. There's some rubber-gloving in my hypothetical. I'm imagining it and washing my hands.
This is, of course, not a threat, just a giggle. I probably shouldn't indulge myself in scatological humor but I've always been a sucker for poop jokes.
I'm noting your interest in enemas. :p
Lava soap enemas?
I can't watch those two and keep down a snack, but was it good feigned outrage or just mediocre?
ysbaddaden @ 50:
NO! We are now the Knights Who Say 'Ecky- ecky- ecky- ecky- pikang- zoop- boing- goodem- zoo- owli- zhiv'
In other news, from the campaign of The Lying King:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/giuliani-ad-focuses-on-iran/
ysbaddaden @ 63:
Hmmm.... gritty texture. You know, soap bars are really one size fits all, with a pen-knife. I'll stop now, but thanks for making me smile three times now. I'm wading through my end of semester papers and I really needed the giggle.
I don't care for either Scarborough or Buchanan's politics. Although they have questioned the actions of the WarPigs for sometime now. The difference being they have a tendency to play devils advocate. It's hard to do that with this latest lie. It's going to be interesting to see how the dems will handle this one, while trying to pretend they knew nothing about it either. If you ask me, the democrats are just as complicit as anyone could be in the attempt to totally destabilize the Middle East and take control.
The warmongering has to stop. Because of it, our country is more hated and in more danger than it ever has been.
JerryO @ 68:
You forgot to add.....Kucinich 08 - Strength through peace...and out of Iraq!
Why don't we get more of our oil from our friends in Canada?
mouthyb @ 67:
The only paper I remember writing in college was for a film class. I wrote on the history of the German silent movies and their influence on American horror movies. Of course I included Das Kabinett Des Doktor Kaligari, Metropolis, Der Golem, Nosferatu Eine Symphonie Des Grauens, and the non horror films Das Blaue Licht, and Triumph Des Villens, all the fun ones.
CRAP!! When I find that I'm in agreement with the likes of Buchanan and Scarborough
things must be really fucked up.
I say a good punishment would be to send them all on a hunting trip with a drunk Dick Cheney.
So people do watch Morning Joe.
I can't stand either of those beady eyed bastages.
29 @ Below_me : I think it was that twirp Willy Geist who said that. Besides, Joe doesn't want to murder Erin because he wants to jump her bones. And we all know Joe's rep.
i got your fingerpointing right here my friends..... maybe they can bring rummy back and blame him again...or add it on the soon to be commuted sentence of libby.... hey how about the dead guy... kenny boy lay... thats the answer... kenny did it
--)
--)
=====)
--)
--)
As Stephen Colbert once said “Reality has a well known liberal bais”
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879
StirFry @ 74:
Right on , on your point about Joe's eyes. They are very beady little things, kind of rat-like.
Mark Mywords @ 75:
Don't worry. The buck always stops at the Clenis. Give it some time. The comedy writers at Fox are typing it up as we speak.
Roket @ 21:
Good point. Example---Paul Wolfowitz. He f---d up big time and got promoted. When will Joe ever learn?
Right or left, this is truly welcome news for the Christmas season.
Cheney: Iraq to be self-governing by 2009
Vice President Cheney today predicted Iraq will be a self-governing democracy by the time he leaves office, calling the current U.S. surge strategy “a remarkable success story” that will be studied for years to come.
Rejoice and be glad.
JasonS @ 10:
Pat Bucannan may have some Xenophopic issues and have other opinions that many liberal dissargee with but he loves this country and is anti new world order from his own words. He does not like Bush or the NEOCONS.
Dennis @ 80:
Hmmm. I hope this prediction is more accurate than his "we will be greeted as liberators" and "the insurgency is in its last throes" predictions.
Al Hidalgo @ 11:
I second the triple I!!!
Dr. Acula @ 23:
I'm confused. You take a swipe at RayC for explaining what would actually occur if so many members and colleagues of this corrupt administration were given subpoenas. Why? I value pragmatism over fantasy, and evidence versus conjecture.
With so many officials working hard to cover their own asses, there would be lies aplenty given to the court. The media would get involved and both sides would become hysterical and within days the true issues would be forgotten in favour of semantics and emotional reasoning. It would become bloated, bureaucratic, and chaotic, and ultimately Bush would be able to finish out his term regardless.
"Allies in Europe getting back on board"
Bwhhaaahahahha, that bridge has been well burn several times over now.
Can't wait to hear the the whining and support of Bush from Kristol, Hannity, Hume, Barnes, Gibson, Matthews, Carlson, Klein, Krondracke, Krauthammer, etc. It will be silly and assinine as usual. IMPEACH THE BASTARDS NOW !!!! Biden has the balls but Reid and Pelosi ( gender wise ) don't.
Liberal AND Proud @ 1:
mmmmm... peaches.
Rusty Shackleford @ 82:
You know Russ, I would've never in my wildest dreams ever predicted anyone would come back and say that. I'm sure you thought long and hard before you hit the 'Submit Comment' button too. Likewise, let me give equal rumination before I respond; not like a simple kneejerk reaction some posters here occasionally make (not you, of course).
redratio1 @ 34:
You know what? NONE of this shit would be coming to light if the Dems weren't in control right now. Nobody gets to their respective positions by being cowards. I am not saying I am happy with the Dems right now, but I am ragin' because they are acting like politicians; conniving, maneuvering, positioning, etc and keeping us in the dark. But there is no denying the fact that since Nov '06, the windows have been thrown open and fresh air and sunlight are being cast on all of Buschco's shenanigans. How far will they go? I don't know, but I will meet you halfway: I don't think either you and I will ever be totally satisfied and Bushco, being a lot of monied, elite pricks, will likely get away with all of it.
Do you have anything else to add or do you just want to snivel?
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if there's suprise attack in Iraq during the Haunnakah/NC-17mas period.
I don't know why everyone's so surprised at Buchanan. That's tyypical for him on issues of war and peace. Since Bush has been in office, he's only written about a hundred columns slamming his foreign policy. Last night, Rachel Maddow amenned everything he said on Dan Abrams' show.
Would Jesus have made a speech about WW III if he knew the Iranians had stopped their nuc weapon program 3 years ago?
Impeach these criminals already.
Also: Any prediction of Dick Cheney can be easily believed and found to be accurate as long as you believe the exact opposite of what he is predicting.
Dennis @ 80:
Mission Accomplished IV : Citizens on Patrol coming to a theater near you
JasonS @ 10:
Yes, the wacko conservatives from 10-15 years ago (ie: Buchanan, Gingrich) sound like reasonable, sane people compared to most current MSM pundits and GOP politicians. This alone should've been enough to tell how fucked up the state of Bush/the GOP is.
Dennis @ 80:
If that comment came from a paranoid control freak like Cheney, who has one of the sorriest records of credibility and honesty of any elected official, I assure you we will ignore wishful thinking and be glad he is gone about a year from now.
Tell your friend Cheney that a thought without a credible action plan is called a hallucination.
StirFry @ 94:
Absolutely nothing can rain on a good liberal's parade.
'We have lost. We cannot win. The situation is hopeless. Improvement is not an option.'
Dennis @ 97:
You seem quite touchy about the fact that Shooter can't predict five o'clock at four-thirty, Denny. But hey, he could be right, this one time.
Rusty, can't we both be on the same page here and hope he is right?
So Republican strategist Pat Buchanan and former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough finally located their nutsacks and got enough balls to question the administration. And they're indignant! Well, boo, hoo. My little round brown asshole bleeds for them.
Where were they the last six years when they with their unquestioning support for Bush, Cheney and all their fascist friends were enabling them to pull off the greatest crime this country has ever seen.
F*ck you Pat. F*ck you too, Joe. About time you got your head outta your ass.
I think, Dennis, that we're remembering and skeptical of the fact that Cheney is talking about a Democratic 'self-sufficiency' based on the economic rape of the area (by which I mean the creation of an election-holding puppet state which has sold the local commodity rights to international investors, especially us, and crushed locally owned business and economic sovereignty), something that, for some really weird reason, the Iraqis object to. But maybe they should thank us for gutting them.
After all, we're so very culturally superior that they should be thankful we bothered, right?
ysbaddaden @ 16:
I have that Christmas album. It (BLEEP)ing rocks!
Dennis @ 80:
Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
By the way, Pat, it would be war number three for the Bush/Cheney administration. And what is this Afghan triumph you are talking about?
3 honest repuplicans = Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Joe Scarborough
Dennis @ 99:
I said in my original post I hope he's right. You just overlooked it because you were chomping at the bit to get off your little "we can't win" crack, which actually didn't even fit the post you were responding to in that instance, but beggars can't be choosers I guess.
Mr. Blade @ 81:
Bucannan helped Bush get elected by taking over the Reform Party and then writing a book in praise of Hitler thus driving moderate Repugs back to HIS party.
He may despise the Bush Family but he did not want Al Gore to win.
May 31st, 2005 "The insurgency in Iraq is in the last throes," Dick Cheney
June 25th, 2005 - Cheney defends his "last throes" comment.
(this continued throughout the year)
June 20th, 2006 - Cheney again defends his "last throes" comment. Goes on and on about what a wonderful success story the Iraq War is.
Now Cheney again predicts that, essentially, the Iraq War is (still) in it's last throes, things are turning a corner, oh glorious crusade!
I also remember before the war started, other sainted prognosticators on the right:
Donald '666' Rumsfeld "The Iraq war will take six days, six weeks, I doubt six months!"
Paul Wolfowitz "The Iraq war will pay for itself! Huzzah!"
Well, the war drudges on.
The war is closing in on it's five year anniversary.
It has cost us $474,494,164,460
Thousands of troops lives...
Tens of thousands of troops wounded...
Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis...
Millions of displaced Iraqi Refugees...
And some clown still has on rose colored glasses, believing the fantasies of a man reviled by over 80% of the population.
Heck of a surge.
I can't believe it! Buchanan and I finally agree on something. I wonder how long he will be curious to find out what is really going on, who knew what when? He still give the President too much credit. I doubt Scarborough will hang onto this story too long.
To hell with impeachment. This calls for impalement.
Can we have our impeachment on the table now?
Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-0100
Kansaskowboy @ 109:
I know how you feel. When (very infrequently) I agree with Pat B. I have the urge to take a shower.
jharp @ 7:
Actually, Pat Buchanan has been anti-war from day one. Its the ONLY thing I agree with Pat about. He always has a great anti-war debate.
I'm confused! I thought Scarborough and Buchanan were die-hard Republican supporters - so shouldn't they be SUPPORTING Bush and his crew???
Regardless if Buchanan is anti-war - his Republican support should override it - simple.
AND if this isn't enough to impeach the mongrel Bush and his henchmen - then i don't know what is!
I guess we better send Monica Lewinsky into the Oval office so the impeachment can begin!
impeach the follically challenged Francoist and his coke addicted puppet
Egad!! If someone had told me even as recently as three or four days ago that I would someday come to have a grudging spark of respect for Pat Buchanan of all people -- even if only a infinitesmally tiny one -- I would have urged that person out of concern for his/her welfare to report immediately to the nearest inpatient mental health facility because the mere possibility of that happening, never mind an actual occurrence, would have seemed so patently ridiculous and so unlikely in the extreme that I would have harbored serious doubts of this person being anything other than stark raving mad.
I never, ever could have imagined something like this. Surely icicles are forming on the doorsills of Hell and pigs are trying their wings high in the air above the concrete canyons here in New York City e'en as I write this...
Jesus Christ, look who just caught up!
ted @ 20:
All this has been refuted by Semour Hersh. The report has been in its completed form since last April. Cheney was the person holding it up. yea, go back and double check, again and again.
there is some speculation it was held up to some advantage for the Anapolis meeting. What you are saying here is spin.
Hersh was seconded by El Baradie, who was also right about the non-exisitent WMD in Iraq.
Boo!
I think one thing's fairly certain -- when people like Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan start calling for closer scrutiny into the doings of the Bush administration, the manure is coming closer to the spinning blades than it probably ever has before...and considering the unbelievable amount of bovine excrement that the Bush administration officials have collectively been spreading out over the last few years, they'd better be prepared for one seriously nasty mess if and when it hits.
Topic for the hearings: What has DoD been targeting in Iran since 2003?
Does this mean someone is actually going to start looking into this Administration?!
Connecting the dots
I'm seeing the numbers/years 2003 repeating: GTMO and Iran.
Look at the pattern:
- Both GTMO and Iran had false statements by the President about "threats," but the facts are otherwise: There was no evidence about the POWs or the Iranians.
- Both GTMO prisoners and Iran were subject to targeting, abusive treatment based on false information
I'm wondering how much of this "Patriot Act non-sense" and "FISA stuff" is hinging on other false information this President has known about the POWs and Iran:
- Bogus "foreign threats" to justify attacking/abusing Americans
- Bogus "foreign concerns" to justify intrusions with FISA violations.
I'm wondering how this NIE revelations about the Iran-sham shed light on other issues:
- Congressional legislation
- Refusals to impeach
- Claims President "has no time" to impeach, but Congress "does have time" to entertain non-sense allegations about Iran in secret.
Makes me wonder how the non-sense with the Iran issues (as raised by the NIE) would change our assumptions about whether the DNC-GOP Members of Congress have or have not been reasonable in their assertions in re impeachment. What else has America been told that's been a lie since 2001, not just 2003?
Has America moved so far to the right under Bush that Pat Buchanan is now a constitutional liberal?
The mind reels.
FISA and Iran NIE
How many members of Congress were told "put up with these FISA violations" because of the "Iranian treaht" and "we need to track the nuclear threat from Iran"?
Antiwar Radio ran a pretty good interview with Pat Buchanan about the NIE report today. Pat's always been against this war, I guess he's one of those old fashioned fiscal conservatives, but definitely not a neo-con :)
The mind reels: What else -- not immediately connected with Iran -- would logically come undone, and demand a larger review.
How many other assumptions were linked with this "Iran threat" in ways we have yet to comprehend: Members of Congress have been told secretly things in the Senate Intelligence Committee.
How are we going to get Members of Congress to comment on those secret briefings to say, "Now that we know the Iran nuclear threat is bogus, we need to reconsider what we were told in secret at these classified briefings -- the President, as he did with the FISA violations -- appears to have used secrecy to prevent Members of Congress from publicly commenting on other briefings which would fall apart as the truth about Iran surfaced: It was no real threat, as premised in other briefings Members of Congress have been given in secret."
- how do we find out about these other briefings Members of Congress were given?
- What is the plan of the Gang of 8 to work with the FISA Court to review whether the FISA warrants/FISA update was premised on false information related to Iran?
- What other legislation did Members of Congress based on secret (now invalid) information about Iran?
There's no telling how many diplomatic missions have been undermined; and how many things over the past 4 years are hinged to an illusion about Iran. I'd like to get some former Ambassadors related to these issues to public comment on what else is likely to fall apart.
This feels like the mortgage-meltdown in the US: Much larger impacts than originally understood. Similarly, this Iran NIE appears to be something much larger than initially understood: Hidden policies, other efforts, and assumptions the US diplomats were using when conducting various negotiations. Would like to hear more discussion about these larger diplomatic efforts that would logically fall apart with these revelations in the Iran NIE.
Would like to get some information on the impact statements DoD and State are providing to Members of Congress when they reconsider the budget requests in the President's budget. The new PB is being submitted (as usual) at the beginning of Feb 2008. This gives Congress two months to mull things over, then be ready to review whether they need to reconsider the requests in March and April 2008 for the FY09 budget.
- Which programs are the Congressional staffers targeting for cuts/putting under review?
- How does this Iran Nie adjust the assumptions behind the various procurement efforts in DoD?
- How are the strategies DoD is using in re Iran need to be rethought?
- What impact will this have on the Arab community support/opposition to US presence in Iraq: Don't really need US there to "defend against Iran" since Iran isn't the threat the US played it out to be.
- How many bogus Iran-threat-statements did the US diplomatic missions in the middle east (and also those contractors were using) rely on to secure various commercial/strategic concessions from the region?
jharp @ 7:
Ditto. Wasn't this guy a step away from a nazi during Reagan???
George Bush has been caught RED HANDED stroking his erect penis and is telling us he is merely polishing his 3 wood.
Speaking of the White House twisting and ignoring intelligence to gin up a war, what happened to part 2 of Congress' investigation and report on this subject regarding the Iraq War? It was required by law. It's obvious why the Republican-led Congress stonewalled on this report for years, but the Democrats have now been in control of Congress for almost a year. What's their excuse?
I'd would say we draw and quarter him after the waterboarding.
xoites defends Constitution @ 129:
You never cease to amuse me.
Johnny Thief @ 128:
No kidding...I remember saying several times not all that many years ago that Pat Buchanan was one of three people who would definitely incite me into emigrating to Canada if he ever managed to get himself elected President. Pat Robertson was the first name on the list, and I think Newt Gingrich was third.
Perhaps Pat's mellowing with age?
It doesn't matter what apt consequences anybody has in mind so long as Bush's loyal and trusty servants Pelosi, Hoyer and Reid have got Bush's back covered.
But wait, 2003 was 4 years ago. Just because they stopped their nukular program then doesn't mean they don't have one NOW, does it?
It's quite a comment that these two, Buchanan and Scarborough, are saying what the democrats are not.
What is wrong with the democratic party?
Anthology @ 136:
Excellent point. DNC took impeachment off the table. Will the GOP lead the effort to challenge the DNC to do something about this President? GOP supported the Kucinich resolution.
they listed their crimes in PNAC white papers, from 9-11 to the ’prize’ in the mideast. thats what Pat Buchanan is saying when you hear him utter ’agenda’....boy what a conspiracy nut, eh?
Oh for crap's sake, quit carping about how agreeing with Buchanan = the end of the world.
Aside from the fact that he's one of the most intelligent and well-informed men alive today, he's as far from the standard-issue Republican as Ron Paul is. (In fact, he supports Ron Paul's bid for the presidency.)
Buchanan not only started The American Conservative (which I suggest you all take a look at, if you think you have nothing in common with real conservatives) but has written a number of very compelling books (again, read them before you criticize) about everything from the decline of Western Civ to the destruction of the GOP to the Immigration Crisis. This last issue, by the way, doesn't make him a racist. Americans have the right to decide who comes into their country and how often, because you're damned skippy that it affects each and every one of us.
Perhaps more to the point on a blog like this is the fact that Buchanan is respected by the left. I happen to work with a Democratic strategist who is on TV quite a lot these days, and he and Buchanan are old friends.
Truth doesn't exist simply in camps of left and right. Right and wrong are what's at stake here, and we all need to figure out which is which and fight for what's right. Buchanan has been critical of this administration from the get-go, on issues like immigration, spending, and the war. He's a REAL conservative, not a neo-con. The neo-cons give us a bad name.
Steve @ 139:
Good thing the United States taking every resourse it can grab from other countries, overthrowing democratically elected governments who oppose corporate rape of their nations and invading everyone from Panama, to Vietnam and soon Iran has no detrimental effects on anyone, am i right?
Will this be the final nail in the coffin?
Dennis @ 99:
LOL. Faith based politics.
If you've been reading a blog named "Crooks and Liars" for a while, been conscious during the last 6 years, and you STILL don't get why "faith based politics" is wrong... there is probably no hope for you. The rest of us will be concerned with "fact based reality" instead. Skepticism can be a good thing.
Dick didin't give ANY reason to think so; he just blew sunshine up our asses in that article. If he wants to tell us how this will magically happen despite that the political reconciliation has still largely failed, much less the rebuilding of the government (yet again) in Iraq, by all means he should. But he hasn't.
Certainly the legacy of corruption and dishonesty in the Bush/Cheney administration "will be studied for years to come", and the prediction that it will take a Democrat in office to start REAL progress in the hellhole that is Iraq is no surprise to anyone. On that he's right.
As far as Buchanan, too bad he's getting that old. I always thought he was a good fit on the McLaughlin group. Some of his ideas are wacky, but at least he isn't a freaking idiot. In that alone he stands out in what they call "conservatism" these days. If you can get past his sometimes over the top recommendations (build a wall!) the underlying problems he articulates do have some merit. American cultural and family life has changed RADICALLY in the last 20-30 years -- whether that is even a bad thing, or how to "fix" it is another question... But I don't think he misses the irony that it is the REPUBLICANS that have largely presided over the decline of "traditional American values".
Too bad it's too late for his warnings... all the Republican sheep are just looking for a big Daddy, Bush v2.0 model to swoop in and come save them. Still pushing the fear button, rather than rational thinking. Where are the normal conservatives to take back the party?!
"I'd double Guantanimo!" says neobot #1,
"Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!" sings neobot #2,
"Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do!" screams fascist neobot #3,
(the other one is too busy talking to God on an upside-down cellphone about the 6,000 year old earth, people being made from dirt and old bones, and teaching creationism in classrooms.)
Yep. The Republicans are screwed. I sure hope they don't take my country down with them...
Cool and sad to see Pat Buchanan say what most Democractic talking heads don't have the balls to say.
Since traditional non-NeoCon Republicans go after bush like this, is it possible that they are the ones who will be triggering an impeachement?
It would be one way to save the Republican party and deal a devastating blow to Democrats who should have gone for impeachement and talk like this long ago.
celsius @ 143:
Can we all agree that at least Pat Buchanan has the balls to say things clearly and go on the offense?
It's the most disturbing sign of these turbulent 8 years in American politics that even now, Democrats can't get their act together, and Republicans are beating them when it comes to taking down the Bush admin.
It's obvious to anyone with some insight that some Democrats are Neo-Con/Neo-Liberal infiltrators who lay low and vote with the corporatist agenda, some of them has been threatened and intimidated (prolly with material from domestic spying), and that some of them are just weak, naive and Chamberlains in face of a Fascist takeover.
I wish people in here would stop being so partisan and look closer at what is happening and figure out the only rational explanation instead of sitting here spewing partisan one-liners every day. If it comes as a shock to you that Buchanan would say what he means simply because he's affiliated with the GOP, you are a dumbass equal to the dumbasses that voted for Bush (twice).
Does it really surprize anyone to rediscover that Dubya is a liar?
may have already been posted, just wanted to correct pat when he said that the administration was leading us to a second illegal war, according to my count it would be the third (see Iraq, Afghanistan).
I don't agree with most of Pat B's politics but he was always (and still is) a man of principal. This interview is a re-confirmation off his integrity.
What did Bush k(NO)w and when did he k(NO)w it?
Huckabee or Huckafeller?
Given America's current situation with the War in Iraq, you would think that people would be a little suspicious of any Presidential candidate that just emerges from nowhere with little in the way of individual donations. Perhaps a recap of America's situation is in order. The current administration misled (at best) the American people about WMDs in Iraq in order to get us into war. Why? Alan Greenspan, a strong and connected republican, says it was due to oil interests. That's right. There are people that profit from war. The Bush family has always had close associations with big oil. What other families come to mind when we think of big oil? The Rockefellers that owned Standard Oil come to mind. The Rockefellers are still one of the most powerful families in the world with financial interests in oil, banking, media, and everything between. What does this have to do with Mike Huckabee? Are you aware that his Lieutenant Gov was Winthrop P. Rockefeller? A man that died with a net worth of $1.2 billion dollars? How is that for connected? The Rockefellers wield considerable influence in Arkansas. This brings me to another President that appeared out of nowhere....Bill Clinton. Yes, another Arkansas governor. Am I the only one "gun shy" after the 20 years of the Bush and Clinton dynasties? Maybe I am just paranoid. Maybe Mike Huckabee just fell from the sky to deliver us all. Or maybe we are all just easily manipulated. If you think it couldn't happen, try researching the Gulf on Tonkin lie that got us into Vietnam. We were lied to about Vietnam, Iraq, and now Iran. Our faith has been manipulated by money. Maybe sometimes we just cannot handle the truth. God DID NOT put Huckabee on the map. The Rockefellers did.
FROM PATRIOT WILLIAMS (148):
The Rockefellers are still one of the most powerful families in the world with financial interests in oil, banking, media, and everything between. What does this have to do with Mike Huckabee? Are you aware that his Lieutenant Gov was Winthrop P. Rockefeller? A man that died with a net worth of $1.2 billion dollars? How is that for connected?
Further to Patriot William (148)
In "The Secret War Against the Jews" by John Loftus and Mark Aaron, St. Martin's Press (hardcover), 1994, 658 pages, the authors document how in 1948 Nelson Rockefeller was blackmailed into NOT allowing ALL (yes, all) of the South American countries to vote against the State of Israel's creation by the UN (they all abstained). He was shown documents, that he had signed, authorizing the sale of Argentinian oil to Hitler during WW II o/a 1943. Rockefeller agreed on conditions (excluding Eichman) that Israel would not hunt for Nazis in Argentina. Ben Gurion was amused about Rockefeller's comment. "that you can have your State or your Revenge, but not both".
And still further from the Book:
During Reagan years, then Vice-President Bush organized shadow intelligence operations out of his offices, the best established of these being the Iran/Contra arms deal. Bush authorized a secret arms shipment to Iran having to do with releasing the kidnapped Buckley. This shipment was unwittingly intercepted by Israel (with the help of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard) who thought the shipment was destined for the PLO.
Bush was in a tight position, and subsequently hoodwinked Israeli intelligence to assist in this scheme a year later in 1985, and then deflected blame on them so he could preserve his political chances to become president. Just one more modern example where ill-advised and venal secret schemes make a mockery of the official history. Bush's intermeddling continued with secret arms sales to Iraq, then a punishing Gulf War against Iraq when Iraq became a bigger threat than its rival Iran. LIKE FATHER, LIKE SON.
anwaya @ 17:
Wasn't Pelosi the one who said Impeachment was not on the table? She made all this noise about "It's time for a change" and "The American People have spoken", and then things went pretty much right back down the toilet as soon as she got into the White House. :P
C'mon, let's get some Democrats in office who actually have some balls. (No offense meant to woman politicians.)
Login or Register to post comments.