The Iraq Thread 2

[Schoeler 0]

I think the last thing anyone in the world wants to see for Iraq is for it to become another Iran, so a strictly Shiite government will not suffice. Its going to take a lot of time and effort to get the diverse sects and ethnic groups to congregate and agree upon a multi-cultural government for the new Iraq.

I agree that there was extremely poor planning and a lackluster effort initiated for post-war Iraq, and that oversight has come to haunt the Bush Administration in a big way through the escalating violence. I've always maintained that our government would win the war but manage to screw up winning the peace. Once operations transitioned from military to political, I knew we'd be screwed.

My best hope is that now that the ball has finally been gotten to start rolling in transitioning Iraq to a democracy, the Bush Administration will swallow its pride and get the international assistance necessary to doing the job right.

I've no doubts that once the Iraqi people get a taste of what it is like to live in a stable modern democratic state, they will settle down and be very happy about the changes. As it stands now, I don't blame them for some of the lawlessness and suspicion.

[PitViper 0]

I think the last thing anyone in the world wants to see for Iraq is for it to become another Iran, so a strictly Shiite government will not suffice.  Its going to take a lot of time and effort to get the diverse sects and ethnic groups to congregate and agree upon a multi-cultural government for the new Iraq.

I agree that there was extremely poor planning and a lackluster effort initiated for post-war Iraq, and that oversight has come to haunt the Bush Administration in a big way through the escalating violence.  I've always maintained that our government would win the war but manage to screw up winning the peace.  Once operations transitioned from military to political, I knew we'd be screwed.

My best hope is that now that the ball has finally been gotten to start rolling in transitioning Iraq to a democracy, the Bush Administration will swallow its pride and get the international assistance necessary to doing the job right.

I've no doubts that once the Iraqi people get a taste of what it is like to live in a stable modern democratic state, they will settle down and be very happy about the changes.  As it stands now, I don't blame them for some of the lawlessness and suspicion.

I think the victory in Iraq came much quicker than they anticipated and they were caught flat on their feet.

[NurEinMensch 0]

But you start the planning before you start the war. You will be surprised anyway but not to that degree.

[Harnu 0]

I just saw something on MSNBC I think it was.  It just said "Breaking news; Nuclear Plans and compund found in Iraq".  Probably just another mistake though  

edit: my bad, components not compounds.

[Major Fubar 0]

[sarcasm]Yes, it was very surprising how quickly the USA defeated an enemy with only 1/3 the armed forces (men and vehicles) it had during the first gulf war, fighting with 30 year old weaponry... [/sarcasm]

[Harnu 0]

They did a little piece and then went back to a commercial, those bastards. The reporter said that an Iraqi sceintist has buried parts of something used to enrich uranium. And had plans or something, here's the kicker, buried under his rose bushes in the backyard

[Milkman 1]

They did a little piece and then went back to a commercial, those bastards.  The reporter said that an Iraqi sceintist has buried parts of something used to enrich uranium.  And had plans or something, here's the kicker, buried under his rose bushes in the backyard  

He had a centrifuge and some plans, I dont think they (US gov.) can make a case off of that.

[FallenPaladin 0]

[sarcasm]Yes, it was very surprising how quickly the USA defeated an enemy with only 1/3 the armed forces (men and vehicles) it had during the first gulf war, fighting with 30 year old weaponry... [/sarcasm]

And they are still dying over there. Every day a few more...

[Schoeler 0]

They did a little piece and then went back to a commercial, those bastards.  The reporter said that an Iraqi sceintist has buried parts of something used to enrich uranium.  And had plans or something, here's the kicker, buried under his rose bushes in the backyard  

Prize winning rose bushes?

A lot more people, Americans, Britons, Iraqis are going to die before this all gets straightened out. Hopefully less and less each month though as things get better over there.

[FSPilot 0]

Warin

Quote[/b] ]Even your own government thinks it was lied to by the executive branch.

Nice that you know better than all those Congressmen and Senators

Link showing that the majority of the government says they were lied to by the executive branch?

Quote[/b] ]Face it, FS.  Bush and his cronies duped everyone to wage an unjustifiable war.  No matter how evil Saddam is/was, the US War was a war of aggression.  And far more sinister than you care to believe.

No, they didn't. (I'm not trying to be childish by just screaming "NUH-UH!!!" at the top of my lungs.  I'm trying to show you how frustrating it is arguing with people who don't back up what they're saying with anything)

Crazysheep

Quote[/b] ] You criticise people, presumably the French, (NB: It was not just the oil thang that made the French anti-war. They have both the highest Islamic and the highest Jewish population in Europe. Going to war in Iraq would lead to civil unrest, obviously) who wanted to keep Saddam in power for selfish reasons. Excuse me, but isn't that precisely what the USA did before Gulf War 1?

Yes, and no.  The USA kept Saddam in power to keep President Bush from looking like an Iraqi-slaughtering monster.  France n' friends wanted to keep him in power because of, among a lot of other reasons, money.  Is it a coincidence that the Iraqis used German made underground bunkers and Russian and French made weapons? What about all the secret contracts with German and Russian companies that have come out since the war?

Quote[/b] ]And if you are suggesting that people on this forum are lying, then that is just wild paranoia. We have nothing whatsoever to gain apart from satisfaction from persuading you, and in the unlikely event we are wrong, then we are incorrect not lying. (If you're out there, then SAVE ME, DEFINITION MAN!)

I wasn't.

NurEinMensch

Quote[/b] ]Iraq _did_ make that report that accounted for most of their former WMD program. (And yes that was very publically) It wasn't complete but it was good enough and that's not my opinion but that's what Mr. Blix thought plus they gave the inspectors full access to everything.

The report was widely discredited by the US and the UN too I believe.

Quote[/b] ]Did Iraq try to hide something? I bet!

Was there any threat to us? No, whatever he had hidden somewhere was obviously not enough to use. Proof? It wasn't used in the war, if that isnt proof enough for you try to find the WMD yourself.

You've got it backwards.  He was hiding it because he was going to use it.

The only reason people like this get WMDs in the first place is for power.  Either power to control or power to destroy.  If they want to destroy people with their weapons, they'll hide them and not bring any attention to themselves, like Iraq.  If they want to control people with fear they'll flaunt them around, like North Korea.

And they didn't use their WMDs in the war because they destroyed them immediately before the war started. No, not to comply with the UN, just to save face (as I've previously explained).

Quote[/b] ]Come on, do you want me to find some of Bushs speeches before the war? We can go through them sentence by sentence and compare them to the current reality and current speeches.

And you still want to tell me they didnt lie?

What about all the fake evidence they presented to the UN (and you congress)? In my book faking evidence = lying.

But maybe that's just me.

Until there's convincing evidence and not just some liberal media outlet or democrat trying to get in office by flinging mud at the president I'm not convinced.

Balschoiw

Quote[/b] ]

[hellfish6 7]

I didn't see that anyone posted this yet, but here's a link to an interesting, if somewhat biased, editorial from the Daily Times. HERE!

What do you think of it?

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]Come on, do you want me to find some of Bushs speeches before the war? We can go through them sentence by sentence and compare them to the current reality and current speeches.

And you still want to tell me they didnt lie?

What about all the fake evidence they presented to the UN (and you congress)? In my book faking evidence = lying.

But maybe that's just me.

Until there's convincing evidence and not just some liberal media outlet or democrat trying to get in office by flinging mud at the president I'm not convinced.

What do i have to say about the WMD argument put forth by the Bush administration?

Until there's convincing evidence and not just some rightwing media outlet or republican trying to hold office by flinging mud at the critics I'm not convinced.

[Major Fubar 0]

If they want to control people with fear they'll flaunt them around, like North Korea

...or, say, the USA...

Remind me again, who has the largest WMD arsenal in the world? But it's OK for America to have this huge stockpile, they're the "good" guys, right? And all those chemical and biological weapons are just for "research" purposes...

[ralphwiggum 6]

I didn't see that anyone posted this yet, but here's a link to an interesting, if somewhat biased, editorial from the Daily Times. HERE!

What do you think of it?

too libereal for me.

he basically illustrates things and one sided interpretation thereof, but does not make a logical comparative analysis on current situation and Vietnam.

at this point, i'd like to point out that building back a country is hard enough, but Bush thought beating Iraq was another good step.

With Afghanistan, even Chirac was pledging help by late October of 2001. and almost no nation spoke against military action against Taliban. and after Taliban was ousted, we had chance to rebuild the place for better, but divereted our resource to Iraq.

[Harnu 0]

Offtopic!, but good for anyone who doesn't like Bush

I just remembered something, we shouldn't have to worry about Bush much longer! I know it's offtopic, but does anyone remember Tecumseh? All presidents from when the curse started that are elected on a "0" year, will die in office. Regan managed to make it, but can bush?

Since 1800, 9 dead, 1 alive. I know this post is a bit offtopic, but does Bush have much longer?

(Figured it would be better to post it here, than start a new thread)

[The Frenchman 0]

Bush had a assassination atttempt. Didn't someone shoot a machine gun at the back of his house. They had video tape of him doing it to by a civilian...... I think. And Clinton had a small plane aimed at him but he was at a friends house.

[Harnu 0]

I'm speaking statstically of people elected on "0" years. You mean Bush Sr. Right?

[ralphwiggum 6]

if you want to continue talking about it, make a new thread please.

[The Frenchman 0]

No, it was on tv they showed footage of this guy that pulled a machine gun and started firing at the White Houses back yard. He fired at the White House for a full 13 seconds.

(This was pre 9/11)

Edit: sorry for going off topic.

[The Frenchman 0]

A lot more people, Americans, Britons, Iraqis are going to die before this all gets straightened out.  Hopefully less and less each month though as things get better over there.

True, problably not going to be kinda normal until maybe August or October.

[FSPilot 0]

RalphWiggum

Quote[/b] ]What do i have to say about the WMD argument put forth by the Bush administration?

Until there's convincing evidence and not just some rightwing media outlet or republican trying to hold office by flinging mud at the critics I'm not convinced.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree then.

MajorFubar

Quote[/b] ]...or, say, the USA...

Remind me again, who has the largest WMD arsenal in the world? But it's OK for America to have this huge stockpile, they're the "good" guys, right? And all those chemical and biological weapons are just for "research" purposes...

When was the last time we did a nuclear-capable missile test off the coast of France?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Harnu mentioned this earlier, here's the whole story:

http://www.cnn.com/2003....ex.html

Apparently it's a part of a gas centrifuge, which is used in the uranium enrichment process. So is it a smoking gun? Well, not really- I guess it's more of a dirty trigger assembly... and it doesn't help that it was buried back in the 70s- kind of pre-dates the stuff we've been talking about.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Just saw 'Nightline' with Ted Koppel.

(If you don't know about the show, here's a brief explanation - The show was made when Iran hostage situation happened in early 80s. It runs about 30 minutes, and is aired on national level, 11:35pm here in LA. If you were keen on US entertainment business, this is the show that almost got sacked by ABC executives to lure David Letterman to ABC, which backfired when Letterman stood by Koppel. For simpson's fans "SmartLine" with Kent Brockman is the spoof of the show. Remeber where Marge got itchy and scratchy banned in 1st year?)

Today he had an interesting guest: Rand Beers resigned from the Bush administration in March, where he had served on the National Security Coucil as Counterintelligence advisor, and joined the presidential campaign of Democratic challenger John Kerry in May.

basically, here's what he said.

[*]US should have focussed more on Afghanistan

[*]evidence so far shows that threat posed by Iraq is less than what we expected before the war

[*]federal gov't needs to work closely with chemical industries to improve security.

but the biggest words were about how he would depict Sen Kerry's administration if it enters the White house

[*]more cooperating atmosphere with foreign gov'ts

[*]do not easily resort to military action to solve problems

so basically, he indirectly criticized current administration. i guess some can argue that he is a looser in Bush administration, so he is now defecting and is going bad, but I say he is candid ienough to say from his experience.

[Longinius 1]

I found this on another site. Interesting stuff, atleast I thought so.

Gotta love a country where you WILL get impeached for screwing around and lying about it, but probably not get impeached for starting a war and lying about it.

---------------------

The Case for Impeachment

By John Dean, FindLaw.com

June 11, 2003

[Editor's Note: John Dean was recently interviewed on Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman.]

President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake – acts of war against another nation.

Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away – unless, perhaps, they start another war.

That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.

Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.

Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.

President Bush's Statements On Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction

Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

– United Nations Address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons – the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

– Radio Address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" – his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

– Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

– State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

– Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003

Should The President Get The Benefit Of The Doubt?

When these statements were made, Bush's let-me-mince-no-words posture was convincing to many Americans. Yet much of the rest of the world, and many other Americans, doubted them.

As Bush's veracity was being debated at the United Nations, it was also being debated on campuses – including those where I happened to be lecturing at the time.

On several occasions, students asked me the following question: Should they believe the President of the United States? My answer was that they should give the President the benefit of the doubt, for several reasons deriving from the usual procedures that have operated in every modern White House and that, I assumed, had to be operating in the Bush White House, too.

First, I assured the students that these statements had all been carefully considered and crafted. Presidential statements are the result of a process, not a moment's thought. White House speechwriters process raw information, and their statements are passed on to senior aides who have both substantive knowledge and political insights. And this all occurs before the statement ever reaches the President for his own review and possible revision.

Second, I explained that – at least in every White House and administration with which I was familiar, from Truman to Clinton – statements with national security implications were the most carefully considered of all. The White House is aware that, in making these statements, the President is speaking not only to the nation, but also to the world.

Third, I pointed out to the students, these statements are typically corrected rapidly if they are later found to be false. And in this case, far from backpedaling from the President's more extreme claims, Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer had actually, at times, been even more emphatic than the President had. For example, on January 9, 2003, Fleischer stated, during his press briefing, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

In addition, others in the Administration were similarly quick to back the President up, in some cases with even more unequivocal statements. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed that Saddam had WMDs – and even went so far as to claim he knew "where they are; they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."

Finally, I explained to the students that the political risk was so great that, to me, it was inconceivable that Bush would make these statements if he didn't have damn solid intelligence to back him up. Presidents do not stick their necks out only to have them chopped off by political opponents on an issue as important as this, and if there was any doubt, I suggested, Bush's political advisers would be telling him to hedge. Rather than stating a matter as fact, he would be say: "I have been advised," or "Our intelligence reports strongly suggest," or some such similar hedge. But Bush had not done so.

So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they currently appear to have been?

After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very hard to find – for they existed in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed.

So where is all that? And how can we reconcile the White House's unequivocal statements with the fact that they may not exist?

There are two main possibilities. One that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the President has deliberately misled the nation, and the world.

A Desperate Search For WMDs Has So Far Yielded Little, If Any, Fruit

Even before formally declaring war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the President had dispatched American military special forces into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, which he knew would provide the primary justification for Operation Freedom. None were found.

Throughout Operation Freedom's penetration of Iraq and drive toward Baghdad, the search for WMDs continued. None were found.

As the coalition forces gained control of Iraqi cities and countryside, special search teams were dispatched to look for WMDs. None were found.

During the past two and a half months, according to reliable news reports, military patrols have visited over 300 suspected WMD sites throughout Iraq. None of the prohibited weapons were found there.

British and American Press Reaction to the Missing WMDs

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is also under serious attack in England, which he dragged into the war unwillingly, based on the missing WMDs. In Britain, the missing WMDs are being treated as scandalous; so far, the reaction in the U.S. has been milder.

New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, has taken Bush sharply to task, asserting that it is "long past time for this administration to be held accountable." "The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat," Krugman argued. "If that claim was fraudulent," he continued, "the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history – worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra." But most media outlets have reserved judgment as the search for WMDs in Iraq continues.

Still, signs do not look good. Last week, the Pentagon announced it was shifting its search from looking for WMD sites, to looking for people who can provide leads as to where the missing WMDs might be.

Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, while offering no new evidence, assured Congress that WMDs will indeed be found. And he advised that a new unit called the Iraq Survey Group, composed of some 1400 experts and technicians from around the world, is being deployed to assist in the searching.

But, as Time Magazine reported, the leads are running out. According to Time, the Marine general in charge explained that "[w]e've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad," and remarked flatly, "They're simply not there."

Perhaps most troubling, the President has failed to provide any explanation of how he could have made his very specific statements, yet now be unable to back them up with supporting evidence. Was there an Iraqi informant thought to be reliable, who turned out not to be? Were satellite photos innocently, if negligently misinterpreted? Or was his evidence not as solid as he led the world to believe?

The absence of any explanation for the gap between the statements and reality only increases the sense that the President's misstatements may actually have been intentional lies.

Investigating The Iraqi War Intelligence Reports

Even now, while the jury is still out as to whether intentional misconduct occurred, the President has a serious credibility problem. Newsweek Magazine posed the key questions: "If America has entered a new age of pre-emption – when it must strike first because it cannot afford to find out later if terrorists possess nuclear or biological weapons – exact intelligence is critical. How will the United States take out a mad despot or a nuclear bomb hidden in a cave if the CIA can't say for sure where they are? And how will Bush be able to maintain support at home and abroad?"

In an apparent attempt to bolster the President's credibility, and his own, Secretary Rumsfeld himself has now called for a Defense Department investigation into what went wrong with the pre-war intelligence. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd finds this effort about on par with O. J.'s looking for his wife's killer. But there may be a difference: Unless the members of Administration can find someone else to blame – informants, surveillance technology, lower-level personnel, you name it – they may not escape fault themselves.

Congressional committees are also looking into the pre-war intelligence collection and evaluation. Senator John Warner (R-VA), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said his committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee would jointly investigate the situation. And the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence plans an investigation.

These investigations are certainly appropriate, for there is potent evidence of either a colossal intelligence failure or misconduct – and either would be a serious problem. When the best case scenario seems to be mere incompetence, investigations certainly need to be made.

Senator Bob Graham – a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee – told CNN's Aaron Brown, that while he still hopes they find WMDs or at least evidence thereof, he has also contemplated three other possible alternative scenarios:

One is that [the WMDs] were spirited out of Iraq, which maybe is the worst of all possibilities, because now the very thing that we were trying to avoid, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, could be in the hands of dozens of groups. Second, that we had bad intelligence. Or third, that the intelligence was satisfactory but that it was manipulated, so as just to present to the American people and to the world those things that made the case for the necessity of war against Iraq.

Senator Graham seems to believe there is a serious chance that it is the final scenario that reflects reality. Indeed, Graham told CNN "there's been a pattern of manipulation by this administration."

Graham has good reason to complain. According to the New York Times, he was one of the few members of the Senate who saw the national intelligence estimate that was the basis for Bush's decisions. After reviewing it, Senator Graham requested that the Bush Administration declassify the information before the Senate voted on the Administration's resolution requesting use of the military in Iraq.

But rather than do so, CIA Director Tenet merely sent Graham a letter discussing the findings. Graham then complained that Tenet's letter only addressed "findings that supported the administration's position on Iraq," and ignored information that raised questions about intelligence. In short, Graham suggested that the Administration, by cherrypicking only evidence to its own liking, had manipulated the information to support its conclusion.

Recent statements by one of the high-level officials privy to the decisionmaking process that lead to the Iraqi war also strongly suggests manipulation, if not misuse of the intelligence agencies. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, during an interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair magazine, said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." More recently, Wolfowitz added what most have believed all along, that the reason we went after Iraq is that "[t]he country swims on a sea of oil."

Worse than Watergate? A Potential Huge Scandal If WMDs Are Still Missing

Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.

As I remarked in an earlier column, this Administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, it was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.

Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case.

John Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former Counsel to the President of the United States.

[FallenPaladin 0]

A very interesting text! Thus the author was interviewed by Democracy Now!

...

Democracy!! Sssssssssmells like biased!!!  Democracy is almost as bad as Euro Communism!!