| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/4 |
| 2007/5/1-4 [Computer/SW/Languages/Perl] UID:46497 Activity:nil |
5/1 Oops, Tenet's a big fat liar. He claims that he ran into Perle the day
after 9/11 and Perle said that Iraq had to pay. Problem is, Perle was
out of the country and couldn't get back until 9/15
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/593daqmw.asp
\_ Do you think Perle didn't say that?
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/30/perle-five-days-after
Is Tenet a liar and Gonzales not?
Is Tenet a liar and Gonzales not? -scotsman
\_ There's a difference between saying "Iraq has to pay for what
happened yesterday" and saying "there are links between OBL and
SH". Oh, and Gonzales is either a liar or an incompetent. -op
\_ So, again, you don't think "Iraq has to pay for this" or
something very close came out of Perle's mouth in Tenet's
presence?
Also, as those "links" were included in the authorization
to attack Iraq, do you honestly think you can call that a
distinction with a difference?
Also: http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/16/en.00.html
Let's look at the full transcript.
Even if we cannot prove to the standards that we enjoy
in our own civil society that they were involved. We
do know, for example, that Saddam Hussein has ties
to Osama bin Laden. That can be documented.
So, on the theory, which seems to be a valid one,
that if you support terrorists and they then commit
atrocities against Americans, you are responsible.
Unless we hold those countries responsible, we will
be chasing terrorists without significant effect.
So.. Iraq is responsible, and we must hold them responsible.
Still think there's a difference? -scotsman
\_ Not to mention that Perle was a signatory to the PNAC
letter saying we should attack Iraq back in January 1998.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm.
(Note that letter doesn't mention bin Laden or terrorism:
9/11 was just a convenient excuse to do what they wanted
to do anyway). -tom |
| weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/593daqmw.asp Respond to this article SCOTT SHANE REPORTED in Saturday's New York Times that former CIA chief George Tenet's dramatic description in his book, At the Center of the Storm, of an August 2002 presentation at the CIA by defense undersecretary Douglas Feith and his staff, is at the very least misleading. In order to suggest that Feith's staff was utterly out of its depth, Tenet characterized the main briefer, Tina Shelton, as a "naval reservist." In fact, she had been a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst for almost two decades. Tenet also claimed that Shelton said in her presentation of Iraq-al Qaeda contacts, "It is an open-and-shut case." One person who served in government with Shelton told THE WEEKLY STANDARD today he finds it "inconceivable" that Shelton, an experienced analyst, would have made such an unequivocal assertion. THE WEEKLY STANDARD has now learned of a second, more stunning error in Tenet's book (which is due to appear in bookstores tomorrow). adds, he ran into Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative and the head of the Defense Policy Board, coming out of the White House. He says Mr Perle turned to him and said: "Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday. Here's the problem: Richard Perle was in France on that day, unable to fly back after September 11. In fact Perle did not return to the United State until September 15. Did Tenet perhaps merely get the date of this encounter wrong? Well, the quote Tenet ascribes to Perle hinges on the encounter taking place September 12: "Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday." And Perle in any case categorically denies to THE WEEKLY STANDARD ever having said any such thing to Tenet, while coming out of the White House or anywhere else. According to Kakutani, Tenet concludes by paraphrasing Daniel Patrick Moynihan's comment: "Policymakers are entitled to their own opinions--but not to their own set of facts." WARNING: The page you have accessed is dependent on JAVASCRIPT which is not supported by your browser. Due to this limitation, you may experience unexpected results within this site. |
| thinkprogress.org/2007/04/30/perle-five-days-after gotten the days wrong, but I know I got the substance of that conversation correct." Tenet says Perle told him, "Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday. ven if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Today, CNN provided further evidence that Perle was pushing for an attack against Iraq shortly after 9/11. The network re-aired footage of Perle on CNN five days after 9/11 claiming that Saddam was linked to bin Laden. Perle said at the time: Even if we cannot prove to the standard that we enjoy in our own civil society they are involved, we do know, for example, that Saddam Hussein has ties to Osama bin Laden. Transcript: CNN: The day after 9/11 where President Bush and his conservative allies making connections to Saddam Hussein, former CIA Director George Tenet describes an encounter that stunned him, he says, on September 12, 2001. Tenet claims as he was going in to the White House early that morning, Richard Perle was leaving. In his new book, Tenet writes that Perle, a so-called neoconservative who headed a Pentagon advisory board at the time, turned to me and said, "Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday. TENET: When I remember thinking to myself as I'm about to go in and brief the president, what the hell is he talking about? CNN: Perle tells The Weekly Standard he was in France that day and denies ever saying that to Tenet. Tenet says his dates may be off but insists the exchange happened. PERLE: Even if we cannot prove to the standard that we enjoy in our own civil society they are involved, we do know, for example, that Saddam Hussein has ties to Osama bin Laden. org/ 2007/ 04/ 30/ perle-five-days-after/ trackback/ 1 What is it with NeoCons that they can't figure out that video and audio clicks can be rewound and listened to a second time or more? We have spent over $340 billion in Iraq, with the price tag rising, and no good has come out of it. There is no peace, no end to terror and worst of all we have left the Iraqi people in deeper poverty. According to the Borgen Project, $340 billion has already been spent in Iraq and we have a $522 billion military budget. The money would be better spent on plans such as the UN Millennium Development Goals to end global poverty. Just $19 billion annually can end starvation and malnutrition. Issues such as poverty foster a lot of the tensions that exist in the world today. As leaders in this world, we really need to get behind peaceful growth rather than war. i wish general william odom, along with four or five of his retired general officer colleagues, would join with larry wilkerson, james baker, richard clarke, russ feingold, chuck hagel, john murtha, harry reid, nancy pelosi, hell, throw in lee iacocca too, to sit down with bush in the oval office and lay the cards on the table... you can either gracefully resign along with dick cheney, or we're going to bust our humps to remove you via impeachment... the country and the world can't put up with any more, george... The Saddam-Bin Laden link apparently is still on the RNC-approved list of Iraq talking points: "We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding." "Just to give you one example, Rush, remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, al Qaeda affiliate; ran a training camp in Afghanistan for al Qaeda, then migrated -- after we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; Wasn't Perle the asshole who said there would be a "George W Bush Blvd." they can put the Donald Rumsfeld Peace Park and on the west they can build the Dick Cheney School for Neoconservative Failure Studies with the soon-to-be-added Leo Strauss Wing. And did you ever notice that Rumsfeld's eyes don't reflect light - his glasses do but not his eyes? And Cheney's human outer skin has been slipping in public lately. the best way to get America back is to control the media dont get me wrong but if one of you were to hijack a plane and crash it into fox news building ........... He was willing to send Americans to die, and be maimed and willing to have a war with Iraq on the part of the United States, that certainly would kill off hundreds of thousands of Iraqi innocents. And not a single Israeli soldier was killed in the action. Except it probably would not apply to those with US/Israeli citizenship. Foe example Cherthoff = Homeland Security Wolfowitz = Deputy Defense / World Bank (Charged with spying in 1976 but somehow the evidence against him disappeared) Perle = Defense Policy Board Elliot Abrams Douglas Feith Henry Kissinger etc. Seems highly suspect that the likes of Perle were gearing up to retaliate against Iraq so soon after Sept. Richard Clarke pointed out that Bush and Rummy were making the same case almost immediately following that tragic day as well. These facts might lead one to believe that they had plans ready and just needed a trigger. Saddam and Osama were not on each other's Ramadan card list. But it is curious Al Queda sent people to Iraq for extensive medical treatment and meetings. Make no mistake - Osama had no love for Saddam but he needed a safe place after the Taliban into the gunsights of the Bush administration. Of course, Progs may not remember alZawahiri chastising alZarqawi in Iraq for videotaping the approved beheadings..... Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Unless and until the mainstream media begins to tell the truth to the american people without the propaganda, they need to be boycotted. They've become totally irrelevant to the people at this point. They're looking like a big bunch of sycophantic Bush whores. they cooked the books to fit a policy concocted by PNAC LONG before 911! For cripes sakes, they even had the Patriot Act all ginned up well in advance of 911. This was PNAC's "another pearl harbor" and the american people fell for it - hook, line & sinker. Now it's "cryin' time" for everyone involved in this level of criminal activity - from the neonazis who contrived it, to the sycophantic media whores who spun it, to the GOP who supported it. Make no mistake: Hell will freeze over before the american people put ANY Republican into office again. The longer The Shrub engages in a pissing contest with the american people, the more profound the effect will be in 08 and perhaps for decades to come. Besides, the people will show this lying Shrub that he only "serves at the pleasure of the people" who run this country - not him. Despite the allegations, Bush didn't lie about anything regarding Iraq. The same bad intel that caused those "we must stop Iraq and their WMD program" quotes from Edwards, Hillary, Gore, Clinton, Kerry, et al back in 1998-2003. And Hillary faking that southern accent when speaking to southern blacks. Maybe that's just "pretending to be southern" and not actually lying. "To sum it all up: Nations poorer than us are offering help that we should've and could've been able to provide and were rebuffed. A nation led by, among other people, a man who'd helped take 52 of our people hostage in Tehran in 1979 wanted to open up diplomatic relations that could've saved countless people in Iraq, including our own, was ignored and even threatened. A nation like France offered to train Iraqi security forces and clowns like Curt Weldon responded by changing the name of French fries in the congressional cafeteria to Freedom fries." All those Dems you mentioned were afraid of looking "soft on terror" and they all should be ashamed. The extent and danger posed by Iraq's WMDs is the lie propagated by the Bush Admin - like the b*llshit Uranium from Niger lie. Despite the allegations, Bush didn't lie about anything regarding Iraq. And Hillary faking that southern accent when speaking to southern blacks. Maybe that's just "pretending to be southern" and not actually lying. Comment by ... |
| edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/16/en.00.html CNN EVANS, NOVAK, HUNT & SHIELDS Richard Pearle Discusses US Defense Aired September 16, 2001 - 17:30 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. I'm Robert Novak, Al Hunt and I will question one of the Defense secretary's top advisers. AL HUNT, CO-HOST: He is the chairman of the US Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle. RICHARD PERLE, US DEFENSE POLICY BOARD CHAIRMAN: It's a pleasure. HUNT: Secretary of State Colin Powell has said that we are going to assemble the widest possible coalition, including many Arab states, in this war against terrorism. Let me say at the outset that I'm speaking only for myself. The policy board has not met on the subject, so anything you hear from me today is my own view. The key thing is to assemble the widest effective coalition. And sometimes there is a difference between breadth and depth. What we want in the coalition are those countries that are truly beside us in combating international terrorism. And to try to bring in those who are in fact those who are part of the problem rather than the solution in order to widen it, I think would be a great mistake. PERLE: It would be crazy to bring in Iran, which is on the -- which is involved in terrorism, or Iraq, which is involved in terrorism. And frankly, I think it is unwise to bring in Yasser Arafat, who has not only a history as a terrorist, but has been letting go the very sorts of suicide bombers and others that are behind these international acts of terror. Vice President Cheney said on "Meet the Press" that Iraq was the -- our information was Iraq was not behind this latest incident. But should a primary goal of the war on terrorism be to topple Saddam Hussein? There is no question Saddam has been involved in acts of terror. As long as he is around with his desire for vengeance, he will be supporting international terrorism. And we need to take this fight to the countries that harbor terrorists. Chasing individual terrorists is not the way to solve this problem. NOVAK: So, Mr Perle, you are proposing that we go after... ZAHN: I hate to have to do this to you, gentlemen, but I've got to break into your show to bring you some statements by Attorney General John Ashcroft who now joins us from Camp David. But he, I am told -- he is walking in the room and will be making a statement shortly. There's a little hubbub of activity preceding the attorney general's arrival. Some strong words coming from the attorney general this morning, calling terrorism the enemy of human civilization; saying that the United States will do everything in its power to disrupt these networks that he says are pervasive and substantial. He also went on to say that he would like to elevate the penalties for anybody accused of either harboring someone involved a terrorist attack or the attack itself to the level of espionage. Let's quickly go back to Bob Novak, who I'm sure would love to get back into the substance of his show. We're talking to Richard Perle, former assistant secretary of defense. He is now a private citizen, but he is also chairman of the Defense Policy Board of the Pentagon, and so is a leading adviser to Secretary Rumsfeld. Mr Perle, maybe you can help -- you can clear up some confusion. And the governor -- Attorney General Ashcroft was talking about what seemed to be a criminal proceeding against individual terrorists. There's an effort to determine who individually was responsible for this act of terror and to try to discern the ties back to larger terrorist organizations. But separate and apart from that, if we are going to win the war against terrorism, we must take that war to the countries who harbor terrorists, who give them the facilities, the money, the training, the intelligence, the communications. Without that, the ability of these terrorists -- bin Laden or anyone else -- to inflict this kind of damage would be extremely limited. NOVAK: Mr Perle, when -- before we went to Attorney General Ashcroft, I understood you to be saying that we should take actions against terrorists or people who harbor terrorists even if they are not necessarily associated with the catastrophe of September 11. PERLE: Even if we cannot prove to the standards that we enjoy in our own civil society that they were involved. We do know, for example, that Saddam Hussein has ties to Osama bin Laden. So, on the theory, which seems to be a valid one, that if you support terrorists and they then commit atrocities against Americans, you are responsible. Unless we hold those countries responsible, we will be chasing terrorists without significant effect. NOVAK: If we go into -- if the United States goes into Afghanistan, could you say perhaps that the United States has learned something from the Soviet catastrophe in Afghanistan and that an expeditionary force is not the answer; that perhaps there has to be commando strikes, Delta Force teams, rather than putting in a big, set piece battle operation such as the United States had in Iraq? PERLE: Well, I have no knowledge of what may be underway in terms of planning, but I can't imagine that we would send a significant ground force into Afghanistan. There is a another side not now in power that deserves the support of the United States. There's something similar going on in Iraq, where there's an opposition to Saddam Hussein. We should be aligning ourselves with the opponents of terrorism where we can find them and we should be taking this war to the heart of the enemy, which is the infrastructure that supports them. Without that infrastructure, there may be a car bomb, there may be a hijacking, but we won't see anything on the scale of the tragedy we've seen now. HUNT: Mr Perle, supporting the other side in Afghanistan or in Iraq may make for good long-run policy, but that's probably not going to do anything in the very, very short run. In the short run, if we determine that someone like Osama bin Laden is the culprit here, should we send in some kind of commando force to get him if need be? We mustn't reduce the war on terror to a manhunt against Osama bin Laden. The heart of the problem is a network of countries and terrorist organizations working together hand-in-glove supporting one another, and that provides the infrastructure that permits terror on this scale to take place. If the terrorists had to change location every night, if they couldn't walk into an office where they have communications and secretaries and research and the support of governments, their ability to do what has been done would be greatly reduced. HUNT: Can you do that without at least some commitment of American ground forces, wherever it be? For instance, the Weekly Standard this week raised the possibility of an actual war in the Middle East with United States ground troops there. PERLE: Well, we want to choose targets that are going to protect us; whose elimination would diminish the exposure of the United States to terrorist attacks. And I can't tell you that we have such a target in our sights today. But we want to choose targets very carefully, and when we have chosen them we want to be devastatingly effective. We had the capacity to make the cost of supporting terrorism extremely high. Are you convinced that this was a breakdown of our intelligence capacity? And if you are, why should we have confidence in it in the future? PERLE: I think we have a lot of useful intelligence in terms of which countries support terrorist organizations. That's different from the kind of intelligence that permits you to foil a specific plot. But we do know which countries have been helping these terrorists, and they can't hide. They have military installations, they have intelligence organizations, they have leadership facilities and our ability to make the price very high for continued support of terrorism is substantial. And that could include, in my view, should include, the use of military force against the key installations of countries that support terrorism. And these countries by and large are dictatorships that depend for their own leadership on the ability to... |
| www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm Letter to President Clinton on Iraq. January 26, 1998 The Honorable William J Clinton President of the United States Washington, DC Dear Mr President: We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the United States and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Husseins regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraqs chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddams secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the worlds supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administrations attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddams regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the United States has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk. Sincerely, Elliott Abrams Richard L Armitage William J Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W Rodman Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz R James Woolsey Robert B Zoellick. |