http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/05/rummy-lied.html

You can't make this stuff up, people: From "Crazed Lefty vs. Rumsfeld"Many of you have pointed out that Ray McGovern, the man who challenged Rumsfeld in public, holds some wacko views, and has made some anti-Semitic statements. It se…

The media reported this very briefly. As I recall, only Fox News had anything at length on this. The media quickly suppressed it. Also large amounts of insecticides were found at military sites. Perhaps the Iraqis had a huge insect problem. It should also be known that insecticides are often a precursor for some forms of WMD. As a general rule, any thing that would support a position taken by the Bush administration will be suppressed or spun and information that would work against the Bush administration will be disseminated far and wide. There is nothing wrong with reporting information harmful to the administration. The media simply should report all angles of an issue. In other words more reporting and less advocacy.

The Bush administration did not lie. The intelligence community believed there was WMD and we had evidence to support it. Some parts of the intelligence were hyped by the administration - mainly with respect to Iraq’s Nuclear program, but most of it was based on what we thought was solid evidence.

All of you should read the Iraq Perspectives Project at http://www.foreignaffairs.org/special/iraq/ipp.pdf
You can read a summary in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs here: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85301/kevin-woods-james-lacey-williamson-murray/saddam-s-delusions-the-view-from-the-inside.html

This IPP report is based off interviews with all the key Iraqi leaders we have in custody, including Saddam. It gives the Iraqi side of the story prior to and during the war based on those first-hand accounts. What’s clear after reading this report is that Iraq had a policy of ambiguity with respect to WMD’s. They wanted their regional competitors to believe they had them, while at the same time they wanted to show the UN they didn’t. Here’s a substantive quote from the report:

“When it came to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Saddam attempted to convince one audience that they were gone while simultaneously convincing another that Iraq still had them. Coming clean about WMD and using full compliance with inspections to escape from sanctions would have been his best course of action for the long run. Saddam, however, found it impossible to abandon the illusion of having WMD, especially since it played so well in the Arab world.”

“Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as “Chemical Ali” for his use of chemical weapons on Kurdish civilians in 1987, was convinced Iraq no longer possessed WMD but claims that many within Iraq’s ruling circle never stopped believing that the weapons still existed. Even at the highest echelons of the regime, when it came to WMD there was always some element of doubt about the truth. According to Chemical Ali, Saddam was asked about the weapons during a meeting with members of the Revolutionary Command Council. He replied that Iraq did not have WMD but flatly rejected a suggestion that the regime remove all doubts to the contrary, going on to explain that such a declaration might encourage the Israelis to attack.”

People have attacked our intelligence community about “screwing up” the analysis of WMD. The fact is, much of the Iraqi government believed they had WMD when in fact they didn’t. How are intelligence analysts supposed to decipher the truth from a government as broken and dishonest as Saddam’s government was?

Over half of America may believe Bush lied. This does not make it true. Bush has done a poor job defending himself and the media is selectively reporting information. If your only source was the main stream media, you would believe this to. The enemy we are fighting in Iraq is capable of bringing down the USA and imposing their vision of Islam on all of us. This enemy was there before we arrived and they were plotting attacks on the USA. The administration is trying to defeat this enemy. So yes anyone who offers aid and comfort to this enemy, such as this rogue CIA agent, is a traitor and should hang from the proverbial oak tree. The strategy being employed by the administration may be misguided but it is not treason to attempt to defend America from an enemy that wants to destroy it and is capable of doing so.

Oh, the old “Santa Clause” defense. How pathetic! Come on Rick, this is a bit of a stretch even for you. The reason children talk about Santa as if he’s real is because they don’t know any better. When your a grown-up you don’t talk like that. Rumsfeld is a grown-up–right?

“Rogue ex-CIA agent Ray McGovern”–(I have to give you credit for acknowledging he actually was a CIA agent, Brit Hume said he only “claimed” to be one.) Your saying he’s a rouge for thinking the administration lied to us? Over half the country thinks that. Could you source for me where he advances the theory about gov. involvement in 9/11?

It’s all Clinton’s fault for not firing Reno. I see your staying true to the rightwing format.

“His ideas about a transformational military may prove to be inspired genius.” I’ve heard it’s one of the biggest boondoggles in military history.

“The American people made their determination about these “lies” in the election of 2004″ Funny thing about the truth, it always comes out eventually.

Ok, enough picking on Rick. I read your whole piece wanting to see what you would say about my favorite part of the Rumsfeld vs McGovern clash and you didn’t even mention it. It was where Rusfeld offers as proof that he didn’t lie by the fact that the soldiers that lead the invasion of Iraq wore chem-suits because they believed there were weapons. Adding this bit of humor, “They didn’t wear those because they liked the style.” As if he had lied, the soldiers would have skipped the chem-suits.

Rusmsfeld should “swinging from a White Oak tree for treason.”