Protecting Intelligence Sources...

If they know that very concealable WMD are there, and know they can convince the world, tell me what good it does to present it to the world in prelude to weeks of politicians debating their response to go in and destroy them for 10yr old material breach on the UN's demands.

How about the simple fact that waging a war without the backing of the people is a recipe for disaster? How about the fact that as opposition solidifies, it is that much harder to rebuild support for a war? How about the fact that U.S. credibility throughout the world is eroding because of this crap?

The #1 criteria for a government justifying a freaking war that's going to send American lives in harm's way is to get the support of its own people, which this administration DOES NOT HAVE RIGHT NOW without a new UN resolution and international backing according to polls. Why is this not at all a priority for this administration?

 

Maybe it's not the number one priority. Maybe protecting intelligence, personnel, and a need to do the job right is a bigger priority.


The problem is that its not at ALL a priority, and that's a colossal ****up. If they intend to carry out a war without the support of the people, then they are just asking for a big disaster. If they intend to wait until everyone is anti-war before trying to build support, they are also asking for a big disaster.

Unfortunately, you may not be able to do one and still do the other. Just as one of YOUR senators alluded to today:

MY senators? I don't live in Delaware?

As far as not being able to do both, that's a load of crap. The administration has even said now that they are going to release some info in the next few weeks. Why the hell wasn't that done earlier? If they have the info that they have said that they'll share, release it. If they don't have the info, stop lying to us.

 

And I've asked you guys when they've made a definitive claim that they'll share this info and to what extent? I'm not saying it hasn't occured, but I've seen such ridiculous spins posted here that I don't know who to believe anymore.


Bush has made the claim that they have evidence that Iraq was 6 months away from nukes. The admin has claimed links between Al Queda, 9/11, and Iraq. Virtually every Ari Fleisher press conference for the past 6 months, a paraphrase of this question has been asked "when will you release your information" (varies depending on the popular information that week).

Ari's response is always "We will release our information when we feel it's appropriate". Watch his daily briefing tomorrow. If it's not overshadowed by the state of the union, that question will probably be asked yet again.

Here's the version from yesterday's press briefing:

<I>Q Ari, polls have shown that a lot of people in this country, and maybe around the world, also people on Capitol Hill, feel the President has not quite made the case to go to war. Is the President sitting on any information that could significantly change public opinion that he has not released -- whether to protect intelligence sources or simply his, due to his penchant to play it close to the vest?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, number one, the President is not going to be guided by a decision about whether or not to go to war based on polls. The President will be guided by what he views as Commander-in-Chief as necessary to do to protect the American people.

Having said that, I think it is also clear that in the event the President does make the determination that it will be necessary to go to war, he will of course make more of a case. I think when you take a look at where the public is, it's interesting because it's even more so than in 1991, the public understands the threat that Saddam Hussein presents. I think the public is supportive of the use of force if, in the judgment of the President, it becomes necessary.

But, clearly, the President will continue to educate the public and make his case. He has not made an entire case yet. If he decides that more is necessary he will of course -- of course -- engage deeper with the American people.

Q Why hasn't he made the entire case yet?
</I>

(second question ignored)

That's the long version of "we'll make the case when we feel like it" and "we don't care if the American people don't back this war".

Here's some more...

<I>Q Ari, when we ask you to substantiate your allegation about a link between Iraq and al Qaeda, your usual response is to say that to provide any specific intelligence to support that assertion would compromise sources and methods. Today you've alluded twice to information gained from interviews with detainees that you said proves that link. It's hard to understand how disclosure of an interview with a detainee could compromise either sources or methods, because in this case both the source and the method are --

MR. FLEISCHER: That's why I said it.

Q Okay. Would you then consider releasing, for example, a transcript of the interview with the detainee that establishes that link so that we can judge more fully the information?

MR. FLEISCHER: I have no idea about that. I don't even know if transcripts are taken in that sense. I don't know that there's a White House stenographer sitting there in that sense. I'd be happy to take your question up with other people here. But I give you the information because that's where we have it.

Q Well, again -- talking about a specific transcript, but typically in any kind of interview situation, some sort of report, I presume, is made. Why wouldn't you disclose that, why wouldn't that help your case --

MR. FLEISCHER: I think I just did disclose to you the germane part of it.

Q But you haven't disclosed the details of it, and that would certainly seem --

MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, this is an ongoing situation. And I think that there may be more to be said at the appropriate time.

Q So will you do that? Will you do that, Ari?

MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, I think there may be more to be said at the appropriate time.
</I>

"when we feel like it"

<I>Q Ari, last summer Secretary Rumsfeld, and then again later in early fall the President, himself, both of those gentlemen alluded to a potential link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Can you at least tell us whether or not Secretary Powell's remarks yesterday were based on any new information since those two remarks were made, in other words, since last fall and last summer?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, of course, we're always reviewing information and getting more information. And as a result of the successful prosecution of the war on terror, we continue to be able to talk to people around the world who have been captured, who give us information. And then it's all put together and conclusions try to be reached. So this is an ongoing gathering of information that leads to ongoing formations of conclusions.

Q Are you saying then that, yes, there is some new information that led to Secretary Powell making those remarks yesterday at Davos?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's fair to say there is always developing information based on our successes so far in the war against terror.

</I>

More non-answers

<I>Q Two questions, please, just to try to clarify one more time. Will the President present America's own proof that Iraq is linked with terrorists and has transferred weapons of mass destruction? And on the U.N., does the Bush administration still believe the U.N. is effective and worthy of America's full support?

MR. FLEISCHER: The second question was about the United Nations? Well, of course, yes. But it remains a test of how relevant the United Nations is. It still remains an issue for the United Nations to prove that the resolution they passed was not just one more in a string of resolutions to be followed by additional resolutions, none of which have value, none of which have meaning, none of which are enforced. And that still remains an open test of the United Nations.

And on the first question, this will be one speech that the President gives, there will be other speeches after this, not only by the President, but by other members of his administration. And this speech will be about the state of the union.
</I>

Another non-answer.

This is all simply from yesterday's briefing. Go back and you'll find references and answers like this over and over and over again.

 

How would you present evidence, if it is indeed incontrovertible? And what kind of smoking gun are you requiring to justify war?

If it was incontrovertible, I would say "here is evidence that Iraq is not complying. We expect the UN to back its resolution and participation in a military invasion of Iraq. If you don't, the UN is a worthless body of government that is going to be irrelevent in the coming decades."

I think it would be pretty simple.

Dude, quit asking the question if you are not going to acknowledge anyone's answer to it. You asked this question in your opening post, and we've given you an answer.

Asking the question ad nauseum is not a discussion...it's venting.

In all the responses that I saw, there's not an answer to my question in there. Yeah, there's some crap about protecting sources, but I specifically asked about Satellite Photos. I presume protecting the satellite is not a major issue? Also some stuff about Iraq moving their WMD, but that doesn't fit with the administration saying they'll present it when they feel like it. So again, if they have the evidence, have said they'll present it "soon", why not present it now? Or why not have presented it months ago when the world was looking for a reason to support this war?

Unless they are planning to go to war immediately after they present the evidence, Iraq will have the opportunity to move stuff. That means they intend to go to war without allowing the American people or world to actually make their own judgements, which is just as ridiculously dumb. So essentially, they'd be still going to war without the support of anyone.

 

Here's some more for you, Pole. This is the previous briefing from Friday:

<I>Q Ari, John Bolton, in Japan, made it clear that the United States has some evidence that they're going to give over to the world very shortly. Can you elaborate on that? What kind of evidence is he talking about, in what form?

MR. FLEISCHER: This is nothing new. This is something that you've heard many people say. Secretary Powell said it recently about the United States would make it's case. And in the course of events, as I've indicated, the President, others in the administration, will have information to say as developments warrant.

You've seen this week, in the speeches given by Secretary Armitage and Secretary Wolfowitz the continuation of the importance of dialogue and reasoning. And that will continue. And the administration will continue to share with the world and share with the country why we have such a cause for concern.

Q -- in speeches, but not really any new hard evidence about what the U.S. thinks that Saddam Hussein actually has -- hard evidence in terms of their weapons. Is this something the President is going to talk about in the State of the Union? Is this -- do you actually believe that there is hard evidence that exists that will bring these countries around and bring the American people around?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President is confident that if it gets to the point where he does reach the conclusion, and he goes to the country, he is confident that the country and much of the world will understand the seriousness and the weight of what he is presenting. And that is why, if our democracy does go to war, which is a step the President still hopes can be averted, we will go to war knowing that we have the support of much of the world.
</I>

Like I said, this has been going on for months and months. Same stuff... "we'll tell you eventually, until then, just trust us".

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030113.asp

Situation With Iraq Worth Going to War Over?

Worth warring over and supporting a war are two very different issues.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030127.asp

Which comes closer to your view -- [ROTATED: the United States should invade Iraq when the Bush administration decides that it is time to do so, (or) the United States should not invade Iraq unless there is a new United Nations vote authorizing military action]?


When Bush decides: 39%

Not without UN vote: 57%

If President Bush decided to invade Iraq with U.S. ground troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power, which of the following would best describe your reaction -- [ROTATED: you would support the president's decision because you think the U.S. should invade Iraq, you would support the president's decision even though you do not think the U.S. should invade Iraq, (or) you would not support the president's decision because you do not think the U.S. should invade Iraq]?

Support Decision / US should invade: 45%
Support Decision / US should not invade: 27%
Would not support / US should not invade: 26%

Note that 53% think the US should not invade, although 72% will at least support the action. The problem is these numbers continually get worse.

 

That's it!?!

So.....there hasn't been any promises then? Other than "when it's time" or something similar?


I guess if you consider yesterday's briefing the be-all, end-all of all time, then no. If you go back 3 whole days, though:

<I>
Ari, John Bolton, in Japan, made it clear that the United States has some evidence that they're going to give over to the world very shortly.

...

This is nothing new. This is something that you've heard many people say. Secretary Powell said it recently about the United States would make it's case.

...
</I>

If you actually go back over the past several months, I'm sure you'll find plenty of other references to administration officials saying we have evidence and will share it. This isn't just something reporters have been making up for the past 6 months.

But even though I'm not really behind this war effort, I can easily understand how protecting this intelligence (ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE GOING TO WAR) GREATLY supercedes the importance of the factors I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

In my opinion, there is little to nothing more important than popular support for an offensive war.