The Only Way Barack Can Lose Iowa

Sen. Barack Obama, much to my dismay, looks poised to win the Iowa caucuses on January 3.  The big "Mo" (momentum) is on his side and he is leading in many recent Iowa polls.  Clinton and Edwards appear to be stuck in second and third place respectively, but with such a tight race and the volatile nature of the Iowa caucus, there is something that works to the advantage of Clinton and Edwards.  This same thing is the one and only way I could see Barack Obama losing Iowa.  So what is that "thing" of which I refer?  It's the youth vote, of course.

Sen. Clinton and Edwards have the top two traditional caucusing groups on their side.  Sen. Clinton has the 40+ women vote, which traditionally shows up in strong numbers on caucus night.  Edwards also has an important and consistent caucusing group---the labor, or union, vote.  And Barack's support.....the youth vote.  

Polls show Obama to have a tremendous amount of support among college students and other voters in the 18-34 demographic.  If Sen. Obama can get his many young supporters to show up, he will surely win.  The problem is that history is not on his side.  Only 10% of all caucus goers in 2004 were under the age 35; Obama draws much of his support from those same people.

We all remember what happened to Howard Dean in 2004.  At this point in 2003, with just 3 weeks until the caucus, Howard Dean was still the clear frontrunner.  The problem for Dean on the night of the caucus was that his core support consisted of voters under the age of 35 and they simply did not show up to caucus as the polls had suggested.  

As can be seen, the youth vote if far from reliable.  Many young voters show up at rallies for a candidate and even tell pollsters that they are "likely caucus attenders".  Yet, when the night of the caucus comes, the youth simply don't show up in big numbers.  Sadly, they often get distracted.  It should be noted that a big distraction for many young voters, particularly male, this year could potentially be the Orange Bowl, which will begin at about the same time as the caucus.  

Obama and his supporters have promised that this year will be different.  They say that the youth will show up and caucus.  Talk, however, is cheap.  Howard Dean and his campaign claimed the same thing in 2004 as did candidates in previous years.                                                                                                                               

My point: Obama is in the prime position to win the Iowa caucus, but he's not inevitable.  With a large chunk of his support being from younger voters, Obama leaves himself vulnerable.  If he can truly, as he says, bring in youth voters as has never been done before, Obama has this caucus in the bag.  But if only 10%, or even 15%, show up, Obama could be in deep trouble.  With the race so tight in Iowa, Obama, or any candidate for that matter, can not afford to not have their core supporters show up.  As Dean learned in '04, it's one thing to have supporters, it's a completely different thing to have them actually show up on a cold winter night to stand in a room for hours and caucus for you.  

Clinton and Edwards have reliable supporters who are traditional caucus goers; they should have no problem getting their people out.  The race in Iowa, and possibly the nationally, depends on how many of Obama's youth supporters actually show up.  If he gets them out there, he'll win.  If he doesn't, he could be the Dean of '08.  Only time will tell.  

Afghanistan: Failing Because of Iraq

The United States invaded Afghanistan over 6 years ago.  That was the right decision because Bin Laden's operations and training camps were there and were supported by the Taliban.  After the tragic events of 9-11, the people of the U.S. supported that operation as did most world leaders.  Our military leaders were convinced that we had Bin Laden trapped on several occasions, but we failed to capture him.

 

As of this writing Bin Laden is still at large.  The U.S. has approximately 26,000 troops in Afghanistan and NATO has about 28,000.  The U.S. has about 160,000 troops in Iraq.  Does that make sense when we knew Iraq was no threat to the U.S.?  Everyone knows who struck the U.S. on 9-11.  Our resources were and still are committed to the wrong war.

 

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that Defense Secretary Gates is blasting NATO for not doing enough in Afghanistan and that Gates wants to overhaul the alliance strategy in Afghanistan.  Violence is on the rise and the U.S. strategic goals for Afghanistan in 2007 have not been met.   In fact, senior administration officials have gone as far as saying that the country is backsliding.  

 

The bottom line is that we have not been fighting the war on terrorism.  We have turned that over to NATO and our rhetoric is hollow.  Our resources have been wasted in Iraq.  The President's self serving statement, "the War on Terror is centered in Iraq," is purely false.  The War on Terror can not be won when you have a faulty foreign policy.  The next President has to have the wisdom to recognize the real threat that terrorism poses, and have a foreign policy that deals with that threat.  Iraq is not a threat; Afghanistan and bin Laden are. 

The Inspiration That Is Hillary Clinton

I know that I often put on my partisan hat and give you my opinions on a candidate.  For this post, however, I'm going to take off that partisan hat and share with you, why Hillary Clinton, regardless of her politics, is a true inspiration to myself and surely others.

Hillary grew up in a conservative family in Chicago.  Although she never expressed thoughts about running for President, from a very young age Hillary knew she wanted to be in public service.  As she progressed through high school, Hillary became more and more interested in politics.  This growing interest led her to major in political science in college.  

Always considering herself "liberal at heart", Hillary finally broke away from her conservative roots when she realized the underhanded tactics and politics of the Republicans under Richard Nixon (the same tactics and politics that continue today).

One could speculate, as I do, that although Hillary never explicitly said that she wanted to be President, she always had the desire to serve her country in that utmost capacity.  The sad thing was that then, and arguably up to a few years ago, the idea of a female running for President, much less being President, was laughable to say the least.  

Then, Hillary's world changed.  She fell in love with Bill Clinton.  She cared so deeply for Bill that she selflessly gave up her career ambitions to move to Arkansas with him.  At that time Bill was a failed politician, in debt over $40,000 due to a failed run for Congress.  Little did she know that Bill would one day be President.

When Hillary got to Arkansas, she planned on joining the Marines.  She wasn't allowed though.  The recruiter told her, "You're too old and you're a woman."

A few decades later, Bill Clinton won the White House and Hillary changed the role of First Lady as it was then known.  Hillary, continuing to show her strong leadership qualities, refused to just sit back and "be quiet" as previous first ladies had been.  Hillary continued her tireless quest for women rights across the globe.  She continued to fight for American families and children.  Hillary, however, was even more than just a force in domestic policy; she used her position to travel to and influence foreign countries and their policies.  

When Bill left office, Hillary could have just let herself fade into the background.  But no, Hillary wasn't finished with public service.  She decided to run for New York Senator, and surprised many when she was able to overcome the many stereotypes to win the seat.  

Now, after serving in the Senate for almost 7 years, Hillary is running for President.  Why is this story so inspirational you might ask?  Simple.  It's not just about women, it is about every single person who was told that he/she could do something because of their age, skin color, ethnicity, physical appearance, gender, etc .  It's inspirational to know that you can break away from your family's ideals and traditions and be your own person.  It's inspirational to know that you don't have to sit complacently in the background and let someone else overshadow you.  That is what Hillary's story teaches----the lesson to be who you want to be and do whatever you want to do and to never let anyone discourage you from chasing your dreams because, who knows, those dreams might just become reality.  

Barack's Character Problem: A Follow Up

After posting a short article I wrote concerning Sen. Barack Obama and his inconsistency on several issues, I got slammed over at the Daily Kos website for twisting Sen. Obama's words and lying about his positions.  After I read those comments, I realized that indeed I should have given more substantial evidence to back up my claims.  So here is my evidence: quotes from Barack Obama himself, a top surrogate, and reliable, objective sources.

In 2004, Sen. Barack Obama said the following when asked on multiple occasions whether or not he would have voted for war in Iraq: 

"I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports.  What would I have done?  I don't know."

  -New York Times, July 26, 2004

"There's not much of a difference between my position (on Iraq) and George Bush's position at this stage."

  -Chicago Tribune, July 27, 2004

And then when questioned by Tim Russert about why he said the things above, Barack responded:

"(Those comments) were made during the convention when we had a nominee, both for President and Vice President, who had voted for the war.  It was probably the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against my party's nominee."

  -Meet the Press, November 11, 2007

That last quote, in my opinion, perfectly exemplifies the lack of leadership Sen. Obama exhibits.  He himself admitted that he essentially just went with the flow as to not upset the status quo.  I don't care what the circumstances are, a true leader stands up for what he believes in 100% of the time, regardless of what others, even his "elders" of "friends" may think of him.  Of course the case could be made that Barack did not exhibit poor leadership, but in fact truly didn't know whether he would have voted for or against the war.  So either a) Obama isn't a true leader as he claims, or b) Obama was telling the truth and in fact did agree with George Bush.  I'll let you decide which one is a more damning critique.

On Obama's healthcare plan:

"It's pretty much conventional wisdom that, without a mandate, a substantial portion of Americans would remain uninsured...15 million is an estimate...but at least a few well-respected authorities, none of them tied to one candidate, think it makes sense."

  -Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic, December 3, 2007

"(Obama's plan) does not include a mandate for adults, as Clinton's plan does. That likely means not as many people will be insured."

  -Kenneth Thorpe, professor of health policy and management at Emory University

"(When Sen. Clinton says Obama's plan leaves 15 million uninsured), Clinton is accurately quoting studies that estimate how many will be uninsured under Obama's plan."

  -St. Petersburg Times/ politifact.com

"What he may be saying is he supports the idea that everybody ought to have healthcare. He supports universal access."

 -Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), Obama surrogate, December 11, 2007 on Tucker

So basically what you get when you put these quotes, from reliable sources, on healthcare together, is that Sen. Obama likes the idea of everyone having health care, but at the same time won't mandate it, which experts estimate will leave 15 million uninsured.  

There is my evidence that backs up the claims I made in my article a few days ago.  (Click here for that article)  People can say what they want and think what they want, but the proof is all right here.  

The Rosetta Stone To The War In Iraq (Part II)

Click here for Part I

The most important piece of the Rosetta Stone to the Iraq War was the U.N inspectors who were on the ground in Iraq.  They were there 7 straight years after the 1991 Gulf War and they returned prior to the invasion in March 2003.  Why was that important?  Because after no WMD were found by our own inspectors, Mr. Kay and Mr. Duelfer, the Bush administration, the CIA, and many military officers, especially those who appeared on the cable networks, were telling the American people the reasons we were so wrong were because the U.S. had no humint (human intelligence) on the ground in Iraq. 

 

Well there was the U.N. humint on the ground in Iraq doing their job.  That humint on the ground in Iraq were not only experienced weapons inspectors, but one among them was Scott Ritter, an outspoken American Marine who was on the ground in Iraq from the beginning.  He wrote a book about the inspectors in Iraq after the Gulf War and pointed out that the CIA tried to manipulate the U.N. inspectors and were more interested in spying on Iraq than the hunt for WMD.

 

The U.N. weapons inspectors went back before the 2003 invasion and said over and over again, in public and before the U.N., that they disarmed Iraq, destroyed the weapons they found, and destroyed the equipment used in the manufacture of weapons.  Scott Ritter was on television almost every night in 2002 and 2003 telling the country over and over again that Iraq had no WMD.  The Bush administration along with the others who clamored for the war tried to discredit him and the U.N. inspectors.  Bush would have no part of their "human intelligence" on the ground.  It should also be pointed out that despite Bush's rhetoric about WMD, the CIA could not provide the U.N. inspectors any useful information on these WMD. (Of course we all know why.)

 

George Bush and Dick Cheney tried to undermine the U.N. inspectors and the job they were doing by putting any obstacle in the way they could think of.  Our own inspectors, Kay and Duelfel, proved the U.N. inspectors were right.  Bush knew if the U.N. inspectors were allowed to complete their job as Germany and France wanted them to, there would be no war.  So Bush ordered them out and started a war that the neocons said would be a cakewalk.

Mr. Bush and his neocon team were bent on going to war with Iraq from the very beginning of his administration.  Paul O'Neill, Mr. Bush's first Treasury Secretary pointed out in his book, "The Price of Loyalty", that just 10 days in office and all the talk was about Iraq.  Getting Saddam was clearly the administration's focus.  Condi Rice, the National Security Adviser at the time, said that Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region.  

 

Then, still very early in office, O'Neill was reading a document that CIA director Tenent passed out.  It laid out a plan of covert activity around the globe.  At its core was the enabling provision that there be virtually no civilian oversight.  The concept was tell us (CIA) how you want to look Mr. President and we'll handle the rest. 

 

That was an astounding un-American document.  It of course led to the ultimate lie: WMD that did not exist.  The cover up of the truth dealing with the war is still going.  We also know, from all the other scandals of this administration, that they have the ability to escape oversight and disclosure. 

 

I was born during the WWII generation, so I have seen a lot of wars and how our past Presidents acted during those wars.  However, the way Mr. Bush used our military power in starting an unnecessary war and occupation over WMD that did not exist is shameful.  His arrogance, lies, and distortion of the truth and the covert way he has run the White House, have defamed the Presidency and what our country is all about.  Worst of all, he put our men and women in uniform at risk when our national security was not in danger.

 

There was a time when Republicans and Democrats alike in Congress took a stand against President Nixon and told him he had to resign or be impeached.  Those members of Congress put their country first.  It is time for Republicans and Democrats who make up the present congress to draw the line, face their responsibilities as Americans, and inform Mr. Bush he has to go, one way or another.  One more year in office is much too long for this reckless President.  It's time that the current members of Congress put Americans and their country first.

Obama's Character Problem

Over the course of this campaign, Senators Barack Obama and John Edwards have been going off on Sen. Clinton's character and convictions.  They call her "corrupt" and claim that she does not have the interest of the American people in her heart.  As far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly okay for one candidate to go after another on policy issues, but it is not acceptable to incorrectly insult one's character and integrity and wrongly defame that person.

  

Hypocrisy, in my mind, is one of the worst kinds of character problems. Like Hillary Clinton or not, there is not one instance where it could be said that Hillary is a hypocrite. However, as the rigors of this Presidential campaign roll full steam ahead, it seems that there is one candidate who is starting to exhibit a slight bit of hypocrisy, and that candidate is Illinois Senator, Barack Obama.

1) Barack Obama has been highly critical of Hillary Clinton on the Iraq War.  Obama likes to use the fact that he did not vote for the war, while Sen Clinton did, against her.  But there is a huge inconsistency on Obama's part.  The fact is that he was not even in the U.S. Senate at that time.  And in fact, in numerous interviews in 2004 and 2005, Obama said that he was not sure how he would have voted if indeed he was in the Senate.  He said that he couldn't rule out possibly have voting for the war because he was not privy to the information that members of the Senate were.  Obama continued that stance until he began running for President.  Now he is trying to retract that statement, recently telling Tim Russert that he only said that because, at that time, the top Democrats in the country (John Kerry and John Edwards) did vote for the war and he didn't think it would be a good idea to go against them.  That brings me to my next point.

2) Leadership.  Obama likes to claim that he is the best leader for the Democratic Party.  I ask you though, does someone exhibit leadership when he just "goes with the flow".  In 2004-2005, Obama could have very well said that he was against the war; that would have been leadership.  But instead, he said that he didn't know how he would have voted.  A second thing also calls into question his leadership.  Although he is highly critical of Sen. Clinton's handling of the Iraq War, he voted the exact same way as she did in every single measure.  There is not one bit of difference in their voting records on that issue.  But, there is a difference somewhere in there.  It was Sen. Clinton, not Obama, who asked the Pentagon for plans to end the war earlier this year.  Obama had years to show leadership and vote against the war if he so chose, but apparently he didn't want to upset the status quo.  That my friends, is no leader.  If any candidate has shown leadership on trying to bring this war to a safe end, it was Sen. Clinton when she asked for withdrawal plans.

3) Obama has been highly critical of Sen. Clinton's vote for diplomacy in Iran. Obama's voting record is clear though.  Earlier this year, back in April, Obama voted for a resolution that was almost identical to the one Sen. Clinton recently voted for.  And again this comes back to the leadership issue: Sen. Obama completely missed the Iran vote because he was "too busy" campaigning.  There was even a debate that night where, although given the opportunity,  Obama did not express any negative feelings toward the Iran resolution nor did he criticize Sen. Clinton. Obama instead waited a few days until he realized it was the popular thing to criticize Sen. Clinton.  

4) Obama also enjoys talking about universal healthcare. The problem is that he does not advocate universal healthcare as does Clinton, Edwards, and the other Democrats.  Rather, Obama's plan leaves 15 million Americans uninsured.  Some claim that this is not true, but one only has to read Sen. Obama's plan to realize that indeed Obama does not guarantee every woman, man, and child health insurance. Some, inevitably, would be left uninsured. 

5) Obama likes to center his campaign around the theme of "change".  He would like Americans to believe he is the only candidate who can successfully bring about change in America.  But, as you examine his record, you realize that Obama has done very little if anything to bring about the "change" he so often refers to.  All you have to do is look at a person's record to see how they will govern in the future, and when you do that, you realize that Obama has yet to stand up for change.  As the old saying goes, "talk is cheap".  It's one thing to talk a good talk, but America needs a President who will walk the walk, and quite frankly, Obama has failed to do that.

So, I ask Senator Obama, before you go after someone else's character and record, why don't you examine your own.  Because from what is clear to the naked eye, Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic contenders have a far better record than you.  

Iran: What Bush Really Knew

George Bush's rhetoric concerning Iran for the past six months is a mirror image of his rhetoric concerning Iraq during the run up to that war.  In the second instance, Bush claimed that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program; but they had not.  With Iran he said they were building nuclear weapons.  However, we found out in the NIE report released just last week that they stopped that in 2003 when they froze the program.  That was over four years ago.

 

What the news media failed to pick up on is that from 2001 to 2003, Iran was working to produce nuclear weapons and Bush was silent.  Instead, he was attacking Iraq.  The Los Angeles Times reported that when Bush came to office he was totally disinterested in Iran, this according to a CIA official.  In fact, the CIA had made up a large Iran task force of nearly 100 officers and analysts by the end of the Clinton administration.  When Bush took office, it shrank to fewer than a dozen officers.  Those resources were shifted to other targets by Bush.  It went from being focused on Iran to being switched to Iraq.

 

The NIE report released last week now catches Mr. Bush in another lie.  He said he did not know till a few days ago that Iran froze its nuclear weapons program in 2003.  This guy has lost all respect for the office of the President.  He now wants to change the subject on Iran so he is trying to demand that they reveal all their covert activity.  Mr. Bush should demand Israel, India, and Pakistan reveal all their covert activity of their nuclear weapons program as well.  Their leaders are also unstable. 

The CIA: Out of Control

The CIA is in the news and once again they are involved in a scandal, this time destroying evidence concerning videos of interrogation on al Qaeda prisoners.  Officials of the CIA told a federal court and the 9-11 commission that they had no record of the interrogation; those were lies.  

 

CIA lies, misinformation, and violation of the law go back to at least the Church committee who documented wrong doing in the middle 1970s.  One CIA director, Richard Helms, was even found guilty of perjury. 

By destroying the video of the interrogation, the CIA destroyed any torture procedure that may have been on the video.  That has been a real concern that has dogged the Bush administration because, if true, serious legal charges could be brought about.

 

One problem with the CIA today is the director, General Mike Hayden.  The director is usually a civilian so the intelligence given to a president can be clear and independent.  Being a military man, Hayden can not be independent.  The President is Commander in Chief.  General Hayden ran the super secret NSA before accepting the directorship of the CIA.  At NSA, he fully supported Bush's authorization of wire taps and warrant-less intrusions without going to the FISA court.  He has demonstrated that he is a person who can not be trusted to protect the American people's right to privacy.

 

President Kennedy was quoted as saying he was going to break the CIA up in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind.  Kennedy found out about the CIA dirty tricks and that some at the CIA had their own foreign policy agenda far different than his.

 

In the case of the videos that were destroyed, it was reported that the CIA was trying to hide evidence of coercion.  FBI officials on the scene protested the tactics and then forbid its agents from taking part in such acts.

 

Congress should take away all operational functions of the CIA and leave them to gathering intelligence only.  That was President Truman's idea when the CIA was created.  Then Congress has to come down hard on the CIA and really hold them accountable for their actions.  The lies have gone on for too many years.  

The Tide Is Turning: Huckabee Surges

Once only considered a contender in Iowa, Mike Huckabee is now in second place nationally and, according to one poll, is beating Rudy as the choice among all Republicans.  

So what does this mean for the Republican field?  Well, for one, it means that Rudy is no longer the sole "frontrunner".  Just a month ago, Rudy held a commanding 15 point lead over his nearest opponent.  But now, that lead has shrunk to 3-5 points, and in one case, as I mentioned above, he is no longer ahead.   This change in momentum is clearly reinforced by the media.  Rudy used to be the only GOP candidate to get any serious "buzz" in the media, but not anymore.  For the last two weeks, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney have sucked up most of that media attention.  And, to make matters even worse for the falling Giuliani, the little attention paid to him has been negative to say the least.

  

Although I am sure Huckabee is gleeful for his sudden surge, he might not want to be so quick to celebrate.  For the previous 11 months of the campaign, Huckabee has been able to dodge the tough questions by simply not being considered a  serious contender.  But, with his newfound frontrunner status, comes newfound tough questions.  

If the past week is any indication, Huckabee might not be ready for the tough questions.  When asked what he made of the latest NIE, Huckabee responded that he didn't know what the reporter was talking about.  The reporter then had to go on to explain what the NIE was and it was then that Huckabee admitted to not knowing about it or what it contained.  This interview was a full day and a half after the report had been released; Huckabee had ample time to read and analyze it.  

Huckabee also came under a firestorm of criticism from the Huffington Post, who reported on a story that Huckabee, as governor of Arkansas, released a serial rapist who went on to kill a women.  Huckabee handled the situation rather poorly.  Instead of stating his reasons, if there are any sane ones, for this man's release, Huckabee more or less blamed the media for "getting it all wrong".  Blaming the media for everything is no way to handle a campaign; that line is old and people simply don't buy it anymore.  Huckabee would have done himself much better to just have said that he made a mistake and that he deeply regrets what happened.  Everyone makes a mistake; the public can accept that.  What the public can't and won't accept is baselessly blaming the media for, in essence, doing their job.

Possibly the biggest problem for Huckabee is his lack of money.  To my knowledge, Huckabee has around $2 million on hand and has recently spent much of that money on air time in the early primary states.  While $2 million may seem like a lot to an ordinary person, it is nothing in the brutal world of Presidential politics.  How can Huckabee be competitive when Romney can write himself a $10 million check when ever needed?

The last thing that I see being a huge problem for Huckabee is the New Hampshire primary.  Huckabee seems to be a safe bet to win Iowa.  But, if there is one state Huckabee does poorly in, its New Hampshire.  New Hampshire, I would estimate, has about half the evangelical voters that Iowa and South Carolina have and evangelicals are Huckabee's base.  Mitt Romney still looks poised to win New Hampshire.  The next big primary is South Carolina, where Huckabee's evangelical base could give him a win, but at this moment, that seems unlikely.  Romney still does very well in South Carolina and the momentum from a New Hampshire win (and subsequently Michigan and possibly Nevada), could prove to give Romney the win in South Carolina and hence knock Huckabee down and out of the race.

In short: Huckabee has come a hell of a long way in just a few weeks, but he still has a hell of a long way to come.  

The Rosetta Stone To War in Iraq (Part I)

The President of the United States, George W. Bush, knowingly misled the American people and ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq.  That is an impeachable offense.  The President lied when he said:  (1) Iraq has stockpiles of WMD ready to use against America or transferred to terrorists.  (2) Iraq has reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.  (3) Iraq has mobile labs that manufacture chemical and biological WMD.  (4) Iraq is an eminent threat to the security of the U.S. (5) Saddam has a relationship with Al Qaeda and the 9-11 attack.

 

The Rosetta Stone to Mr. Bush's lies are found in the reports of David Kay and Charles Duelfer.  Both had CIA connections and ran the Iraqi study group in the hunt for WMD in Iraq after the invasion.  Both had weapons inspection experience.  After their exhausting inspections in Iraq they came back and said, "we were all wrong."  Iraq got rid of its WMD after the 1991 Gulf War, 12 years prior to our invasion.  Their findings were (1) Iraq had no stockpiles of WMD.  (2) Iraq had no mobile labs to manufacture WMD.  (3) Iraq did not reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.  (4) Iraq had no ready manufacturing facilities to resume such activity.  (5)  There was no evidence of a collaborative relationship with al Qaeda and the events of 9-11.

 

Since these weapons did not exist at any time during Bush's administration, the intelligence community could not have given Bush any proof or confirmation that they did exist.  That is why Bush nor the CIA showed the people any photographic evidence of these WMD.  President Kennedy, during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, showed the American people, and the world, photographic evidence of Russian missiles in Cuba on their launch pads.  There were no doubts.

 

The President, lacking proof and confirmation that Iraq possessed WMD, decided to plant the seed in the people's mind that Iraq was involved in the events of 9-11.  Because these weapons did not exist, the CIA could not pass on any information to the U.N. inspectors, who were on the ground in Iraq, that revealed WMD, even though Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said he knew where they were located.. 

 

David Kay reported that the CIA gave him over 500 suspected sites in Iraq to inspect.  When he went over the list and report he was astonished.  Nothing was new or updated, everything was all old information with no collaboration.  The report was useless.  The CIA was clueless.  Kay and Duelfel also reported that Saddam still had the intent after the U.N. sanctions were lifted, but they found no evidence of a plan, people in place, or any structure to restart any weapons program.

 

Because Bush could not back up his rhetoric about Iraq's WMD, V.P. Cheney kept going back to the intelligence community and putting pressure on them to come up with something.  Because of this pressure, the CIA became political on the issue.  When no WMD were found, the President started to give other reasons why it was necessary to go to war in Iraq.  The gig was up.

 

Part II, coming shortly, will focus on the other Rosetta Stone to the war in Iraq and why Bush knew Iraq was not a threat to the United States.