Another Pet Peeve

In my menegerie of pet peeves the one that is most active is when people don't know really basic things about the military. This is most often irritated when the media, people who are PAID to cover the military, get simple facts wrong. Not knowing the difference between a battalion and a division. Not understanding the rank structure. Referring to marines as soldiers. Calling APCs "tanks." There are a million examples. Sometimes I know I'm unduly pedantic about this stuff.

Yesterday James Taranto pointed out that the leftist maroons at MoveOn.org presumably paid someone to create an ad showing our poor helpless victim soldiers "stuck" in Iraq over Thanksgiving. The thing is, they couldn't even tell that they weren't looking at American soldiers.

Mark in Mexico provides a simple primer for people who can't tell the difference between British and American troops.

John Noonan just waxes these idiots for their duplicitous "caring" for the troops.

And Michelle Malkin has a great roundup of their inaccuracies and attempts to cover them up.

On Hindsight

Lots of people are fond of asking lawmakers, about the Iraq War, "Would you make the same decision knowing what you know now?" This is a completely irrelavent question. It doesn't matter how lawmakers would react with the proverbial 20/20 hindsight. It matters how they would react with the knowledge they had THEN. We are never going to be facing threats with PERFECT intelligence. There is simply no such thing. Since we are never going to have perfect intelligence, the only relavent question is how are you going to react to threats with imperfect intelligence. Are you going to sit back and hope the threat isn't as big as the intel suggests? This is what we did prior to 9-11. Do we want to go back to that?

Democrats are fond of saying when it's pointed out that they all described Hussein as a threat, "Clinton never took us to war over it." They actually proclaim the fact that they saw the threat but did nothing about it.

Lorie Byrd wrote a great article today on this subject.

After 9/11, we all asked why the dots were not connected. We vowed that never again would our refusal to take action against known threats result in the slaughter of innocent Americans. The points made by Vice President Cheney in 2003 are ones that Republicans must make now. It is necessary, first, to lay the foundation by reminding the American public of what was known in 2002 and 2003, and refuting the big lie that has taken hold as a result of Democrat mantras parroted by a liberal media that Bush "lied" and "misled" the country into war. The administration has made a good start in that effort.

After the record has been set straight, it must be pointed out that Democrats are not to be trusted with the nation’s security. They have shown that not only will they endlessly debate until it is possibly too late but that after a military action has been initiated, in the face of difficulties and waning public support, many will back out and abandon the mission and the troops. The approach of the Democrats to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein as outlined in all of the intelligence reports available prior to the war in Iraq stands in stark contrast to that of the Bush administration.

Twisted thought

If Pat Buchanan and Dennis Kucinich had a love child:

Would he look like Ramsey Clark?

Duke Cunningham

Not everyone is cut out for public office. Military heroism has little to do with this one way or the other. He did wrong. WAY wrong. Stupid wrong. But I still admire the guy. I genuinely hope the man pays his debt and bounces back. Clearly not in public service, but in his life. It's tough to feel bad for a guy who took millions of dollars in bribes in such a ham-fisted moronic manner. But I really do wish the best for him.

I don't know much about his politics but I've looked up to the man since I first heard of him when I was in high school. I hope people will some day remember the good things about him rather than this unpleasantness.

If you are unfamiliar with the story go check out Smash's post on the topic.

And Digital Brownshirt, with whom I almost always agree, has a decidedly different take than I.

I hope they throw his ass in prison for the rest of his life. He's a liar and a crook, and he abused his political position for financial gain. He's embarassed the Party. No mercy is deserved. I hope he dies penniless and locked in shackles.

Giving Thanks

Major, you've come to sybolize my image of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. Thank you all so much for what you are doing on our behalf. God bless you all. Send those fuckers to hell and come home safe.

This strikes me as kind of a big deal

From Debkafile

US Marines are locked in battle with Syrian troops after crossing the border from Iraq into Syria at a point west of al Qaim

Both sides have suffered casualties. US soldiers crossed over after Damascus was given an ultimatum Thursday, Nov. 24, to hand over a group of senior commanders belonging to Abu Musab al Zarqawi’s al Qaeda force. According to US intelligence, the group had fled to Syria to escape an American attack in Mosul. Syrian border guards opened fire on the American force.

If this turns out to be true, it shows that we still are serious about hunting them down wherever they are. If you're harboring the terrorists, you're just as guilty as the terrorists themselves. I was starting to worry.

Thanks to LGF.

Something else is coming

My psychopath soon-to-be ex-wife decided to go take our son from his school, so the War of the Roses continues and have been dealing with this for a day or two. But he's coming home tonight, might get something up later on.

Does anyone else see the similarity?

I'm really trying to like Prison Break. It introduces really deep questions such as the lawyer or the doctor? My preference is the doctor. But doesn't it remind you a little of Hogan's Heroes, except with even more implied sexual domination? I want to see a cage match with Greg Kinnear and Teabag.

Nice name. Greg. What a fag.

Compare and Contrast

Didn't he apologize for this before?

From Tom Maguire:

Chris Matthews enters the ongoing "Dumb Statement du Jour" contest:

In a speech to political science students at the University of Toronto yesterday, the host of the CNBC current affairs show Hardball had plenty of harsh words for U.S. President George W. Bush, as well as the political climate that has characterized his country for the past few years.

"The period between 9/11 and Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing," Matthews said.

"If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil -- they just have a different perspective."

Doesn't anyone remember this? About a year ago. Take it away, Ace:

Speaking to Col. Ken Allard, Ret., about the shooting of the playing-dead terrorist, Matthews calls a terrorist an "enemy soldier," and is immediately uncomfortable with his belligerent, warmongering terminology. He thus begins to walk back the cat from the hateful term "enemy," employing a series of increasingly-charitable euphemisms for "enemy terrorist killer":

MATTHEWS: Well let me ask you about this. If this were on the other side, and we were watching an enemy soldier-- a rival, I mean, they're not bad guys especially, they're just people who diagree with you; they are in fact the insurgents figthing us in their country -- if we saw one of them do what we saw our guy did to that guy [the playing-dead terrorist], would that be worthy of a war-crime charge?

Alex Nunez at Say Anything points out some of Matthews' other moral equivalence idiocy. Also go check out Noonz Wire. I'm always late to the party. Good reading.

How many crosses did he have on his cake?

From the Charleston Daily Mail:

Possible Republican challenger Jeanine Pirro has criticized Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for co-sponsoring a birthday party for Sen. Robert C. Byrd, citing his long-ago membership in the Ku Klux Klan and a racially charged 2001 comment.

Pirro's complaint came a day after The Washington Post reported that Clinton and the Senate's eight other Democratic female senators were hosting a 88th birthday party for Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, Tuesday night at the home of civil rights pioneer Frederick Douglass.

"It's outrageous and shocking that Senator Clinton and her Democrat colleagues would choose Frederick Douglass' house to honor Senator Robert Byrd, who has a history of involvement with hate groups and has used racial slurs publicly,'' said Pirro spokeswoman Andrea Tantaros.

Classy.

Holy shit does Running At The Mouth take down Hillary on this. From his post, "They're Also Planning a Battered Women's Charity at O.J.'s Brenwood Estate":

I honestly don't know what to make of this. It has to be one of three things: (1) Hillary Clinton has titanium balls; (2) Hillary Clinton is borderline retarded; or (3) Hillary Clinton thinks Americans, especially black Americans, are borderline retarded. One of those has to explain why she thinks it's okay to throw a birthday party for former KKK Kleagle Robert Byrd at . . . wait for it . . . Frederick Douglass's house.

Absolutely spot on.

Funniest video I've seen in a while

Two Chinese students lip-sync a Backstreet Boys song. Even better than the "Numa-Numa" thing. Thanks to The Corner for pointing this one out. My favorite part is the kid in the back who doesn't even seem to notice.

Why doesn't the White House Hire Stephen Hayes?

I was having an argument this weekend with a friend of mine who was trying to maintain that there was "no connection" between Hussein and Al Qaeda. It caused me to go re-read many of Stephen Hayes' articles on the subject. I don't know why the White House isn't doing this on their own.

Actually, I have an idea why they don't. If they were to start making the case more strongly for this connection, inevitably something they say would be wrong which would bring a new round of catcalls and sniping that they are "lying." Actually, nothing would even need to be wrong, just a piece of evidence showing the connection contradicted by another piece of evidence that says otherwise and out would come the long knives.

I think this judgment is misplaced. Is it really possible for the left to accuse the administration of "lying" more than they already have? They are going to make the accusations regardless, get the case out there. Someone in the executive branch needs to get the evidence out there as quickly as possible.

Here is a sampling of Hayes' work on this subject that is worth reading if you haven't, and worth re-reading if you have.

There They Go Again

From the 9-11 Commission:

Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi Intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Ladin in 1994.

The role of Saddam and al Qaeda in the creation of Ansar al Islam

For those analysts and politicians, particularly in the United States, who cling desperately to the notion that there was "no connection" between Iraq and al Qaeda, Ansar al Islam presents a problem. Typical of this was an article in the July 10, 2005, issue of Time magazine. Written by former Clinton administration counterterrorism official Daniel Benjamin, the article presumptuously declared "we know there was no pre-existing relationship between Baghdad and al-Qaeda."

The evidence, of course, suggests that this analysis is wrong. Even as naysayers in the States continue to deny any connection, such staunchly anti-Iraq War publications as Le Monde have long since conceded the point. One day before the Time article, on July 9, the French daily published a news story that declared Ansar al Islam "was founded in 2001 with the joint help of Saddam Hussein--who intended to use it against moderate Kurds--and al Qaeda, which hoped to find in Kurdistan a new location that would receive its members."

On this, at least, the French are right.

Two intercepts in 2002--one in May, the other in October--illuminated the Iraqi regime's role in Ansar al Islam. The first revealed that an Iraqi Intelligence officer praised the work of the terrorist group and passed $100,000 to its leaders. The second, described in a report from the National Security Agency, reported that the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda reached an agreement whereby the regime would provide safehaven in northern Iraq to al Qaeda terrorists fleeing Afghanistan. Also, the regime agreed to fund and to arm the incoming jihadists.

The Mother of All Connections:

This unclassified document was released by the Pentagon in late March 2005. It details the case for designating an Iraqi member of al Qaeda, currently detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an "enemy combatant."

1. From 1987 to 1989, the detainee served as an infantryman in the Iraqi Army and received training on the mortar and rocket propelled grenades.
2. A Taliban recruiter in Baghdad convinced the detainee to travel to Afghanistan to join the Taliban in 1994.
3. The detainee admitted he was a member of the Taliban.
4. The detainee pledged allegiance to the supreme leader of the Taliban to help them take over all of Afghanistan.
5. The Taliban issued the detainee a Kalishnikov rifle in November 2000.
6. The detainee worked in a Taliban ammo and arms storage arsenal in Mazar-Es-Sharif organizing weapons and ammunition.
7. The detainee willingly associated with al Qaida members.
8. The detainee was a member of al Qaida.
9. An assistant to Usama Bin Ladin paid the detainee on three separate occasions between 1995 and 1997.
10. The detainee stayed at the al Farouq camp in Darwanta, Afghanistan, where he received 1,000 Rupees to continue his travels.
11. From 1997 to 1998, the detainee acted as a trusted agent for Usama Bin Ladin, executing three separate reconnaissance missions for the al Qaeda leader in Oman, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
12. In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars.
13. Detainee was arrested by Pakistani authorities in Khudzar, Pakistan, in July 2002.

Interesting. What's more interesting: The alleged plot was to have taken place in August 1998, the same month that al Qaeda attacked two U.S. embassies in East Africa. And more interesting still: It was to have taken place in the same month that the Clinton administration publicly accused Iraq of supplying al Qaeda with chemical weapons expertise and material.

Saddam's Al Qaeda Connection:

Finally, what if any new evidence has emerged that bolsters the Bush administration's prewar case?

The answer to that last question is simple: lots. The CIA has confirmed, in interviews with detainees and informants it finds highly credible, that al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998. More disturbing, according to an administration official familiar with briefings the CIA has given President Bush, the Agency has "irrefutable evidence" that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with al Qaeda. "It's a lock," says this source. Other administration officials are a bit more circumspect, noting that the intelligence may have come from a single source. Still, four sources spread across the national security hierarchy have confirmed the payment.

and

And there are reports of more direct links between the Iraqi regime and bin Laden. Farouk Hijazi, former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey and Saddam's longtime outreach agent to Islamic fundamentalists, has been captured. In his initial interrogations, Hijazi admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam's behest in 1994. According to administration officials familiar with his questioning, he has subsequently admitted additional contacts, including a meeting in late 1997. Hijazi continues to deny that he met with bin Laden on December 21, 1998, to offer the al Qaeda leader safe haven in Iraq. U.S. officials don't believe his denial.

For one thing, the meeting was reported in the press at the time. It also fits a pattern of contacts surrounding Operation Desert Fox, the series of missile strikes the Clinton administration launched at Iraq beginning December 16, 1998. The bombing ended 70 hours later, on December 19, 1998. Administration officials now believe Hijazi left for Afghanistan as the bombing ended and met with bin Laden two days later.

Earlier that year, at another point of increased tension between the United States and Iraq, Hussein sought to step up contacts with al Qaeda. On February 18, 1998, after the Iraqis repeatedly refused to permit U.N. weapons inspectors into sensitive sites, President Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon and delivered a hawkish speech about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his links to "an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals." Said Clinton: "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. . . . They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

The following day, February 19, 1998, according to documents unearthed in Baghdad after the recent war by journalists Mitch Potter and Inigo Gilmore, Hussein's intelligence service wrote a memo detailing upcoming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to Baghdad. Each reference to bin Laden had been covered with Liquid Paper. The memo laid out a plan to step up contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. The Mukhabarat, one of Saddam's security forces, agreed to pay for "all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden." The document set as the goal for the meeting a discussion of "the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The al Qaeda representative, the document went on to suggest, might be "a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden."

230 Years

Happy Birthday and Thank You Fellas!

My next door neighbor just got back from the sandbox. THANK GOD these guys are on our side!

The Legend Lives On

29 souls -- November 10, 1975

30 years ago today the gales of November came early. Which, as T.D. Mischke points out, makes little or no sense. Go listen to his interview on the subject. It's like no other interview I've ever heard.

Kevin at Eckernet beat me to it.

Update: Dammit! Everybody beat me to it.

Project Valour - IT

Here's a message from Chuck Ziegenfuss for all of you to tune in tomorrow to MSNBC's Connected:

Publicity Stunt

Mkay... I dragged my drugged and temporarily one-handed body out of the hospital bed to tell ya'll about something most important.

Carren is gonna be on national TV (and live national TV at that) to let everyone know about Project Valour-IT. She will represent me (the nerd who thought of this project), and the many people who have made this project a success.

She is going to be on "Connected coast to coast" a show run by MSNBC. Don't know how long she'll be on, but for the love of god, please tune in, put your hands on the top of your TV, and talk to Jebus when the show is over. The show runs from 1200-1300 (noon to one fer ya civlians out there)(and that's eastern time) My beloved is supposed to be on around 1240, but I will rest assured that her looks, personality, and general charm will either get her on early, or the show will go into extra rounds like Rocky and the Big Ruskie in Rocky IV.

Here's how you can help. Send this to every one you know, post it on your blog, get them to post it on theirs. One side will say it's a failure of the gummint to not prvide this for the soldiers, others just see it as a way to help our brothers and sisters who have fallen but will be getting up. However they spin it, just get the word out.

There's less than 18 hours to game time, so let's get our blog on!

--Chuck

Chuck asks that we "cross post the hell out of this". So, please help out any way you can. I'm not one to tell people how to do their charity work, but this is a good cause. If you decide to help out, make sure you do it from an "Army" site.

Also, if you haven't yet familiarized yourself with this guy, make sure you read his site. He had one of the best lines I've ever heard from a wounded vet, "I used to tell the boys that the man wasn't born yet that could kill me. Well, I haven't met that man yet, I did meet the man that could splatter my ass all over Iraq."

The McCain Amendment

I've been trying to formulate an argument in my head on this piece of garbage legislation, but I started by posting a comment on someone else's blog on the subject. This is the essence. Expect to see this edited later.

The problem isn't outlawing torture, it's the vagueness. Is it severe mental suffering to scare a terrorist? How about making them think that you are putting menstrual blood on them? How about making them listen to Christina Aguilerra? 'N Sync? Is name calling "severe mental suffering?" Does it differ depending on what religion the terrorist claims to be? Is it off limits to have a woman question a terrorist who considers them unclean? Is it ok to use a dog to scare a prisoner? Is sleep deprivation out of bounds? It isn't for training our own military. Is humiliation out of bounds?

It is really easy to be "against torture." I want the people who support this measure to say exactly what they think is acceptable and what isn't. The advocates of this bill need to be specific on the rules for the people we are giving the difficult task of gathering intelligence. It is cowardly and irresponsible to make them GUESS what is allowed and what isn't and sentence them to prison if they guess wrong... Funny thing is, if you DO get specific on what is and what isn't allowed, leftists say you wrote a "torture memo" allowing people to be tortured.

This isn't about "who we are." It's about what we value more, the comfort of terrorists or protecting innocent lives from terrorists. Anyone who supports these rules should never again complain about intelligence failures.

Tinfoil hats and French riots

Oliver Stone has apparently gotten himself a blog. This might possibly be the dumbest analysis of the violence now ongoing in France out there.

The possibility that neo-cons and their fascist allies are manipulating the violence in France to their own advantage has the net result of bringing France into the neo-cons' oft-stated goal of a "Clash of Civilizations" between the West and the Muslim world.

The likes of Mark Steyn are already insidiously referring to the Frankish-Muslim 732 Battle of Tours between a Moorish army and the forces of Charles Martel.

Other neo-con propaganda outlets are echoing the words "Vichy" for the French government.

It is all very transparent who is behind instigating the violence now sweeping France.

On a related note, it was also very transparent that the Korean grocers were behind the 1992 Los Angeles riots, that blacks and civil rights movement were behind the lynchings in the South in the early part of the 20th century, and (of course) the Jews were behind 9-11.

Three Eulogies

I wish there was an adequate way of saying thank you to these three men. I wish there was a way of properly showing the gratitude they and their friends, families and comrades left behind are due.

I can't possibly do it justice by excerpting it, so just go read the remembrance of three soldiers our nation was so lucky to have.

Then, when you're done reading, go to Blackfive and make a donation.

Sometimes the logic is so bad it's difficult to rebut

I first saw this line of thinking about a week ago from Flash at Centrisity:

I guess all that talk about the President having the right to pick whoever he wants, every nominee deserves a fair hearing and an up or down vote, doesn't mean anything unless it is the person you personally want.

Today it has been echoed by David Broder in the WaPo and picked up at The Daily Kos.

His record entitles him to the serious consideration and questioning he will undoubtedly receive from the Judiciary Committee. But after Bush acquiesced in the conservative movement's uproar denying Miers her chance for an up-or-down Senate vote, or even a hearing in that committee, there is no plausible way the White House can insist that every major judicial nominee deserves such a vote.

That was the rationale behind the threatened "nuclear option" in the Senate, the mid-session rule change that would have banned judicial filibusters. If the mass of Democrats and a few Republicans who may be dismayed by Alito's stands on abortion and other issues can muster the 41 votes needed to sustain a filibuster under current rules, they now have precedent for using their power.

Paul at Powerline made a half-hearted swipe at knocking this nonsense down yesterday. I fully understand why more didn't go into it. This argument is literally so stupid that one really shouldn't need to bother.

The conservative position has always been that the president is entitled to have his nominee receive an up-or-down vote. If the president decides to withdraw his nominee, then of course that person loses his or her right to such a vote. I don't recall anyone arguing that Miers should not have an up-or-down vote as long as she was the nonminee. We simply urged that she withdraw or (in the case of some conservatives) that Bush withdraw her. Liberals likewise should feel free to urge Alito to withdraw and to implore Bush to rescind his nomination. If that fails, they should give Alito an up-or-down vote.

Let's say I'm applying for a job at Company X. Company X has a policy that everyone who applies is granted an interview. If I decide to withdraw my application before the interview, has Company X denied me an interview? Wouldn't it be ludicrous for people within Company X who were opposed to the "interview all applicants" policy to use me as an example that they, in fact, are right that all applicants AREN'T interviewed?

This is like the difference between not allowing someone to vote in an election and that person CHOOSING not to go to the polls then calling that person disenfranchised. Oh yeah, that distinction is also lost on liberals quite often.

Islamic soccer rules

If anyone hasn't seen this yet, go look now. Ace absolutely nails this prognosis.

At some point we must drop the pretense of politeness and simply begin telling these people: You. Are. Fucking. Insane.

I'm sorry, but sometimes tough-love is needed. We've been sugar-coating this for a while, but it might be time for more bitter medicine.

One billion people in the world are tyrannized by a paranoid and hateful thought-system promulgated by maniacs that, were it not termed "one of the world's great religions," would be deemed a fucking psychiatric condition.

And we're all supposed to nod our heads and say "Yes, by Allah, 'Islam' means peace."

Well, perhaps. But not the way a lot of the current Defenders of the Faith are defining it.

Read the list. If this is real, then I'm afraid there's no other term that can apply to this madness than "batshit over-the-fucking moon crazy-eyed lunatic ravings."

This is my favorite of the proposed rules:

8. Young crowds should not gather to watch when you play because if you are there for the sake of sports and strengthening your bodies as you claimed, why would people watch you? You should make them join your physical fitness and jihad preparation, or you should say: "Go proselytise and seek out morally reprehensible acts in the markets and the press and leave us to our physical fitness."

Also make sure you also check out his post with the ones that are jokes (though they are tough to tell apart).

Soldier may receive the death penalty

From the AP:

Staff Sgt. Alberto B. Martinez of Troy, N.Y., had a "personal vendetta" against one of two higher-ranked officers who died in an explosion June 7 on a U.S. base near Tikrit, north of Baghdad, military investigator Col. Patrick Reinert said at the end of a two-day hearing in Kuwait.

Reinert said he found "reasonable cause" to believe that Martinez, 37, planted and detonated an anti-personnel mine in the window of a room used by Capt. Philip Esposito, 30, of Suffern, N.Y., and Lt. Louis E. Allen, 34 of Milford, Pa.

Hey, let's ask a few "peace protestors" how they feel about SSG Martinez.

Linked at Mudville Gazette

From the unanimous Senate Intel Committee's report on Pre-War Intel

The Committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with Administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so. When asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments conform with Administration policies on Iraq’s WMD programs, not a single analyst answered "yes." Most analysts simply answered, no" or "never," but some provided more extensive responses. Some of their responses are below:

A Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) biological weapons (BW) analyst said, "NO, never. Never. Matter of fact, the assessments we make have always tried to -we always tried to be as accurate and always as truthful as we can, and it might be that our assessments suited what they needed. But we were never pressured to make an assessment a certain way or anything.’’

The National Intelligence Officer (NIO) for Science and Technology said, "my answer to all of those is there was no pressure on me throughout that entire period. I did not have any analysts come to me with any information about the fact that they were feeling pressure to change their judgments. And I was certainly not aware of any, whether I heard it or not. So there were really no -as far as I’m concerned, there were no such things happening."

A CIA chemical weapons (CW) analyst said, "there was no pressure at all. They didn’t tell us what to say or anything like that."

Harry Reid today:"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions." Uh huh.