U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 14, 2005 08:00 AM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • 42 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Okay

Tweet
Share

Comments

42 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread”

  1. A point-by-point analysis of this administration’s top national security officials has a severe problem with the truth. They’ll all get medals for lying.

    Pre-9/11 Intelligence

    CLAIM: “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.” ? National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02

    FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally “received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane.” In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01] CLAIM: In May 2002, Rice held a press conference to defend the Administration from new revelations that the President had been explicitly warned about an al Qaeda threat to airlines in August 2001. She “suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer.” [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]

    FACT: According to the CIA, the briefing “was not requested by President Bush.” As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, “the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA.” [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]

    CLAIM: “In June and July when the threat spikes were so high?we were at battle stations.” ? National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: “Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft’s ‘Strategic Plan’ from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department’s seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft’s predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism ‘the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'” Meanwhile, the Bush Administration decided to terminate “a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States.” [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Newsweek, 3/21/04]

    CLAIM: “The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11.” ? National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: President Bush and Vice President Cheney’s counterterrorism task force, which was created in May, never convened one single meeting. The President himself admitted that “I didn’t feel the sense of urgency” about terrorism before 9/11. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward’s “Bush at War”] CLAIM: “Our [pre-9/11 NSPD] plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets — taking the fight to the enemy where he lived.” ? National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: 9/11 Commissioner Gorelick: “There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan.” Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: “Right.” Gorelick: “Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, ‘Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership’?” Armitage: “No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11.” [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]

    Condi Rice on Pre-9/11 Counterterrorism Funding

    CLAIM: “The president increased counterterrorism funding several-fold” before 9/11. ? National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/24/04

    FACT: According to internal government documents, the first full Bush budget for FY2003 “did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators” and “proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants.” Newsweek noted the Administration “vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism.” [Source: New York Times, 2/28/04; Newsweek, 5/27/02]

    Richard Clarke’s Concerns

    CLAIM: “Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to.” ? National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked “urgent” asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says “principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat.” No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. [Source: CBS 60 Minutes, 3/24/04; White House Press Release, 3/21/04

    CLAIM: “No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration.” ? National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: “On January 25th, 2001, Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice.” ? 9/11 Commission staff report, 3/24/04

    Response to 9/11

    CLAIM: “The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11.” ? National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: “In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks.” [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04]

    9/11 and Iraq Invasion Plans

    CLAIM: “Not a single National Security Council principal at that meeting recommended to the president going after Iraq. The president thought about it. The next day he told me Iraq is to the side.” ? National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: According to the Washington Post, “six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document marked ‘TOP SECRET'” that “directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq.” This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, “Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq.” [Source: Washington Post, 1/12/03. CBS News, 9/4/02]

    Iraq and WMD

    CLAIM: “It’s not as if anybody believes that Saddam Hussein was without weapons of mass destruction.” ? National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/18/04

    FACT: The Bush Administration’s top weapons inspector David Kay “resigned his post in January, saying he did not believe banned stockpiles existed before the invasion” and has urged the Bush Administration to “come clean” about misleading America about the WMD threat. [Source: Chicago Tribune, 3/24/04; UK Guardian, 3/3/04]

    9/11-al Qaeda-Iraq Link

    CLAIM: “The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I’ve learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.” ? National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against “nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11.” Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that “It is not surprising that people make that connection” between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said “we don’t know” if there is a connection. [Source: BBC, 9/14/03]

  2. And now these same people want to convince us to go to war against Iran…

    UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 13 — With an hour-long slide show that blends satellite imagery with disquieting assumptions about Iran’s nuclear energy program, Bush administration officials have been trying to convince allies that Tehran is on a fast track toward nuclear weapons.

    The PowerPoint briefing, titled “A History of Concealment and Deception,” has been presented to diplomats from more than a dozen countries. Several diplomats said the presentation, intended to win allies for increasing pressure on the Iranian government, dismisses ambiguities in the evidence about Iran’s intentions and omits alternative explanations under debate among intelligence analysts.

    Politics Trivia
      Which state has both of its senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee?

    Arizona
    Massachusetts
    Wisconsin
    South Carolina

    Who’s Blogging?
    Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
    Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
    International Views
    The Liberal Avenger

      Full List of Blogs (5 links) ?

    The presenters argue that the evidence leads solidly to a conclusion that Iran’s nuclear program is aimed at producing weapons, according to diplomats who have attended the briefings and U.S. officials who helped to assemble the slide show. But even U.S. intelligence estimates acknowledge that other possibilities are plausible, though unverified.

    The problem, acknowledged one U.S. official, is that the evidence is not definitive. Briefers “say you can’t draw any other conclusion, and of course you can draw other conclusions,” said the official, who would discuss the closed-door sessions only on condition of anonymity.

    The briefings were conducted in Vienna over the past month in advance of a gathering of world leaders this week at the United Nations. President Bush, who is to address the annual General Assembly gathering Wednesday, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, plan to use the meeting to press for agreement to threaten international sanctions against Iran.

    The president’s direct involvement marks an escalation of a two-year effort to bring Iran before the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions, unless Tehran gives up technology capable of enriching uranium for a bomb. U.S. officials have acknowledged that it has been an uphill campaign, with opposition from key allies who fear a prelude to a military campaign.

    Several diplomats said the slide show reminded them of the flawed presentation on Iraq’s weapons programs made by then-secretary of state Colin L. Powell to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003. “I don’t think they’ll lose any support, but it isn’t going to win anyone either,” said one European diplomat who attended the recent briefing and whose country backs the U.S. position on Iran.

    Robert G. Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, acknowledged last week that despite European support, the Bush administration has traveled a tough road in persuading others that Iran should face consequences for a nuclear program it built in secret.

    “There’s a great deal of resistance . . . on the part of many governments who don’t seem to place, quite frankly, nonproliferation and Iran, a nuclear-armed Iran, at the top of their priority list,” he told a congressional panel last week.

    Several influential nations such as India, Russia, China, South Africa and Brazil share U.S. suspicions about Iran’s intentions. But they maintain profound differences with the Bush administration over how to respond, and are apprehensive about the goals of a U.S. president who has said “all options are on the table,” in dealing with Tehran.

    Three years ago, the White House used the same annual gathering to put both Iraq, and the world community on notice. In a toughly-worded speech, delivered six months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Bush warned that the United States would deal alone, if necessary, with a dictator bent on launching nuclear weapons.

    The U.S. intelligence community no longer believes Iraq was trying to reconstitute a nuclear program, as the president said. Those and other U.S. intelligence failures have remained fresh in the minds of international decision-makers now being asked to weigh the case of Iran.

    The Iraq experience has had a “sobering effect” on Iran discussions, said President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, a close ally of the Bush administration. In an interview, he refused to speculate on whether Iran, whose program was secretly aided by Pakistan’s top nuclear scientist, had been designed for weapons production. But he said he feels confident Iran’s aims are now peaceful and there was no need for Security Council action.

    Iran’s new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is also attending the U.N. summit, has his own meetings scheduled in New York, and Iranian officials said he would use the gathering to mount forceful counterarguments. Iranian diplomats have been in close contact with countries such as Japan, which relies heavily on Iranian oil.

    The outcome of both sides’ efforts will be tested on Sept. 19, when diplomats from 35 countries meet at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna to decide whether to report Iran’s case to the Security Council.

    Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns last night suggested the administration may not be able to press for a successful vote and was exploring other options. He said the administration was working “with lots of other governments to devise an international coalition that will call upon Iran to return to the talks,” it walked away from this summer with European negotiators. “There is a consensus that Iran has got to return to the talks.”

    Iran insists its nuclear efforts are aimed at producing nuclear energy, not bombs. The Bush administration contends that the energy program, built in secret and exposed in 2002, is just a cover. “They cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear program, which is what they’re trying to do,” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said earlier this month.

    A recent U.S. intelligence estimate found that Iran, mostly through its energy program, is acquiring and mastering technologies that could also be used for bomb-making. But there is no proof that such diversion has occurred, the estimate said, and the intelligence community is uncertain as to whether Iran’s ruling clerics have made a decision to go forward with a nuclear weapons program.

    The estimate judged Iran to be as much as a decade away from being able to manufacture the fissile material necessary for a nuclear explosion. A report issued last week by the International Institute for Security Studies, a London-based research group, found Iran was 10 to 15 years from the technical know-how to build a bomb.

    Both reports are based in large part on the findings of U.N. nuclear inspectors, now in their third year of investigating Iran’s program. While no proof of a weapons program has been found, serious questions about Tehran’s past work on centrifuge designs and experiments with plutonium — a key ingredient for a nuclear weapon — have yet to be adequately addressed and have furthered suspicions that the country is hiding information.

    With little new information from the probe, the Bush administration put together its own presentation of Iran’s program for diplomats in Vienna who are weighing whether to report Iran to the Security Council.

    The presentation has not been vetted through standard U.S. intelligence channels because it does not include secret material. One U.S. official involved in the briefing said the intelligence community had nothing to do with the presentation and “probably would have disavowed some of it because it draws conclusions that aren’t strictly supported by the facts.”

    The presentation, conducted in a conference room at the U.S. mission in Vienna, includes a pictorial comparison of Iranian facilities and missiles with photos of similar-looking items in North Korea and Pakistan, according to a copy of the slides handed out to diplomats. Pakistan largely supplied Iran with its nuclear infrastructure but, as a key U.S. ally, it is identified in the presentation only as “another country.”

    Corey Hinderstein, a nuclear analyst with the Institute for Science and International Security, said the presence of a weapons program could not be established through such comparisons. She noted that North Korea’s missile wasn’t designed for nuclear weapons so comparing it to an Iranian missile that also wasn’t designed to carry a nuclear payload “doesn’t make sense.”

  5. Sir Robin,
    Run Away…..

    Do you actually have a point that you would like to make, opr are you just bored and think cutting and pasting text is a good hobby?

  6. Unfortunately this site has gone down the shitter.  It’s no longer insiders talking politics, but a bunch of idiots cutting/pasting, and bitching and moaning about the topic of the day.  Let’s please get back to politics!

  7. I heard that. It use to be fun to read the inside scoop and opinion on Colorado politics.

    I understand that David Balmer put together a stellar golf game that raised 300k for the house Republicans. But that nary got mentioned with all this world wide cut and paste.

    Good job David. I’d imagine that big things are in your future.

  8. I agree Keith.  I used to enjoy reading this site as well, though lately all it seems is people pasting news articles slamming the Republican Du Jour.  Gets kind of old and useless if you ask me.

    Glad to hear Rep. Balmer is helping out our side.
    He’s a good man.

  10. I hate to paste another slam, but this juicy monologue attributed to Bill Maher suggests a Bush recall election.

    That’s – that’s what this country needs. A good, old-fashioned, California-style recall election! Complete with Gary Coleman, porno actresses and action film stars. And just like Schwarzenegger’s predecessor here in California, George Bush is now so unpopular, he must defend his job against…Russell Crowe. Because at this point, I want a leader who will throw a phone at somebody. In fact, let’s have only phone throwers. Naomi Campbell can be the vice-president!

    Now, I kid, but seriously, Mr. President, this job can’t be fun for you anymore. There’s no more money to spend. You used up all of that. You can’t start another war because you also used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of your term has become the Bush family nightmare: helping poor people.

    Yeah, listen to your mom. The cupboard’s bare, the credit card’s maxed out, and no one is speaking to you: mission accomplished! Now it’s time to do what you’ve always done best: lose interest and walk away. Like you did with your military service. And the oil company. And the baseball team. It’s time. Time to move on and try the next fantasy job. How about cowboy or spaceman?!

    Now, I know what you’re saying. You’re saying that there’s so many other things that you, as president, could involve yourself in…Please don’t. I know, I know, there’s a lot left to do. There’s a war with Venezuela, and eliminating the sales tax on yachts. Turning the space program over to the church. And Social Security to Fannie Mae. Giving embryos the vote. But, sir, none of that is going to happen now. Why? Because you govern like Billy Joel drives. You’ve performed so poorly I’m surprised you haven’t given yourself a medal. You’re a catastrophe that walks like a man.

    Herbert Hoover was a shitty president, but even he never conceded an entire metropolis to rising water and snakes.

    On your watch, we’ve lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four airliners, two Trade Centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the City of New Orleans…Maybe you’re just not lucky!

    I’m not saying you don’t love this country. I’m just wondering how much worse it could be if you were on the other side. So, yes, God does speak to you, and what he’s saying is, “Take a hint.”

     

  11. “Insiders talking politics”….Is that what this site is supposed to be about? Colorado poilitics are not visited in a vacuum. I personally was very proud to be part of the voters that bucked the national trend and restored our legislature to one being run by Democrats. I’m proud they’ve offered a budget solution that our governor supports. Progress!

    I’ll continue to offer my insights and the truth as I see it. Thanks!

  14. What?  Since Holtzman’s picture was in the paper again, you’d have thought ColoPols would have upped his election odds from 3-1 to 2-1.  The last time they supported their ranking of Holtz over Beauprez it was because Holtz “had the more active campaign.”  Okay boys, if that’s your criteria, you’d better up his odds once again.  Either than or “get real” and place Beauprez at the top where he will be come November 2006.

  15. Sleeping? I guess at least the article in today’s Rocky carries some semblance of reality:

    “Beauprez, a dairy farmer turned banker turned congressman, is considered the front-runner in the race for governor in 2006.”

    Gee, was that so hard? Wonder why the dead govs can’t get it right.

  18. Since this is apparently now a cut-and-paste board, here are the lyrics to Monty Python’s Sir Robin

    Bravely bold Sir Robin
    Rode forth from Camelot.
    He was not afraid to die,
    Oh brave Sir Robin.
    He was not at all afraid
    To be killed in nasty ways.
    Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin.

    He was not in the least bit scared
    To be mashed into a pulp.
    Or to have his eyes gouged out,
    And his elbows broken.
    To have his kneecaps split
    And his body burned away,
    And his limbs all hacked and mangled
    Brave Sir Robin.

    His head smashed in
    And his heart cut out
    And his liver removed
    And his bowls unplugged
    And his nostrils raped
    And his bottom burnt off
    And his pen–

    “That’s… that’s enough music for now lads, *** there’s dirty work afoot*** ???.”

    Brave Sir Robin ran away.
    (“No!”)
    Bravely ran away away.
    (“I didn’t!”)
    When danger reared it’s ugly head,
    He bravely turned his tail and fled.
    (“I never!”)
    Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
    And gallantly he chickened out.
    (“You’re lying!”)
    ****Bravely**** taking to his feet,
    He beat a very brave retreat.
    Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Robin!

  19. Peter / Sir Robin / whoever the hell you are..

    You really should consider finding yourself a girlfriend.  I am pretty sure there are enough democrat women out there that you could at least find one….

  23. Galo –

    If President Bush can undo the hatred with a created war in the Middle of the Middle East, and feed all the hungry people around the world with changes at the UN … and, and, and …

    Then a god he may indeed become.  President Bush has already proved that his ideas about spreading Democracy is seemingly grabbing hold at the UN.  If President Bush can do it without bloodshed, then he is really a GOD.

    I just believe in doing it another way, the approach that Jesus had seems a lot better.  I do like the way the world is coming a bit closer together.  It is a bit amazing that the world is sending us supplies, medicine and dollars for New Orleans. 

    I guess they do care about the United States.

  24. Andy B…This is the Wednesday open Thread..and thank you…your post was the best fun of this Wednesday. Everybody else needs to stop taking themselves so seriously. Keep the fun coming.

  27. No more cutting and pasting.  If you have something to say about an issue or candidate please say it in your own words.  People that come to this site (or at least most) are fairly intelligent and have already read the newspaper on their own time.

  28. Sir Robin (Peter),
    If that is true, then it would be a medical miracle.  Intelligent children fathered by a useless idiot.  Anyone that cuts and pastes as many stories as the two of you do into a blog is an idiot with no life.

    How about expressing your opinion in regards to whatever article you read, or do you not have one and you need others to define it for you.

  29. Just to let you know, Sir Robin and Peter are from two different worlds.  Sir Robin is from the planet of taking others thoughts and ideas, pasting them continually, since he/her is green under the ears, and “Peter” ME, who is smart, intelligent, very educated, and thus far, no one has been able to debate the issues with too well.  🙂

  30. Great Peter,
    So now it all comes out.  Peter / Sir Robin.

    Two faces of a schitzophrenic nutjob.  Get a hobby, a life, and come back when you can add real value to the discussion.

    Go Dubya!

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

99 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!