WP: Email Letters To Froomkin Ask All The Right Questions

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

Fellow DU'ers...Read the letters...Questions for Bush at the lower part of the column, Froomkin's White House Briefing
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

Questions of Credibility

By Dan Froomkin
SNIP:

And now, some of your questions for Bush. Thank you for sending them, and I'm sorry I wasn't able to respond to all of your personally.

On Wiretapping

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Bradford H. Gray:

"Mr. Bush: In your speech on the Patriot Act in Buffalo on April 20, 2004, you said the following:

" 'Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.'

"Is that the same Constitution that you now say authorizes wiretaps without a court order?"

From Geoff Tyrrell:

"Have you ever used NSA derived information for political purposes?"

From W. S. Dixon:

"Mr. Bush, if only known al Qaeda members or suspected al Qaeda members are having their telephone, e-mail or other communications intercepted, why is it necessary to do it without the FISA court approval? The NSA must have their names to allow such surveillance now and the court can give approval to intercept all messages going to them so there would be no urgency in obtaining warrants and there could be no constitutional question raised."

From Kevin Hoover:

"Did you actually read the August 6, 2001 PDB, 'Bin Laden determined to strike in the United States?'

"If so, why did you not act on it?

"If not, why is it necessary to spy on Americans when you don't even use the information you already have?"

And More:
SNIP:

On the Run-Up to War

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From Adam Blackwell:

"Many people, including officials in your own administration, have claimed that you decided to go to war in Iraq long before you announced you had given up on diplomacy. Are they all lying?"

From Steve Shepherd:

"You repeatedly said you had not made any decision to invade Iraq in the run-up to the actual invasion. Yet numerous sources, including administration insiders such as Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil, say otherwise. And for more than 10 years, invading Iraq had been a publicly stated goal of the so-called 'neoconservatives', including Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, within your administration. Wasn't it always your intention to invade Iraq but you first had to fix 'the intelligence and the facts around the policy,' as the Downing Street Memo suggests?

From Phillip Daniel:

"President Bush, according to Bob Woodward's book 'Plan of Attack,' you attended a presentation by then-CIA Director George Tenet regarding WMD at the end of which you reportedly said words to the effect of 'nice try, but I'm not convinced.' This led Mr. Tenet to his now infamous 'It's a slam dunk' endorsement. However, this meeting came months after your administration, led by yourself and Vice President Cheney, had been asserting to the American people that there was no doubt that Iraq held WMD. How do you think these revelations of private doubt affect your credibility when the American people recall your trying to convince them there was no doubt about WMD, and therefore no choice but to go to war?"

From Don and Charlotte Lamp:

"Did you tell Tony Blair on Jan 31, 2003, that you were prepared to invade Iraq regardless of whether the inspectors were able find evidence of weapons of mass destruction? Did you tell him that you were considering sending a U.S. plane, painted in U.N. colors, over Iraq, so that if Iraq fired on it there would be a pretext for charging it with a violation of U.N. resolutions?' This is based on an alleged memo cited by Prof. Phillip Sands of University College London in the revised edition of his book, 'Lawless World.' "

On the Cause of War

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From Steve Walach:

"Referring to intelligence that claimed Iraq had an extensive program to construct and use weapons of mass destruction, you, Mr. President, now sheepishly admit that those assertions were plain wrong. However, by way of disclaimer, Mr. President, you attach this bizarre epilogue: 'Knowing what I know today, I'd make the decision again.'

"Taken to its logical conclusion, Mr President, your statement means that the casus belli -- the WMDs -- mattered not a lick in your decision to invade. Doesn't your statement mean that you would have invaded Iraq regardless what the CIA and all the other spy agencies said about WMDs, making the war in Iraq your decision entirely and a decision based only on your desire to attack Iraq and eliminate Saddam?"


Lots, Lots more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

1. This Blog is now on the front page of Google news...

Must be worth a read...

[snowbear]

2. There's some great info on there!

Thanks for sharing!

[Rose Siding]

3. Those are great.

Dan's great. It doesn't fit within his criteria, but the question I'd ask is this: "What is the current number of US troops that have died in Iraq? In Afghanistan?"