Democrat Clark Outlines Vision for America
Winston Smith, American Patriot
The fascination with Dean by the large number of Democrats is rather mind-
boggling. Perhaps it's just the case of the girl who teases a number of
suitors until she choose the man she already knows she wants now.
General Clark has it all over Bush and is the one who will beat him.
--------------------------------------------------------
Democrat Clark Outlines Vision for America
Sat January 10, 2004 03:53 PM ET
By Greg Frost
MANCHESTER, N.H. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark
deviated from his standard campaign stump speech on Saturday, outlining a
lofty, long-term vision for humanity in an address to college students.
Rather than specifically addressing the standard campaign fare of health
care, jobs, taxes and rising tuition costs, Clark's 45-minute oration
touched on everything from AIDS in Africa to global warming and chaos
theory.
"We should be an America not puffed up by pride in our own power, but
rather an America humbled by the recognition of our common humanity," Clark
said.
Clark's remarks at a convention of politically active college students from
across the country came as polls show him gaining ground in New Hampshire,
home to the first presidential primary of the 2004 White House campaign.
Lindsey Caine, a junior at Colorado College, said afterward that the speech
was long on rhetoric but short on real solutions to problems that concern
her.
"I want to know what a candidate will do in the next four or eight years. A
hundred years is too idealistic for me," said Caine, 21. "It's nice and
it's appealing, but it doesn't give me a reason to vote for him."
CLARK CHIDES AMERICA
Most of Clark's rivals for the Democratic nomination have appeared on the
same stage in recent days, using the forum to tout their specific economic
and foreign policy initiatives.
Clark, a Rhodes scholar who graduated first in his class at West Point,
instead pitched his big-picture vision for the next few decades,
challenging America to do more to help the rest of the world.
Citing AIDS mortality rates in southern Africa and the fact that more than
1 billion adults on the planet cannot read, Clark chided the United States
for failing to "live up to its awesome responsibilities on the world
stage."
"We are the richest nation in education, health care, science, and bottom
line dollar wealth. Yet, more often than not, we turn a blind eye to
developing nations around the world, those which desperately need our
help," he said. "More often than not we put the bottom line first."
Mo Elleithee, Clark's New Hampshire communications director, said the
speech marked a conscious effort to differ from traditional campaign
oratory.
But several listeners said they were puzzled by the tone of the former NATO
commander's remarks, with some giving him high marks for his vision but
others saying the speech sounded more like one given to graduating high
school students rather than eager voters shopping for a candidate.
"I don't think he was explaining his policies at all -- certainly not as
well as the other candidates have," said Brett Jordan, a student at George
Mason University in Virginia.
--
The world is too dangerous to live in---not because of the people
who do evil, but because of the people who sit and let it happen."
--- attributed to Albert Einstein
E.E.Bud Keith
"Winston Smith, American Patriot" <Franz...@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV> wrote
in message news:Xns946CD0501...@64.164.98.50...
This quote from Einstein is a perfect discription of liberals like you and
the democratic/socialist party. If you had your way the evil man in Iraq
would still be killing and torturing his own people and you and they would
be sitting there letting it happen.
If the General thinks that making speechs that give him that warm cuddly
feeling are going to get him elected President he had better think again. He
is as nutty or nuttier then Dean.
Agathena
A 'vision' usually means ideals projected far into the future.
Looking towards the next 4 - 8 years is more like an
immediate plan.
Christian Williamson
> The fascination with Dean by the large number of Democrats is rather mind-
> boggling. Perhaps it's just the case of the girl who teases a number of
> suitors until she choose the man she already knows she wants now.
>
> General Clark has it all over Bush and is the one who will beat him.
Why would Clark want to beat Bush. He praised Bush, after 9/11.
Clark's pronouncements are really ineffective and non-substantive,
simply political red-meat that, when looked at closely, don't make
sense. For example, saying 9/11 could have been prevented won't get him
elected, particularly when he won't address Clinton's actions against
terrorists. Also, saying he had someone from the White House call him up
to get him to announce that Iraq was behind 9/11, then having to back
off completely to where no one believes Clark at all on his statement --
is this what you think of as good competition?
But then, you're the clown who said Bush could nuke St. Louis and not be
impeached. Then you spent time defending that foolish, outrageous statement.
Maybe you can get Clark to use that Bush-nuke-no-impeach declaration. It
fits well with some of his bizarre, unworthy statements.
Christian Williamson
> "Winston Smith, American Patriot" <Franz...@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV> wrote
> in message news:Xns946CD0501...@64.164.98.50...
>>The world is too dangerous to live in---not because of the people
>>who do evil, but because of the people who sit and let it happen."
>
>
> This quote from Einstein is a perfect discription of liberals like you and
> the democratic/socialist party. If you had your way the evil man in Iraq
> would still be killing and torturing his own people and you and they would
> be sitting there letting it happen.
Winston's the clown that said the following:
As for Bush and impeachment: he could order a
nuke to be dropped on St. Louis and give the
reason that it was "just for pure
entertainment value," and this Congress
composed of petty men and women of the
Republican majority would not even whisper
about impeachment.
And from another post:
The fanatical, pathological support of the
"definite" Bush voters is so complete, that I
have said that Bush could nuke a major city,
like St. Louis, and this diseased following
of his would still vote for him. Excepting
the fanatical support in St. Louis, of
course.
The fool continues to support his statements....
> If the General thinks that making speechs that give him that warm cuddly
> feeling are going to get him elected President he had better think again. He
> is as nutty or nuttier then Dean.
Clark has so many problems. How about yucking it up with Ratko Mladic,
for one?
Check this out:
CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around
the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on
CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You've got to say this is
connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected
to Saddam Hussein.
CLARK: And I personally got a call from a fellow in Canada who is part
of a Middle Eastern think tank who gets inside intelligence information.
He called me on 9/11.
CLARK: I received a call from a Middle East think tank outside the
country, asking me to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein. No one from the White
House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11.
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr.
<cdw...@erols.com> wrote:
>Clark has so many problems. How about yucking it up with Ratko Mladic,
>for one?
>
>Check this out:
>
>CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around
>the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on
>CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You've got to say this is
>connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected
>to Saddam Hussein.
>
>CLARK: And I personally got a call from a fellow in Canada who is part
>of a Middle Eastern think tank who gets inside intelligence information.
>He called me on 9/11.
>
>CLARK: I received a call from a Middle East think tank outside the
>country, asking me to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein. No one from the White
>House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11.
Check this out
Bush - Iraq has WMD.
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr.
<bud...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> The world is too dangerous to live in---not because of the people
>> who do evil, but because of the people who sit and let it happen."
>
>This quote from Einstein is a perfect discription of liberals like you and
>the democratic/socialist party. If you had your way the evil man in Iraq
>would still be killing and torturing his own people and you and they would
>be sitting there letting it happen.
Amnesty International reported in recent years that Saddam was killing
"scores" of political opponents per year.
In President Bush's first year killing Iraqis he's bagged maybe as man
as 65,000 of them. And he's still getting quite a few a day.
So if it's dead Iraqis which interest you, you can feel proud that our
President Bush is number one by a long shot.
Were Saddam still there about all those 65,000 would still be alive.
>If the General thinks that making speechs that give him that warm cuddly
>feeling are going to get him elected President he had better think again. He
>is as nutty or nuttier then Dean.
But then you thought Saddam was the big killer of Iraqis, and not
Bush. So I'm not sure if we should put much fairth in you hunches.
Christian Williamson
And your point is?
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr.
<cdw...@erols.com> wrote:
Your comments from Clark aren't even inconsistent, yet you seem to
think it proves Clark doesn't get his story straight.
There is dishonesty involved in this war, but the clear winner, hands
down, is President Bush.
His dishonesty is the real story.
Here is the real story from an insider in the Bush administration
"In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would
characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction," he told
TIME. "There were allegations and assertions by people. But I’ve been
around a hell of a long time, and I know the difference between
evidence and assertions and illusions or allusions and conclusions
that one could draw from a set of assumptions. To me there is a
difference between real evidence and everything else. And I never saw
anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real
evidence."
from the new Time, interviewing former Treasury Secretary O'neill.
Or how about another Bush administration figure with access to the
actual decision making?
"War is generally crafted and pursued for political reasons, but the
reasons given to Congress and the American people for this one were so
inaccurate and misleading as to be false. Certainly, the
neoconservatives never bothered to sell the rest of the country on the
real reasons for occupation of Iraq-more bases from which to flex U.S.
muscle with Syria and Iran, better positioning for the inevitable fall
of the regional sheikdoms, maintaining OPEC on a dollar track, and
fulfilling a half-baked imperial vision. These more accurate reasons
could have been argued on their merits, and the American people might
indeed have supported the war. But we never got a chance to debate
it."
January 19, 2004 issue
Copyright © 2004 The American Conservative
Open Door Policy
A strange thing happened on the way to the war.
By Karen Kwiatkowski
Or how about this from authors including a former head of
anti-terrorism? Another person who would know about the inside story
"The study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace states
that "administration officials systematically misrepresented the
threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile program" by treating
possibilities as fact and "misrepresenting inspectors' findings in
ways that turned threats from minor to dire.""
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/09/carnegie_study_calls_arms_threat_overstated/
Read the Carnegie report, and then I don't think you'll be able to
refute that the Bush administration has mislead us. It's a liberal
outfit, but the conclusions are based on publically available
information which you can independently confirm, and are compelling.
DimsHaveNotFriends
"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." <gl...@cmhs.edu> wrote in message
news:pbp200triccdqk9du...@4ax.com...
> "In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would
> characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction," he told
> TIME. "There were allegations and assertions by people. But I've been
> around a hell of a long time, and I know the difference between
> evidence and assertions and illusions or allusions and conclusions
> that one could draw from a set of assumptions. To me there is a
> difference between real evidence and everything else. And I never saw
> anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real
> evidence."
>
> from the new Time, interviewing former Treasury Secretary O'neill.
Then, just yesterday, the WMDs were found in Iraq!
No wonder the incompetant O'neil was fired!
Christian Williamson
Shucks. I thought I had someone who was going to make a substantive
statement here. Sad to say, all I got was partisanship....
"[I]t came from the White House...No one from the White
House asked me...."
Seems pretty contradictory to me. First he says the source is the White
House, then he ends up saying, no, it wasn't from the White House.
Also, what was that Middle Eastern think tank anyway? What did Clark
give as its name?
> There is dishonesty involved in this war, but the clear winner, hands
> down, is President Bush.
>
> His dishonesty is the real story.
OK, so you've accused Bush of dishonesty. What exactly is the dishonesty?
> Here is the real story from an insider in the Bush administration
>
> "In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would
> characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction," he told
> TIME. "There were allegations and assertions by people. But I’ve been
> around a hell of a long time, and I know the difference between
> evidence and assertions and illusions or allusions and conclusions
> that one could draw from a set of assumptions. To me there is a
> difference between real evidence and everything else. And I never saw
> anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real
> evidence."
>
> from the new Time, interviewing former Treasury Secretary O'neill.
And how long have you been believing everything O'Neill says? I'd hazard
a guess of about 12 hours.
Of course, O'Neill's assertion matches exactly with Clinton's and
Kerry's and Gephardt's assertions, right? NOT. Do we need to go over all
the statements these Dems with access to intelligence made before the
war? Just last week Gephardt said he had a one-to-one talk with Tenet to
make sure his vote was correct about attacking Iraq. Gephardt said he
got an unqualified answer of 'yes' from Tenet.
> Or how about another Bush administration figure with access to the
> actual decision making?
>
> "War is generally crafted and pursued for political reasons, but the
> reasons given to Congress and the American people for this one were so
> inaccurate and misleading as to be false. Certainly, the
> neoconservatives never bothered to sell the rest of the country on the
> real reasons for occupation of Iraq-more bases from which to flex U.S.
> muscle with Syria and Iran, better positioning for the inevitable fall
> of the regional sheikdoms, maintaining OPEC on a dollar track, and
> fulfilling a half-baked imperial vision. These more accurate reasons
> could have been argued on their merits, and the American people might
> indeed have supported the war. But we never got a chance to debate
> it."
>
> January 19, 2004 issue
> Copyright © 2004 The American Conservative
> Open Door Policy
> A strange thing happened on the way to the war.
> By Karen Kwiatkowski
This commentator you're quoting uses the word "neoconservatives." Can
you even tell me what that means? Give me the definition. And what's
different about a neoconservative as opposed to a regular conservative?
Take a look at
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski-arch.html. This
commentator you quote was not part of the administration. She was part
of the Pentagon. And you can get all sorts of retired Lt. Cols saying
all sorts of things.
Why don't you just quote Pat Buchanan instead?
> Or how about this from authors including a former head of
> anti-terrorism? Another person who would know about the inside story
>
> "The study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace states
> that "administration officials systematically misrepresented the
> threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile program" by treating
> possibilities as fact and "misrepresenting inspectors' findings in
> ways that turned threats from minor to dire.""
>
> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/09/carnegie_study_calls_arms_threat_overstated/
>
> Read the Carnegie report, and then I don't think you'll be able to
> refute that the Bush administration has mislead us. It's a liberal
> outfit, but the conclusions are based on publically available
> information which you can independently confirm, and are compelling.
I see long names for organizations get your reverence.
The Carnegie report comes from a leftist organization, and for you to
quote them as some non-partisan crowd is laughable. Whenever the
argument was being made about whether to go in or not, Jessica Matthews
was on the side for leaving Saddam in power.
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr.
<cdw...@erols.com> wrote:
No. He can conclude that a source in Canada who called him got the
information from the White House. Thus it came from the white house,
and I was not told it by someone from the White House.
There is no inconsistency. Reading comprehension - now more than ever.
>
>Also, what was that Middle Eastern think tank anyway? What did Clark
>give as its name?
THe one Bush supporters later claimed didn't exist, and which in fact
does exist? I have seen their name, and have since forgotten it. That
Clark does not mention their name at that time, though it has later
been revealed, is not a sign he is dishonest.
>> There is dishonesty involved in this war, but the clear winner, hands
>> down, is President Bush.
>>
>> His dishonesty is the real story.
>
>OK, so you've accused Bush of dishonesty. What exactly is the dishonesty?
1. President Bush gave a series of speeches in which he mentioned
Saddam Hussein and Sept 11 closely together dozens of times. Those
speeches were clearly meant to convey a false belief, that there was
good reason to link the two. THat it was dishonest, and not merely
mistaken, comes from the fact that a close reading shows that
President Bush does not actually ever say Saddam was behind Sept 11.
But such linkage, dozens of times, clearly shows the message he wants
the public to pick up. ANd it worked. Seventy percent came to think
Saddam was involved. This was the only country in the world where
citizens thought that. Because this was the only country in the world
where the President gave those speeches. That was dishonest.
2."For example, President Bush said,
The regime was forced to admit that it had produced
more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other
deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however,
concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four
times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of
biological weapons that has never been accounted
for, and is capable of killing millions.12 (emphasis
added)
The inspectors, however, did not say that Iraq had
likely produced these additional amounts of deadly
agents, only that Iraq might have imported enough
growth media to produce these amounts. They did not
know for sure either the amount of media or whether
it had been used for this purpose."
Part II page 4 Carnegie report
3. SOTU address Bush said that "British have learned..." Iraq tried
to buy Uranium in Africa. But Bush knew that the claim was not likely
true. The CIA told the WH that the claim was not lilkely true. When
the words in the speech directly stated the claim, the CIA made them
remove those words. Lower-level officials negotiated on terms and the
WH used the British have learned words because it was technically
true. But they had been told the CIA did not believe the claim. The
claim was actually absurd, since Iraq already had more than five
hundred tons of yellowcake in Iraq from the old days. Buying it would
be like McDonalds going shopping for hamburgers in Africa. Now the
speech writer clearly knew that he was conveying an idea the CIA told
him was not likely true. Did Bush know that also? I think it is
extremely likely that the CIA conveyed its beliefs about this
important matter to the President. If Bush did NOT know the facts,
that's would be maybe more frightening, since it would suggest he
doesn't even bother to find out if Iraq was going nuclear.
4. President Bush often conveyed more certainty than was warranted by
the evidence, which is dishonest.
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments
leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues
to possess and conceal some of the most lethal
weapons ever devised…'
Bush page 4 of Carnegie
The intelligence provided had many doubts expressed. Far more caveats
were in the 2002 intelligence caveats than in any other such report,
apparently.
5. Others in the Bush administration made many more statements
demonstrably at odds with the facts then available to them.
>
>> Here is the real story from an insider in the Bush administration
>>
>> "In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would
>> characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction," he told
>> TIME. "There were allegations and assertions by people. But I’ve been
>> around a hell of a long time, and I know the difference between
>> evidence and assertions and illusions or allusions and conclusions
>> that one could draw from a set of assumptions. To me there is a
>> difference between real evidence and everything else. And I never saw
>> anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real
>> evidence."
>>
>> from the new Time, interviewing former Treasury Secretary O'neill.
>
>And how long have you been believing everything O'Neill says? I'd hazard
>a guess of about 12 hours.
He has access to information, and has a reputation as honest. His
problem as Secretary was that he was too honest. He would say things
when he should have been quiet. Not that he said things which were
false.
I have absolutely no reason to think he is lying, and I have never
thought he lied. No press reports have ever referred to him as lying.
Just the opposite.
>
>Of course, O'Neill's assertion matches exactly with Clinton's and
>Kerry's and Gephardt's assertions, right?
No. Clinton said that if Saddam were not checked, then he would get
and use weapons. That was in 1998. We did check Saddam.
Kerry and Gephardt had to rely on information provided to them by the
Bush administration.
They were told things which were not true. Condi Rice went on TV and
said that Iraq was trying to buy aluminum tubes which could ONLY be
used to make nukes.
The President has access to intelligence. He authorizes its release to
others. If a president misleads others about it, we have no way to
know that really. THat is why dishonesty in this area is especially
dangerous.
Your comment that Gephardt and Kerry believed what the Bush
administration told them does not mean that the Bush administration
told the truth.
NOT. Do we need to go over all
>the statements these Dems with access to intelligence made before the
>war?
They had access to summaries of intelligence provided to them by the
Bush administration.
Which were false.
And incomplete.
And misleading.
It is not exactly logical to defend Bush because Dems believed what
his administration told them.
Before Bush made a final decision to go to war, in early 2002,
intelligence estimates about Iraq's weapons were fairly calm. Then
Bush figures put the heat on intelligence agents. Then the
intelligence estimates changed to be closer to what Bush wanted. There
was no new information which supported such a change in the view of
intelligence agencies. What was new was the pressure put on them.
Read the Carnegie report on the difference between intelligence
estimates before Bush figures started pressuring them and after that.
Just last week Gephardt said he had a one-to-one talk with Tenet to
>make sure his vote was correct about attacking Iraq. Gephardt said he
>got an unqualified answer of 'yes' from Tenet.
No. He said that he asked Tenet if he thought Iraq had WMD and he said
yes.
But of course that doesn't reach the level of things the Bush admin
said. Such as that Iraq was trying to buy uranium or was buying stuff
which could only be used to get nukes.
Iraq having WMD doesn't justify attack by itself. If they have mustard
gas shells, so what? Artillery can't reach Florida, and mustard gas is
not as deadly as some of our conventional weapons.
So Tenet saying - yes, I think they have WMD - is not a defense of the
lies the Bush administration told.
Nor does it justify invasion.
Nor does it justify the dishonesty of the Bush administration.
>
>> Or how about another Bush administration figure with access to the
>> actual decision making?
>>
>> "War is generally crafted and pursued for political reasons, but the
>> reasons given to Congress and the American people for this one were so
>> inaccurate and misleading as to be false. Certainly, the
>> neoconservatives never bothered to sell the rest of the country on the
>> real reasons for occupation of Iraq-more bases from which to flex U.S.
>> muscle with Syria and Iran, better positioning for the inevitable fall
>> of the regional sheikdoms, maintaining OPEC on a dollar track, and
>> fulfilling a half-baked imperial vision. These more accurate reasons
>> could have been argued on their merits, and the American people might
>> indeed have supported the war. But we never got a chance to debate
>> it."
>>
>> January 19, 2004 issue
>> Copyright © 2004 The American Conservative
>> Open Door Policy
>> A strange thing happened on the way to the war.
>> By Karen Kwiatkowski
>
>This commentator you're quoting uses the word "neoconservatives." Can
>you even tell me what that means?
I could refer you to many books written by people who in their titles
use that phrase to describe who they are. It is a term which various
people have applied to THEMSELVES and which THEY USE to describe their
form of American Imperialism. Ms Kwiatkowski is merely using the term
which this group applies to themselves. If they want to call
themselves "The Bixleford Momentum Quadrangle" then they can do that,
and she may call them what they call themselves. Who CARES which name
they have picked to describe themselves?
Give me the definition. And what's
>different about a neoconservative as opposed to a regular conservative?
I suggest you read any of the many books they have wirtten, or the
many many articles which they have written in which THEY refer to
themselevs as neoconservatives. They are more expert on this school of
thought they espouse than I am.
ANd you passed over the point. She articulates what she thinks are the
real reasons for the war, and we were not told that that was what was
really going on. Failing to convey the real reasons for the war is
another example of dishonesty.
>
>Take a look at
>http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski-arch.html. This
>commentator you quote was not part of the administration. She was part
>of the Pentagon. And you can get all sorts of retired Lt. Cols saying
>all sorts of things.
The administration is the executive branch of the US govt. It inculdes
the Defense Department. She was involved in policy planning for the
Defense Department and had access to what was going on in the minds of
administration figures. She has access to the "real" reasons
motivating the war.
She has an opinion. I think her opinion seems correct. You have not
denied it.
>
>Why don't you just quote Pat Buchanan instead?
Because he was not working in the offices of those who made the
decision to go to war. Though he would probably have access to such
people, so his views would be worth examining.
>> Or how about this from authors including a former head of
>> anti-terrorism? Another person who would know about the inside story
>>
>> "The study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace states
>> that "administration officials systematically misrepresented the
>> threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile program" by treating
>> possibilities as fact and "misrepresenting inspectors' findings in
>> ways that turned threats from minor to dire.""
>>
>> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/09/carnegie_study_calls_arms_threat_overstated/
>>
>> Read the Carnegie report, and then I don't think you'll be able to
>> refute that the Bush administration has mislead us. It's a liberal
>> outfit, but the conclusions are based on publically available
>> information which you can independently confirm, and are compelling.
>
>I see long names for organizations get your reverence.
Good arguments get my reverence.
>
>The Carnegie report comes from a leftist organization, and for you to
>quote them as some non-partisan crowd is laughable.
Are you aware that one of the leading neoconservatives is on their
staff?
Are you aware that I pointed out that their ideological bent is worth
noting but that the actual evidence they present can not be ignored by
a fair reading of the report?
Adolph Hitler can say - I went outside and the sun is shining - and
his nature does not mean that what he said was incorrect.
The report is impressive, and compelling. Read it.
Whenever the
>argument was being made about whether to go in or not, Jessica Matthews
>was on the side for leaving Saddam in power.
And who was correct?
Shouldn't we give what she says more attention in that she has now
been proven correct in her views?
The argument that we had to go to Iraq in self-defense has been proven
incorrect.
That she was on the correct side of the debate is no reason not to
avoid examining the evidence and conclusions of that report.
I do not think you will find anyone to say that she is dishonest.
The strength of the report is independent of who the authors are.
They present facts and the conclusions they draw from them. It's a
compelling case. I have seen no one present any logical refutation of
it.