Dear Rep. Gibbons,

On your congressional, i.e., taxpayer-funded website, under the category called "hot and current issues" and beneath a headline reading "the war in Iraq," it says the following:

The hardest vote for any member of Congress is the one that could send our servicemen and women into combat. Today, servicemen and women from all over the United States, including many from Nevada, are fighting a Global War on Terror. Our war in Iraq is an important part of our War on Terror. According to the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report, there was evidence of numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Specifically, the 9/11 Commission stated that, “according to the report, Iraqi officials offered Bin laden a safe haven in Iraq.”

On March 28th, Mona Charen wrote in the Washington Times that the recent release of additional documents seized from Saddam Hussein’s regime provide new evidence that proves Saddam Hussein worked with al Qaeda, instructed his cohorts to destroy evidence of WMDs and that he supported global terrorist activities.

The remainder of the page is then given over to Charen's article.

Either deliberately or through incompetence, you have selectively quoted the 9-11 Commission Report out of context to misrepresent the Commission's findings. That, as well as the poor judgment shown by relying on -- and drawing your constituents' attention to -- the now-indisputably discredited Washington Times story has been discussed previously and at length in another venue.

Now, however, we would like to draw your attention to the Senate Intelligence Committee reports (pdf) released Friday. They are rather long, and under pressure to hire spell-checkers for your gubernatorial campaign's TV ads, it's understandable if you lack the time to read the reports in full. Fortunately, the reports' conclusions are summed up succinctly in several news articles. This one, from the New York Times, is representative:

The Senate Intelligence Committee said today that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had prewar ties to Al Qaeda and one of the terror organization’s most notorious members, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Or perhaps you would prefer the interpretation offered by the Associated Press:

Saddam Hussein regarded al-Qaida as a threat rather than a possible ally, a Senate report says, contradicting assertions President Bush has used to build support for the war in Iraq.

Bush administration spokesman Tony Snow said Friday that the fact that there was no connection between Saddam and al-Qaida is "nothing new," a rare instance when Snow was speaking accurately.

But the notion that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with al-Quaida and, by extension, the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, still appears to be rather remarkably "new" to you.

So, in light of the (Republican-chaired, of course) Senate Intelligence Committee findings, are you now prepared to admit that the assertions on your congressional website are wholly irrelevant to the war in Iraq? Will you admit, once and for all, that there was no connection between Saddam and al-Qaida and attest that any attempt to suggest that there was a connection, either by you or anyone else, was an irresponsible, tragically grave and costly mistake? And while you're at it, will you -- finally -- agree with virtually everyone else who has investigated the matter, from weapons inspectors appointed by the Bush White House to the entire intelligence community, that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that justified the invasion of that country?

Finally, will you please explain how someone who served on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has continued for so very, very long to cling to views shared only by the republic's most shallow and uninformed citizens and a handful of fringe extremist partisan zealots? And why, by any stretch of the imagination, should Nevadans trust someone who has demonstrated such astounding ignorance and deplorable judgment to be their governor?

Sincerely,

Gleaner

Comments

[texex]

Couldn't have been stated by Olbermann himself. Congratulations, Hugh, on a fine piece of writing! But don't turn blue waiting for an answer....just hope Nevada does instead.

[Myrna the Minx]

Gibbons is a complete and utter dumbass. Great catch and post G.

[Johnathan L. Abbinett]

DAMN Hugh - Fantastic "Hit" - I am sooooo with YOU!

But, remember, "STOOPUD DON"T KNOW THEY BE STOOPUD!"

"DUMBFOUNDED DON'T KNOW WHY THEY BE UNABLE TO FIGGER OUT WHAT'S HAPPENING?"

[texex]

Saturday morning eyeopener:

Iraq's Prime Minister al-Maliki is off to visit Iran this Monday to talk about peace!! And just the other day Pakistan gives sanctuary to bin Laden.

All this going on while the Psycho-in-Chief is hysterical every day about all the reasons the war must must go on. Makes the US objectives for a proplonged war look pretty irrelevant in the Middle East.

I wonder if this is one of those secret benchmarks that we've all been hearing about....

[yep]

Gibbons was the one who went to Iraq for Bush to hunt for WMD. Remember?

[Johnathan L. Abbinett]

HEADS UP EVERYONE: Catch Senator Kerry's speech this weekend - I'm forwarding the advance to Hugh...

NOTE TO:"Texex" take your meds, get a good nap, then, when you are fully awake - read it S-L-O-W-L-Y with an open mind...then think real hard before you go off again!

[texex]

Johnathan, if you're babbling more about the phantom "benchmarks" that only you and Derby know about, I showed them to a lot of people at the DCDCC meeting Thursday night. They're all scratching their heads and saying "What the hell is a "benchmark?" And then they read the part about Derby wanting a new Iraq Consitution. That's when just about everybody started shaking their heads, rolling their eyes back, and looking up at the ceiling.

If you don't think Maliki going to Iran isn't a BIG deal then you are as out of touch with what's happening as you are thinking that "benchmarks" are going to connect. They sure as hell didn't connect Thursday night. Looks like you're doing a fine, fine job in getting Heller elected if you think this crap is more than an already failing campaign slogan 'cause your and Wesley Clarks's thinking is about as relevant to the electorate as Rove's is.

Why don't you and Wesley just go off in a quiet, padded corner cell somewhere and peddle your "benchmarks". Right now your advice has people that are with Derby every day wondering why the hell she would ever listen to such nonsense, let alone put it on her website. Your big mouth is causing Derby a lot of problems and you need to engage whatever is left of the brain before using it again on benchmarks. Stick to verterans' affairs and quit sabotaging Derby just to hear yourself look stupid.

[Johnathan L. Abbinett]

Dear, Dear "Texex",

WOW - "babbling" - you are the one I thought that word might apply to better?

I have not written or said a single word about "Maliki" or "Iran" - yet you think you know what I'm thinking - "Texex" you might need therapy, or, are you some kind of superkalifragilistic "mind reader"?

How does that work for you? Do you believe you can hear the thoughts in another person's head, then say the words you think you heard - then, put them in someone else's mouth? Then, having created this alternate reality - you begin attributing your thoughts to other people?

I don't think I really understand how this power you seem to have works?

Or, do you just make stuff up - and say that someone else said it? Is that how your reality is shaped?

"Padded corner cell?" Are you longiing for home?

"sabotaging Derby?" Did you read the part where I clearly said, "I speak only for myself and do not represent any elected official, candiate or campaign"?

I would never do anything to hurt our candidates!

Are you O.K. "Texex" - do you have someone that can help you get some help?

If not, call me off-line, and we can talk...hope you're really O.K.?

I've got a better idea - I think I'll stop wasting my time responding to your insanity! Yeah that's a better idea! I'm only trained to identify mental disorders - not diagnose mental illnesses.

Try to remember, just because you believe something - does not necessarily mean it is real, or, true, or false!

Best Wishes, and Good luck with that "Texex"!

[texex]

"Often, I candidly admit, "that I'm half-blind, half-deaf, and half my brain works half the time!" Johnathan L. Abbinett on Johnathan L. Abbinett right after issuing another babbling 756 word "message" with no message; 9/8/06 11:34pm-11:51pm.

I have to agree with your own self diagnosis here: but it looks like you only go half way in doing so. It's fine with me if you think Iraq and Iran getting together on friendly terms is no big deal or if Pakistan giving Osama safe sanctuary is no big beal either. You just keep working whatever is left there to work and we'll all hang on your every word. We sure will!

[texex]

Johnathan A. says above: "I speak only for myself and do not represent any elected official, candiate or campaign"?

Johnathan A says 8/27/2006 5:44pm: "Believe me, I just spoke with Jill Derby, only yesterday - she knows exactly what she is doing in her message strategy (and it's bigger than one person's personal desires) - so, again, be patient!"

Looks to me like Johnathan A IS representing Jill Derby and her campaign but then flip-flops that he is not.

Or is Johnathan A really representing Johnathan A's own political ambitions? Let's try this on for size "Johnathan A. Abbinett, Chairman of the Nevada Democratic Central Committee; maker (or breaker as the case may be) for Congresspersons; advisor to kings, potentates; and center of the universe on all knowledge of "benchmarks." Hail to thee!

[Johnathan L. Abbinett]

Just because a constituent speaks with a candidate or elected official does NOT mean you can A-S-S-U-M-E anything more!

I do NOT represent any candidate, campaign or elected official! That should be very, clear and easy to understand!

Because, I'm often passionate and persuasive in public - occasionally someone A-S-S-U-M-E-S that I'm building a base and running for some office - nothing could be further from the truth!

I have no political ambitions - none, what-so-ever! That means ZERO interest in any political office! I am NOT running for any office, nor am I contemplating ever running for any appointed or elected office of any kind!

I'm just a disabled veteran, that serves as a veteran's advocate, activist, chaplain and columnist! My specialty areas are Vets Issues, Military Issues, and related politics - and my experience dates back to 1971 (to date)!

My expertise has led to my leading the Nevada State Democratic Veterans and Military Families Corps Caucus - a position I'll gladly pass on when the Vets Caucus have our elections.

The Vets Caucus is a consensus product of many, many vets and dozens of leaders working together, first in Clark County, and now state-wide - I'm just one of the founders and current leaders!

If America kept it's promise to veterans - there would be no need for guys like me - and I could do what I came to Vegas to do - which is retire and, finally, have some measure of peace!

"Texex" you really need to get some help - I shall not respond to any further rants from you - so, save your breath, don't wear your fingers out any further on your key board regarding me - it's not about me - and it's not about you "Texex"! Try to treat vets with a little more respect will ya?

[The Penguin]

Geez you two, grow up! And learn to be succinct!