Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

host · 11-18-2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I don't know the exact number but I'm sure I've heard several on the news. A quick google search turned up a few.

Uhhh....there was more to Feinstein's "not in 1000 years, sound byte.....

Quote:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...itroom.02.html
THE SITUATION ROOM (scroll 45 percent down from top of page....)

Positive Comments from Senators on Alito; Fallout of Rule 21 Secret Session in Senate

Aired November 2, 2005 - 16:00 ET

.....BLITZER: Well, let me interrupt, Senator Feinstein, because at the core of the issue is a simple question. Was the Bush administration -- the president of the United States, the vice president of the United States -- were they the victims of bad intelligence that was prepared by the CIA and other intelligence agencies who simply miscalculated the WMD, the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and forced them to go to war? Or did the president and the vice president deliberately mislead, misuse that intelligence and lie, in effect, to the American public about the threat facing this country? Where do you stand on those two issues?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I think statements were made in major public policy addresses prior to the Senate vote that clearly stated that with a matter of certainty, that Saddam possessed a nuclear weapons program, or was on his way to developing a nuclear weapons program. The fact of the matter is, there was no evidence of that, we have subsequently found.

Now, the president receives certain intelligence that we don't get. We do not see the Presidential Daily Briefs. So there always was the question, did the White House know something with respect to intelligence that was not shared with those of us on the Intelligence Committees of the House and the Senate? So we never really knew. And what we're trying to do is find out, was there intelligence not shared with us that clearly stated that Saddam was on his way to a nuclear weapons program? That's just one example.

BLITZER: Because on the basis of that intelligence that the president was provided and that you were provided as a member of the U.S. Senate, you voted to authorize the use of force to go to war. Do you feel you were duped?

FEINSTEIN: Yes. And had I known then what I know now, I never would have cast that vote, not in a thousand years. I read, re-read the intelligence, read the classified versions, tried to get briefings, read open source, listened to the speeches, did everything I could to inform myself, and when I cast that vote, I was convinced that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to this nation, with respect to biological weapons, with respect to an unmanned aerial vehicle that was capable of being launched with chemical or biological weapons aboard.

None of that turned out to be true. And that's what bothers many of us, because we now believe that the impetus for the American use of force essentially was regime change, pure and simple -- not the cause that was sold to us, which was weapons of mass destruction, and their immediate threat our country.

Feinstein opened her answer with, "I think statements were made in major public policy addresses prior to the Senate vote that clearly stated that with a matter of certainty."

and.....who made the "statements [were made] in major public policy addresses"? Why it's.....it's.....

Quote:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...630selling.htm
The Selling of the Iraq War: The First Casualty
By John B. Judis and Spencer Ackerman*
New Republic
June 30, 2003

The Battle In Congress
Fall 2002

The administration used the anniversary of September 11, 2001, to launch its public campaign for a congressional resolution endorsing war, with or without U.N. support, against Saddam. The opening salvo came on the Sunday before the anniversary in the form of a leak to Judith Miller and Michael R. Gordon of The New York Times regarding the aluminum tubes. Miller and Gordon reported that, according to administration officials, Iraq had been trying to buy tubes specifically designed as "components of centrifuges to enrich uranium" for nuclear weapons. That same day, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice appeared on the political talk shows to trumpet the discovery of the tubes and the Iraqi nuclear threat. Explained Rice, "There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly [Saddam] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Rumsfeld added, "Imagine a September eleventh with weapons of mass destruction. It's not three thousand--it's tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children."

Many of the intelligence analysts who had participated in the aluminum-tubes debate were appalled. One described the feeling to TNR: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie." Albright, of the Institute for Science and International Security, recalled, "I became dismayed when a knowledgeable government scientist told me that the administration could say anything it wanted about the tubes while government scientists who disagreed were expected to remain quiet." As Thielmann puts it, "There was a lot of evidence about the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons programs to be concerned about. Why couldn't we just be honest about that without hyping the nuclear account? Making the case for active pursuit of nuclear weapons makes it look like the administration was trying to scare the American people about how dangerous Iraq was and how it posed an imminent security threat to the United States."

In speeches and interviews, administration officials also warned of the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. On September 25, 2002, Rice insisted, "There clearly are contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq. ... There clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship there." On the same day, President Bush warned of the danger that "Al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness." Rice, like Rumsfeld--who the next day would call evidence of a Saddam-bin Laden link "bulletproof"--said she could not share the administration's evidence with the public without endangering intelligence sources. But Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee, disagreed. On September 27, Paul Anderson, a spokesman for Graham, told USA Today that the senator had seen nothing in the CIA's classified reports that established a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda......

Is this really that hard to get your mind around? Feinstein is a senator and she has constituents who watch TV and read newspapers. Guess who is filling the airwaves and the newsprint with a carefully co-ordinated propaganda "Op", timed to coincide with the one year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks?

Answer...the same thugs who drove their own approval rating to 90 percent backing for war in Iraq by "catapulting the propaganda" by saying the same thing, over and over again, until the truth sinks in....

Quote:

President Participates in Social Security Conversation in New York
See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050524-3.html

The same thugs who have driven their job approval rating down to 36 percent, three years later, because some of the sheeple actually "get it" now!

What have these guys ever told you in the last four years that was true?