|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Host,
I am not clear on some things about your point of view.
Did you or do you believe the rhetoric from Democratic Party leaders regarding their sentiments against the actions and decisions made by the Bush administration? How much of their rhetoric do you think was based on principles compared to politically grandstanding?
I always found it interesting how you would call Bush a lier, when anyone paying attention knew what Bush wanted, what he was going to do and when he was going to do it, but up until now you have given Democrats a pass for saying things like: we did not know that authorizing the use of military force would lead to war, that continually funding an occupation of Iraq would mean troops would continue to be in Iraq, that approving the appointment of a General who supported a surge would lead to a surge, etc, etc, etc. Why all of a sudden are you surprised. Democrats have had a pattern over the pass 8 years of saying one thing and doing another. I am surprised people have not been outraged by that.
|
ace....plenty of examples of president's lies about the gravest issues....his justifications for war with Iraq and for abridging our fourth amendment protections:
Did They Hand this MF Decider the Wrong Script, or Is this "Ground Hog Day"?
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=121564
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ip#post2461896
Quote:
|
The President:...The point I was making to Ken Herman's question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship. .....
|
You answered your own question, here....IMO, ace:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ce#post2461594
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I did not include the entire article, I did include the link, but there is a paragraph were the author qualifies his data. I focused on the broader point of the article. Here is the full article.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...96864997227353
Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attack. I agree with that. Bush Stated that.
Congress did not have all of the intel the WH had. I agree with that. The Intel over Clinton's and Bush's administrations pointed to Saddam having WMD and a desire to obtain nuclear weapons. Intel from England further supported this. Saddam lead his own military that they had WMD.
Members of the Bush administration had a desire to remove Saddam from power prior to 9/11.
Iraq became a key military front in the war against terror. We don't know the full extent of Zarqawi's travels. We don't know the full extent of who he talked to or who gave him aid and assistance. All we can rely on is intel, the same kind of Intel that proved wrong regarding WMD in Iraq. You can not prove any points regarding Zarqawi, all we can do is speculate based on published Intel that may be right or wrong.
It seems you want me to say that Bush lied. I can not do it, nothing you have posted shows that he lied.
Why not show me how I am wrong. Isn't that the point of an exchange like this? I hope I am wrong. I don't spend a lot of time listening to Obama speeches, I did watch the debates, and he clearly said he would withdraw the troops unconditionally.
What about the issue of a premature withdrawal and the ramifications, wasn't that the main point of my post? Do we have an obligation to the Iraqi people to help them re-build their nation? What is your view on that question? Isn't that an important question worthy of political discussion? The "apt analogy" - shouldn't we in fact leave once the Iraqi people can stand on their own and defend their country from threats internal and at least to some degree external. Isn't "running it course" a good thing for Iraq? |
...and I think the following, knocks the shit out of your statement that,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
...The Intel over Clinton's and Bush's administrations pointed to Saddam having WMD and a desire to obtain nuclear weapons.....
|
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ce#post2352737
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
.....huh? That is what you got out of Colbert's "performance"?
If your "take" is closer to what Colbert was saying to his audience of DC working press, then Colbert uncharacteristically abandoned his "in character" persona.... that of a conservative TV commentator.
<h3>Do you really believe that Colbert was not telling the press that they are co-operative "stenos"</h3> who agree to be "kept in line", in exchange for "access" to "unidentified high ranking administration officials"?
If what you say is correct, Colbert does not embrace his own "message", and he admitted that at last year's annual white house correspondent's dinner...
...and, didn't the white house press corp, in the months preceding the march, 2003 invasion of Iraq, fail to question the turnabout from administration officials....Powell, Rice, and Tenet had all said, between Feb., 2001, and the end of July, that Saddam was no threat to his neighbors", and the press corp certainly never brought up those pre-9/11 quotes to challenge the administration's post 9/11, totally opposite accusations against Iraq:
Quote:
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_02/alia/a1020708.htm
07 February 2001
Text: CIA's Tenet on Worldwide Threat 2001
.............IRAQ
Mr. Chairman, in Iraq Saddam Hussein has grown more confident in his ability to hold on to his power. He maintains a tight handle on internal unrest, despite the erosion of his overall military capabilities. Saddam's confidence has been buoyed by his success in quieting the Shia insurgency in the south, which last year had reached a level unprecedented since the domestic uprising in 1991. Through brutal suppression, Saddam's multilayered security apparatus has continued to enforce his authority and cultivate a domestic image of invincibility.
High oil prices and Saddam's use of the oil-for-food program have helped him manage domestic pressure. The program has helped meet the basic food and medicine needs of the population. High oil prices buttressed by substantial illicit oil revenues have helped Saddam ensure the loyalty of the regime's security apparatus operating and the few thousand politically important tribal and family groups loyal.
<b>There are still constraints on Saddam's power. His economic infrastructure is in long-term decline, and his ability to project power outside Iraq's borders is severely limited, largely because of the effectiveness and enforcement of the No-Fly Zones. His military is roughly half the size it was during the Gulf War and remains under a tight arms embargo. He has trouble efficiently moving forces and supplies-a direct result of sanctions. These difficulties were demonstrated most recently by his deployment of troops to western Iraq last fall, which were hindered by a shortage of spare parts and transport capability........</b>
|
Quote:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/forme...s/2001/933.htm
Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001
(lower paragraph of second Powell quote on the page)
.............<b>but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction.</b> We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. <b>And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.................</b>
|
Quote:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/le.00.html
...........KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?
RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.
We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.
<b>But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.
This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that..............</b>
|
Shouldn't there have been more "journalism" like these very rare instances, (below) especially between Oct., 2002, and March, 2003, if your "take" on Colbert's meaning of "stenographer" is accurate.... I find almost none, especially disturbing in view of the 2001 opinions of Powell, Tenet, and Rice:
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...235395,00.html
May 5, 2002
............Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that <b>after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe. Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed.</b> The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack — a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic — was discredited last week..............
|
Quote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in520830.shtml
(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.
|
|
stop challenging me to defend democrats, ace....on a day when I don't seem to have much use for a lot of them. Lets look at the last 7-1/2 years....
First few months...2001" Republicans control house, senate, presidency
next 18 months...democrats control senate to a slight degree.... 50 dems, 49 repubs, 1 independent, Cheney serves as senate VP and tie breaking vote.
next 4 years, Republicans control house, senate, presidency
last 17 months, dems have control of house, slight control of senate....51st dem senator incapacitated by TBI, early in term, cannot vote....Cheney is still tie breaking vote....Bush, a president who set a record by not vetoing a single bill in first six years....vetoes and/or attaches signing statements to nearly every bill passed and sent up to him. Republicans in senate rename their filibustering tactics, but set a record for filibuster type blocking of senate attempts to engage in the legislative process....yeah, ace, those lying democrats have really screwed up the government these last 7-1/2 years....
Visit the linked page in my last post....actual hearings that resemble attempts to make executive branch officials are taking place, ace....after six years of the congress abandoning the practice......
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Frank and Conyers?
|
Near the top of the page that I linked to:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by emptywheel
......Note this hearing is a Subcommittee Hearing--so it's Jerrold Nadler's baby, not Conyers'. That means a subset of HJC's better questioners will appear today: Nadler, Davis, Wasserman Schultz, Ellison, Conyers, Scott, Watt, and Cohen, with Franks, Pence, Issa, King, and Jordan for the bad guys......
|
....and the negative reference was towards republican rep, "Trent" Franks:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...22&btnG=Search
What is your objection to Conyers....vs. the "stuff" he's been doing, like this:
Most of these asshats are flawed in the ethics dept.... Conyers certainly is....but he is one of the few bright lights, when it comes to any challenge to the operational, official misconduct...who to invade, who to torture, who to "out" for purposes of political payback....
Quote:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congr...80623_6146.php
....GOVERNMENT OPS
The House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform committees are set to keep pressing the White House on its role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, as both press the Justice Department for records of FBI interviews of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
At a hearing Friday at which former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan testified, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers said his panel "may have to resort to compulsory process" if DOJ refuses to turn over transcripts of interviews of Bush and Cheney conducted during Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's leak probe.
House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman issued a subpoena to the Justice Department for those and related documents last week.
Conyers and Waxman have said McClellan's new book and other disclosures suggest Cheney and other White House officials might have told subordinates to mislead the public about the leak....
|
Quote:
http://www.reflector.com/local/conte.../rollcall.html
....John Conyers, D-Mich., said: "This war must end. The American people and the Iraqi people have endured enough. I urge my colleagues to vote against funding this war another day. Tomorrow, we will have been at war for 1,866 days. It will be 1,866 days too many."....
|
Quote:
YouTube - John Conyers Arguing Against Changes to FISA
Jun 20, 2008 ... John Conyers on the House floor arguing against the changes to FISA.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=szgu3rMj0Q4
|
Last edited by host; 06-26-2008 at 08:28 AM..
Reason: Automerged Doublepost
|