aceventura3

By the way I read Kucinich's third document and did not see any support for his case. I am not going any further, if someone saw somthing of importance, let me know.

Host,

I digest infomation in small bites. I am willing to go through your best stuff one item at a time. I will start with your first item. because I really want to understand the basis for these lies.

Cheney seems to be responding to a question about Muhammad Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence. He states that the information was made public by the Czechs. Is his statement a lie? did the questioner lie? did the Czechs lie? You posted something that links Cheney statements linking Atta and Iraq, but it does not prove a lie, we need more for this to serve as proof of a lie.

The questioner thinks Cheney has suspicions regarding the information released by the Czechs. He then says we can not operate on suspicions, and he goes on to distance himself from the information by saying "we'd rather operate based on facts and make announcements when when we've got announcements to make". I guess this "announcement" did not come from the White House.

Your first item fails to prove anything, in my view.

Please rebut and we can go to the next item.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

host

read every Cheney reference to Atta, ace. Cheney, in the course of his answers to questions about Atta meeting in Prague with an Iraqi representative of Saddam Hussein's government, Cheney declares that this is meeting is "PRETTY WELL CONFIRMED". He later tells Gloria Borger, when she tries to discuss it with him....that he "NEVER SAID THAT"......

Considered with Cheney's other statements, how can it be unreasonable to believe that Cheney seems to have lied, over and over, since 2002 about links between Saddam, 9/11 hijacker Atta, and Saddam and Zarqawi and his "treatment" in Baghdad, his "poison camp", and his training of "terrorists" in Iraq. Cheney cites those "examples" as justifying invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the toppling of the Iraqi government. Cheney's accusations linking Atta and Zarqawi to Saddam.......are not justifications. They were doubted by the US intelligence community when Cheney cited them in public comments, early on, and they all are long disproven, since at least mid- 2004. Yet he used the Zarqawi justification, again this month. Saddam had no relationship with Zarqawi, no ability to control him. Zarqawi operated before the US invasion in the Kurdish controlled region in Northern Iraq, in an area that US intelligence and military forces had access to without any interference from Saddam's Iraqi government or military.

aceventura3

I don't have every Cheney reference to Atta, I am reading what you posted. You think Cheney saying something like "pretty well confirmed" based on an answer to a question about the link from the Czechs is direct proof of a lie?

When we go through this item by item and the sum equals a lie, I will admit you are correct. So far I don't see it. Are you ready for the next, or do you want to discuss this first one further?

And, just for kicks, I read Kucinich's fourth exhibit. Seems there - Cheney is saying that Sadaam is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Come on guys, give me something.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

It is highly probable. but I just dont have the insight into each decision made by a politician to know his underlying motives with such certainty...so I dont make blanket generalizations.

It seems to me Kucinich shares a personal quality or trait with Bush/Cheney... "they say what they mean and mean what they say" and "are unwavering, even in spite of public opinion" (paraphrasing your words). You find it admirable in Bush/Cheney and characterize it as less than noble in Kucinich. Go figure.

ace....do you thiink Bush lied to the American people when he said:

On Meet the Press, Feb 04:
President Bush: I went to Congress with the same intelligence — Congress saw the same intelligence I had, and they looked at exactly what I looked at, and they made an informed judgment based upon the information that I had. The same information, by the way, that my predecessor had. And all of us, you know, made this judgment that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/

or in this speech on Veterans Day 05:
That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0051111-1.html

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

pig

well dc, its like a venn diagram. he didn't say all the same intelligence...he just said the same intelligence. i'm sure he saw whatever it was they got to see.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

aceventura3

No. I think he refers to information made public and available prior to the invasion that Sadaam was in violation of UN resolutions, Sadaam used weapons of mass Destruction, Sadaam was supporting terrorist (at least their families), and that if Sadaam had nuclear weapons it would be a direct threat. I think these were the reasons Congress and people in the prior administration thought he was a threat.

Host,

Here is your second item:

First - Rusert states that Cheney stated there was no direct connection between Iraq and Al Queda regarding 9/11. Cheney refers to the intellegence released by the Czech saying the report was confirmed. Has there been any evidence disputing the Czech intelligence? How did Cheney lie?

Then Cheney says we want to look into the meeting further. Where is the lie?

What was the point of you posting this information, it doesn't seem to support your position and in-fact contradicts your position by an independent source, Russert.

Should we continue, do you want to start over with your best case, or what?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

ace....Bush said.." I WENT to Congress with the same intelligence...

The fact is, he didnt go to Congress with the same intelligence....he didnt provide Congress with any Presidential Daily Briefs and the pre-war NIE's he provided had dedacted critical language that questioned Saddam's nuclear capability.

You cant change the words that were spoken.....like Cheney latest interpretation of his infamous remark in May 2005 that the "insurgency was in its last throes". Several weeks ago, he told Bob Schieffer that this remark "was geared specifically to the fact that we'd just had an election in Iraq where some 12 million people defied the car bombers and the assassins and for the first time participated in a free election." (wtf?)

I think most people looking objectively at the words spoken would say you and Cheney (not that his new interpretation of his stupid commentis comparable to more serious lies of his) are both trying to rewrite history.

But as you said elsewhere, readers here can come to their own conclusions.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

host

uhhh....now that I've read this.....I understand......I'm done.....
Just kidding.....ace.....do you read powerline blog ?

I'll run through it in short bursts:

Cheney on Nov. 14, 2001:
...and Cheney, answering the same question, less than a month later:

ace: "ATTA IN PRAGUE" didn't happen:
Don't misunderstand me, ace. Cheney had plenty of company. Bush spouted this garbage....refuted in the preceding quote box....twice...just days apart, around the time of Powell's phoney presentation at the UN:
They did it over and over....ace....putting out their fearful message....attributing it to others....pulled it back.....put it out, again...and now, we know that they knew when they were doing it, that it was unreliable....that there was no consensus in the US intelligence community or in the intelligence community of NATO allies....but they "put it out", ace....because, as Tenet tells us, this week, they never considered anything but war as the "solution" in Iraq. They had to "fix the facts" around the "policy".

How can you tell that they were lying to us then, and now....because all Bush and Cheney had was "Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague", and "Zarqawi was in Baghdad and ran a "poison camp" in Iraq"....and Cheney still justifies the invasion of Iraq, this month, and Bush did as recently as last September, with the worn out mantra that "Zarqawi was present", even though he had no relationship with Saddam or his government, and was located at a "poison camp" in an area of Northern Iraq that US military and it's Kurdish allies could access....if they wanted to.....but Saddam's military could not......
[quote]
Cheney, as the immediately preceding quote box illustrates, was still telling the same intentional lies to justify invading Iraq, just 25 days ago..... it's way past time to persuade him to shut up. Impeachment should do the trick....

ubertuber

Regardless of whether impeaching Cheney is possible, I think it would be a tactical victory and strategic mistake for opponents of the Bush administration.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

pig

i don't know uber; i think that a strong showing for impeachment of cheney would send a strong signal on the depth of our country's frustration with the direction and apparent ineptitude of the administration's policies. i don't think much will come of it, but i do think its sad that our 'moral majority' country got so bent out of shape over a blowjob, and doesn't seem that concerned over a war, costing american soldiers' lives and megasupertons of $$$, that we very likely didn't have to get involved in.

/shakran's law inversely invoked

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

tecoyah

I would tell the Democrats to let them (Bush and Cheney) Keep doing what they've been doing as its extremely self destructive in the long run. We as a country, have pretty much bankrupted ourselves both politically and financially worldwide and I dont see how they can do much more damage in the grand scheme of things. They have the rest of this year to play the game before lame duck syndrome sets in, if indeed it hasn't already. The Dems should be working on the inevitable rise to office awaiting them, and just hold a short leash on the castrated pitbulls for now.

Willravel

The longer they stay in power the more people die. That should be the first consideration. Politics should come second after ethics.

tecoyah

Agreed it should, but it wont. The Dems are powerless to seriously change the course right now, and we all know it. In that perfect world I visit in my dreams, Both those bastards would be facing charges ranging from racketeering to hate crimes....but alas, I only visit and dont have citizenship to fantasyland.
By watching the inability to even get people under oath for investigations, and then seeing a series of extremely poor memories form those who DO get questioned, it has become clear to me (and hopefully congress),that little will be accomplished in the ways of holding anyone accountable. Thus a switch to damage control, and planning for the inevitable baton pass seems a pretty good course right now.
Mind you, I don't wish to see them stop trying to burn the pricks, but I would hope they are smart enough to multitask this nightmare. We will shortly see what can be accomplished in the way of removing our citizens from the line of fire....and its likely to be a VETO.

ubertuber

I think the message sent would be to mobilize the voters who support these guys - and there would consequently be a stronger and larger showing in 2008.

In summary:

1) Even if Cheney/Bush were to be impeached, a conviction would be nearly impossible to secure.
2) It would take nearly their entire remaining term in office to achieve this near certain failure - and after acquittal, all momentum towards accountability would be lost.
3) Drawing blood this early and so dramatically would serve more to galvanize support from people who sympathize with the current administration.
4) As much as we like to label villains, Cheney and Bush are weeds - not the roots of the plant.

To draw an analogy to baseball, wins are not often secured by sending every batter up to hit a home run. It takes a combination of base hits, RBI, and homers to dominate. This isn't the time or place to go for the death blow. A better strategy would be to keep the pressure on accountability, prevent Bush from launching new initiatives in the next 18 months, systematically move to limit the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act, and set up investigatory structures. Win the White House and maintain/augment majorities in both houses of the Congress in 2008. Then prosecute these guys when they're out of office - and do it on ground of war crimes/treason, not perjury. THAT would be a significant victory.

Edit: Will, I suspect that you would claim that your views are based on practicality and mine on politics. That may be right in a way, but I think that on a deeper level my way is the more practical. If one was to end this, it is worth doing right - we don't want to be dealing with the spiritual heirs of the Bush administration in 8/12 years.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

host

The democratic majority hangs by a thread, in the senate, and in the country. The "stuff" that I've posted in my last post, and Tenet's statements in his book, coupled with Kucinich's efforts, must be drummed into the heads of many Americans, until they are sick of hearing it, but until they KNOW IT. Unitl they know that they were lied to into a war that did not have to happen, and from which there can be no "victory". What would "victory" look like? Iran smoldering in ruin, next to the disintegration of Iraqi society, into the current factional violence....the "slo mo" civil war?

IMO, this is "take off the gloves", go at them, "kicken and screamin'" with everything that you've got....all of the evidence, all of the time....

South Dakota, home of the recently critically ill senator Tim Johnson, and home of former Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschell, is a state where the division of opinion in this country can clearly be seen. Johnson came so close to dying and putting the senate back under the control of it's president, Dick Cheney. The democratic congresswoman there has to reassure everyone that "the Iraq war is not lost", so that she can survive, politically to vote with fellow democrats for a timetable to wind the war done:
I disagree with Herseth Sandlin. It's the time to emphasize that it is not "rhetoric" to say that the war in Iraq cannot be won. It is fact. The war is a crime.....to be ended and to be investigated. Thune and Cheney need to be discouraged. Constant emphasize of the facts, the lies, the crimes of aggression are the only way to discourage the "they are not supporting the troops if they pass laws that will bring them home", rhetoric,


The opposition to Bush Cheney is still hanging on by the skin of it's teeth. Overconfidence, manifested in declarations that impeachment is not good political strategy, ignores the fact that control of the congress is tenuous, and possibly fleeting.

Hold the hearings while you control the committees, make constant TV appearances and give constant interviews to the press to emphasize the lies, deceptions and Tenet's newly released statements. Never let up.

The American people were deficient enough to be misled into war, in a majority in the high 80's percent of all adults. They must be clubbed over the head with the details of what has actually happened...until powerline blog stops printing the "Bush admin. is scandal free" BS that led my last post!

ubertuber

Impeachments are trials of a sort, but they aren't decided by facts. They're decided by the votes of politicians, who generally believe that principle is something determined by voter poll - which is akin to driving a car by watching the rear view mirror. Host, do you really believe that there is even the most miniscule of chances of impeachment and convication in a Congress with such slim majorities (and remember that a. some of the dems are moderates or even conservative, and b. corporate control over congressional officials through lobbying and campaign contributions is as real as voter input)?? After acquittal, what then?

Who here is overly confidant?

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

host

I'm saying that these are desperate times. You do not pursue impeachment, in these circumstances, only if you know that you can achieve convictions in the senate, or even move articels of impeachment through the house. You do it because it is the right reaction to the crimes, and the evidence of the crimes, that have been committed, and because of the refusal of the executive branch to testify truthfully before congressional factfinding committees, and to provide requested documents, due the committees, by precedent and by the scope of the fact finding inquiries.

My personal opinion is that there is almost no hope of actually getting to conducting impeachment trials of Cheney or Bush. I just don't see that as an excuse not to try. The circumstances, the refusal to cooperate, and the evidence so far....bolstered now by Tenet's book.....demand it. History will look back and wonder why it was at least, not attempted. We also are one senator away from losing control of senate committee chairmanships. If that were to happen, better to have it happen in the middle of well justified, vigorous investigations into administration activities. Hiring 150 Regency University graduates, for example, is, in itself, a sabotage of the executive branch that should not go uninvestigated....and as we know, that is just a small irritant, among much larger misconduct.

aceventura3

No.

I throw up the white flag.

I was not lied to regarding our reasons for invading Iraq, but you and many others were lied to.

No one supports Kucinich's articles of impeachment for reasons other than the fact the information he presents does not prove his case. I will always sit in wonder of what those reasons could be, since they most likely are not purely political, or the filing is a complete waste of time, or a political/publicity/fund raising move on his part. Actually that is not true, I have already determined in my mind what the reasons are.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

host

ace....what would it take for you to believe that you were lied to.....? If you were interested in buying my car, and I told you that the car had 50K miles on it, and then you peeked at the odometer yourself, and you observed that it displayed 100K miles, would you consider my "50K" statement to be a lie?

The following is a description of lies, ace....and of conspiracy by the VP's office to insert lies into Powell's pre-Iraq invasion, UN presentation. Consider the following, in the context of Tenet's newly revealed statements. There was no discussion, that he knew of, regarding alternative solutions to going to war with Iraq. I include a quote from Rumsfeld:
They spun the Iraq "threat", in a new way, ace.....nothing had changed from the pre-9/11 days, when Tenet, Powell, and Rice are all on record, saying that Saddam's Iraq warranted close observation, but that it's military was reduced to the point that it was not even considered an imminent threat to it's own neighbors. on 9/16/01, Cheney told Russert that Saddam "was bottled up". Rumsfeld admitted that there were no material changes in the offensive capabilities of Saddam's Iraq, between early 2001, and March, 2003. What changed was that the Bush admin. embraced the illegal concept pre-emptive war of aggression, they lied and spun what was previously not considered a threat...into an "imminent threat to US national security".

It was a war crime when the invasion and occupation of Iraq was planned and executed, and it became the modern day example of why preemptive, war of aggression is illegal. IT IS TOO EASY TO GET IT WRONG, and they did. They got it wrong for doing it, in the first place, and they were proved wrong after they destroyed the stability of Iraq, and it's region, at a huge cost in human life and wealth.

Beleive what you want, ace....all I can do is try to place the record, in front of you:

Here is Mr. Bush himself, explaining his justification for illegal, preemptive war that he has planned and made the decision to pursue:
<b>ace....if you consider what Tenet said in his new book, and the quote from Rumsfeld in the above July, 2003 USA Today reporting, and the evidence in the "Downing Street Memos" that the US was "fixing the facts around the policy" to invade Iraq....it is not unreasonable to view the following Bush statement as a lie:</b>
Even with all of Colin Powell's protests about misleading and inaccurate information offered to him by the white house, the VP's office, and by the NSC, I documented, in this post, how Powell's presentation about Zarqawi's poison camp was misleading and inaccurate:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=47

ratbastid

ace, you don't experience being lied to because the WMD and threat-related justifications that the administration provided in selling the war weren't the things that justified the war in your eyes. If you had based your support for the war on those things the way many in congress did, I assert you'd feel differently.

On Saturday, a members of the Senate Intelligence Committee (which one I don't remember and I don't have time to look at the moment) said ON THE FLOOR that the intelligence they were shown in committee didn't jive at all with what the administration was saying to support the war, but because of secrecy rules, he couldn't say anything about that. The best he could do was to vote "no" to authorize. I don't know what more of a smoking gun you need, if that's not it. I know YOU weren't lied to, but congress and the American public absolutely was.

aceventura3

Facts that indicate that I was lied to.

Yes.

I saw Sadaam in a new light after 9/11 also.

Sadaam's military was not an issue for me. His desire for nuclear weapons and hatred for this country were issues for me. Things chnged after 9/11, you call it a change in spin, I don't. I think there was a need to take a fresh look at all information.

Have you ever "bottled up" a rattle snake as a kid? The snake is dangerous even when it is in the "bottle". You are only safe when the snake is killed or removed from the area.

If Bush embraced an illegal concept of pre-emptive war, why has no one taken any action, UN, Congress, RoW?

What was our motivation for this illegal war? Territory? Oil? Genocide? Spices? Trade routes? What?

He is saying exactly what I was thinking. He did exactly what I would have done.


Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but I have not seen a quote where Tenet said Bush or Chaney lied.

It is not a surprise to me that Bush, cheney and Rumsfeld wanted Sadaam's a$$ hanging from a tree. It is a suprise to me that it was a surprise to so many others including Tenet.


Are you saying Powell soldout to Bush and presented what he knew were lies. Are you saying Tenet soldout to Bush and that Tenet sat behind Powell during his presentation when he knew Powell was spreading lies to justify the war? And people think I am a cynic.

Perhaps that is the key.

In other words - the people who think Bush lied where persuaded to support the war based on what he said in speeches? So, a person who thought Bush was an idiot, that Bush wanted revenge, etc., bought into Bush's "sales pitch" for the war hook-line and sinker? O.k., I think I understand.

That is sad. If I thought we were going to war based on iformation that did not add up, I would risk saying something - even if it was against the rules. First I would have gone to Bush and said - there is a problem, things don't add up, let's see if you can clear these things up for me. You say you can't or won't - Then I have to do what I have to do!

Wouldn't you have done the same?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

host

ace....I am left with the impression that you "skipped over" the most prominent quote in my last post....the one from president Bush, on March 8, 2003:

ace....the Tenet quotes can be viewed in part two of the 60 Minutes interview, here:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...s-his-silence/
and this is in the NY Times article in my "Tenet book" thread, OP:
<b>ace....if you consider what Tenet said in his new book, and the quote from Rumsfeld in the above July, 2003 USA Today reporting, and the evidence in the "Downing Street Memos" that the US was "fixing the facts around the policy" to invade Iraq....it is not unreasonable to view the following Bush statement as a lie:</b>
....so, ace....is it more reasonable to believe that Bush's <b>"We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq"</b>, is misleading to the point, considering that it is about a life or death matter...of the gravity of whether or not "everything" is being done to avoid, going to war, that it is a lie....since it was the opposite....every effort was being made to justify a preemptive invasion of Iraq, while attempting to convince the world that it is a imminently necessary,....and legal thing to do, or is there a way to believe that Bush was telling us the truth about <b>"doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq"?</b>

We went to war without anyone in the executive branch asking the director of central intelligence if he thought it was the correct thing to do, whether is was necessary, and whether there were other alternatives other than going to war, to deal with the "threat" of Saddam's Iraq. How could Bush then say that <b>"We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq"?</b> Consider that Bush had enough confidence in Tenet, after March, 2003, to keep him as CIA director until Tenet himself decided to resign, in July, 2004.

Combine a preemptive "war of choice" with the information that Tenet was not asked about alternatives to war, or whether war was the correct decision, and I see evidence that Bush and Cheney committed the "ultimate crime against humanity"; illegal war of aggression!

ace, one "answer" is right, below.....I include it in all of my posts....the quote from Bush, on <b>August 16, 2006:</b>

aceventura3

I read it. I agree with Rumsfeld and saw information in a new light as well. I my view having a defiant dictator with control of billions of dollars and a history of agression and using chemical weapons was not acceptable.



You don't need Tenet's o.k. to go to war. The question does not point to lies by Bush. What does "imminent" mean anyway? Ask 100 people about an "imminent danger" you get 100 answers, who is telling the truth and who is telling the lie, the term is subjective.


I am just looking for the specific facts that were the basis of the lie prior to our invasion of Iraq.

True - we did not "do everything to avoid war" we could have bent over and took it up the *** for peace, we didn't. I think most people see that as a figurative statement, and most people would see that we did do a hell of alot prior to the invasion. So if that is what you consider a lie, you have one.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

ratbastid

You know what? All this noise with ace is just... noise.

The assertion is that Cheney (and by extension, Bush, although he's not specifically targeted yet) illegally manipulated the information used to convince congress and the public to support their war. Operative word: illegal. Just as illegal as Clinton lying under oath about the nature of his relationship with Lewinsky. Illegal. Prosecutable. Impeachable. That's the point.

I really don't care how anybody feels about the nature of the information, whether it was lies, whatever. The assertion that's being made in these articles is that such manipulation of information was illegal. Period, end of story.

Elphaba

ratbastard speaks the truth once again.

Hang out here more often, wudja?

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

host

ace, I don't think that you consider yet what Tenet's interview changes. If you haven't, please watch the entire interview at the crooks and liars link that I already posted.

Tenet says that revealing Valerie Plame's name had a serious negative effect on the people who he managed and led at CIA.....<b>that's the opposite of what you and other Bush/Cheney supporters have maintained:</b>
Tenet says that the "Slam Dunk" attribution made about him, could only have been told to Bob Woodward by four other people, besides Andy Carr, and Tenet did not think that Carr did it. He did say that Bush was one of the four. Since Tenet says he was saying "Slam Dunk" about the CIA's ability to greatly improve a presentation about the Iraq threat that Bush had seen and been very disappointed in, and not about the "case"...the justification to go to war, he regarded the distorted "Slam Dunk" leak to Woodward as a white house effort to discredit him, to scapegoat him as the one who told Bush that war against Iraq was justified. Tenet resigned just a short time, afterwards, and Bush/Cheney <b>have only now.....lost the "cover" of their false assertions that Tenet said justification for going to war was a "Slam Dunk"</b>:
.....ace, what has changed is that "Slam Dunk" was not a "reco" from Tenet that Bush should order US troops to invade Iraq, like the white house wanted us to believe, for exactly the laat three years.
We know that Bush claimed to "make an effort to avoid going to war".

How did he do that, when he did not ask his key cabinet and intelligence leader, or even his father something like,
but... Bush did not ask this from his father, his Sectary of Defense, of State, or of his CIA director.
Who the hell is Bush, and what was he thinking? I find these revelations of extreme concern and alarm, and you probably find it appealing....

How can a president claim to be making every effort to avoid war, without asking anyone but NSA's Rice and Karen Hughes, whether to do it, and how to avoid it, if possible?

aceventura3

Is "noise" a request to back-up an assertion of illegal activity with facts?

Does Kucinich provide proof that Cheney or Bush manipulated intelligence? What is it? Does anyone provide proof? What is it?

Did anyone other than Bush/Chaney bear any responsibility for the intelligence data used to support the war? Who?

Did you rely on statements from Bush/Chaney - if you actually ever supported the pre-emptive strike?

Did members of Congress lie when they made statements cosistent with the statements made by Bush/Cheney that Iraq was a threat? If not why not?

I agree there has been alot of "noise" in this discussion, I am just looking for some simple answers to basic questions. So far, I have not read any and at this point I don't expect any. It seems the general feeling is that bush and Cheney lied or illegally manipulated intlligence data and that facts don't really matter.

I saw the interview.

I agree, politics can be an ugly business. If I were Plame, I would not have allowed my husband to write editorial pieces for major newspapers while I was undercover, period. I don't excuse the White House for leaking her name, but if you are undercover, act like it.

The justification for going to war was a "slam dunk". I don't recall Bush saying Tenet's statement in that meeting was the reason he wanted to invade Iraq. Do you have that quote for Bush?


Sadaam had opportunity to comply with UN resolutions. Sadaam had opportunity to announce to the world and let the world verify that he had no stock piles of WMD. Saddam had opportunity to not shoot at our planes. Saddam had opportunity to not give $25k to terrorist's families. Sadaam had opportunity to be humble.

If I were against the war and in the President's circle, I would have said: Mr. President we should not invade Iraq for these reasons. There would not have been a need for the President to ask me the question. It seems Powell did that. So it looks like Powell was the only one with guts, or the only one against the war.
I find it not material to the OP.

He didn't ask me either? So what. When dealing with a man like Bush, you have to speak your mind. He knew what he wanted, the people around him needed to say what they thought if they actually thought it was a mistake. Congress needed to say what they actually thought if they thought it was a mistake.

Take Bush's upcoming veto of the military spending bill as an example. I bet he didn't ask anyone if he should veto the bill. He knew and knows what he was going to do. So, after the fact I can not accept people coming out of the closet with books or whatever, saying I thought the veto was a mistake, but Bush never asked me, so I did not say anything. That would truely be a line of bull.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

ubertuber

I'll answer your points out of order:

2) I did. When someone is making a case for something, I generally listen to their reasons when I am evaluating the arguments. I will say that I, at the time of invasion, supporting pre-emptive action against Iraq, based on things that the Bush Administration claimed. Colin Powell's presentation was advanced as findings of fact or near certainty. Now we know that most of it was based on wishful thinking, out of date information, or mistakes that the WH/CIA should plausibly have caught or qualified as such. My support was ill-placed and my trust was undeserved. Now that more information is available about the full scope of intelligence vs. the interpreted and filtered versions we were fed, I feel quite different about the ethical basis of pre-emptive invasion.

1) Intelligence agencies bear a responsibility to collect information and synthesize/analyze it in terms of plausible trends/outcomes/meanings. This did not happen to the appropriate degree. Part of the problem is that people in a position to know (Tenet, etc.) failed to stand up to their superiors who were intentionally misusing and misrepresenting data. I absolutely assign primary responsibility to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Rice. It is the executive branch which has the power to set the incentives and standards to which intelligence agencies are held. Through these things, the intelligence landscape is shaped in a real way. If what Tenet alleges is true (and I think his claims are consonant with my recollection of the tenor of administration arguments) and the Bush Adminstration began with the premise that Iraq was a threat that needed to be addressed militarily and cherry-picked evidence from there - of course blame and responsibility lie with the President and his staff. Who else could it be?

3) Trying to pin this on members of Congress or suggesting that their support is just lame - it's only one step away from "Clinton/Reagan did it too!" The vast majority of people in the House and Senate don't have access to anything like a full range of unfiltered/uninterpreted intelligence. They rely on the statements of the executive branch or the reports of the agencies (which, as we've known for some time were pressured to produce estimates that supported preconcieved policy notions). Who in the House or Senate has access to the necessary information to know better and a place from which to do verbal and PR battle with the White House? If that person existed and did that, would you have done anything other than scream that they were advancing an agenda solely to oppose the White House or that they were "soft on terror"? I doubt it - because the White House and RNC have worked very hard to paint any opposing parties as soft on national security, and then to make that charge the kiss of death through fear mongering. I say again, implying that because people not in a position to know better supported the invasion has anything to do with it being right or with the White House's performance is just lame.

My point? Either the WH willfully misled the public or they made a series of horrendous miscalculations that a reasonable amount of due diligence would have prevented. At the very least, assumptions were presented as fact and not deductions were not qualified as such. Both of those scenarios justify an investigation that could lead to criminal charges or even impeachment.

EDIT FOR SUBSEQUENT REPLIES

That's absolutely the most disgusting and rankly horrifying thing I've read in a long time. Because Sadaam "wasn't humble" there was a justification for pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign country and the ensuing death of numerous civilians and our own troops?????

Regarding Bush's staff, he's the boss. It's his responsibility to find people that will speak up, and it's his responsibility to create a culture in which advisors are able to do so. Indications have been that the perception of loyalty has been cultivated much more highly than either of these things. Consequently, it's Bush's responsbility that he fucked the first two points up and accordingly made really bad/uninformed/unchallenged decisions. In terms of the Congress, a lot of people in Congress DID say that - and as I mentioned before, they were working off of incomplete information in any case. They were not only challenged, but painted as soft on national security, easy on terror, and implied to be disloyal!

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

aceventura3

Just to clarify on your response #3, I am not trying to "pin" anything on Congress. I simply recall many members of Congress clearly saying Sadaam was a threat. If they did not have direct data or access to data to support those statements, perhaps they should not have made them. I find it ironic that "we" don't consider those statements "lies".

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

ubertuber

That's ridiculous. They had to vote on the resolutions, which carries the burden of debating based on information (which was misrepresented by the Bush Admin) and later explaining their votes to constituents/media.

You could call these statements lies, but you'd have to recognize that a lot of them were inadvertant lies due to deliberate deception.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

The_Jazz

Just to add to the discussion, Inhofe is now claiming that the WMD claims were overblown by the media.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/30/...iraq-invasion/

I'd like to see more of the context of these remarks, but the idea in general strikes me as being the act of a drowning man clutching for anything to keep himself afloat.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

host

Here it is, ace:
Cheney's justifications to Russert, last september were Tenet's "slam dunk", and Zarqawi "was present" in Iraq, "before we got there"....and "the poison camp at Kermal", that was in an area accessible to the Kurds and to the US military, but not to Saddam's troops or his government.

That was what was left of Cheney's justification to launch a preemptive invasion of another country ace..... 3300 dead US troops, 20,000+ wounded, close to a trillion dollars spent already, a destabilized Iraq in a destabilized region, a newly empowered Iran, with Iraq taken out, hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq.....AND NOW WE KNOW THAT NOT ONE OF CHENEY'S FEEBLE 9/10/07 EXCUSES TO JUSTIFY WAR TO RUSSERT, WAS EVEN TRUE....NOT ONE !!!!!
...ace, you're making a comparison of not asking advice before vetoing a spending bill, vs. not asking for advice or for possible alternatives, from your sec'ty of Defense, and sec'ty of State and director of central intelligence, and your own father, himself a recent POTUS who had a similar decision to make during his own presidential term.......before launching a preemptive war against a country of 25 million, half way around the world, in a very unstable region that provides 40 percent of the world's petroleum supply?

....and president Bush launched an invasion, over the objections of the UN security council, while UN weapons inspectors were saying that they had found no evidence of WMD and wanted more time to complete their inspections, because Saddam was said to be paying $25000 to families in Palestine whose children had committed suicide via blowing themselves up in terrorist attacks that took place exclusively in Israel, and because Iraq had made feeble attempts, over 12 years, to counter "no fly zone" patrols of US and UK military aircraft, "attempts" that had not resulted, in the 12 year period, of the loss of a single US or UK aircraft, and attempts that were already being countered by:
....and Wolfowitz justified war as a "cost saving" strategy.....not a reaction to the "provocation" of Iraqi air defense responses to no fly zone patrol aircraft:
Consider again, that the POTUS assured us in March, 2003, that he was doing "everything to avoid going to war".......yet he didn't even ask his key cabinet members and his intelligence chief whether they, if they were in his shoes, would attack Iraq, and he didn't ask them if they harbored alternatives to war.

.....ace, I did not think I would read an American writing that "if you're trying to maintain an undercover identity at the CIA, you should stop your husband from writing articles critical of the current political leadership, or expect that they'll retaliate against you, personally, by intentionally blowing your cover", or....words to that effect.....

dc_dux

ace....Kuncinich does not have to prove anything in order to initiate an impeachment inquiry. The House would determine if there is sufficient potential evidence to adopt the specific articles of impeachment (the House doesnt have to prove anything either). The Senate, in conducting a impeachment trial, is the only body to require proof in order to convict.

Bush and Cheney were not honest with Congress and the American people in the manner in which they used the intelligence to justify an invasion of Iraq:

"The president received highly classified intelligence reports containing information at odds with his justifications for going to war. " (further evidence Bush lied when he said he "went to Congress with the same intelligence....)
There is evidence here that raises questions about Bush' truthfulness with the American people.

Whether it is sufficient for an impeachment inquiry is for Congress to decide (and IMO, they wont unless further compelling evidence surfaces)...but that doesnt take away from the American people's right know the truth about Bush's words and actions that took us to war.

At the least, Bush/Cheney need to explain why they never acknowledged or made reference to the minority findings by DOE and State Dept. in any publc pronoucement about the intelligence findings regarding Saddams's nuclear capability....and Condi needs to explain her lie that Bush was not aware of the DOE and State findings when he made such pronoucements.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

even if the kucinich articles do not get anywhere, i think that the fact they exist is important. that the war was launched under what---at the very best---were dubious premises is a problem. A Problem. that ideological conditions were created such that congress approved the war without, apparently, an adequate interrogation of the evidence is a problem. A Problem. that these facts are self-evident at this point is itself another Problem. and that there appears still to be a political context that would allow for this kind of action to unfold WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT CONSEQUENCES IS ITSELF PERHAPS THE MOST TROUBLING OF PROBLEMS.

why? because it calls into question the ability of the american political apparatus to self-correct. beyond this, it calls into question the meaning of american pseudo-democracy---and this at a fundamental level---that of its functional legitimacy. i say functional legitimacy rather than legitimacy tout court because at this point i think that is the issue. aquiscence in the face of a debacle of the magnitude of the war in iraq is a problem for the whole of the american political system--it reveals something of a slide into a relation to political power characteristic of authoritarian regimes---the state is in itself the principle of cohesion and legitimacy, not the processes behind the state, whcih the state is to represent. the state is posited as one with "the nation" and so is fobbed off as the principle of unity in itself for a given political context. that would mean then that sovereignty resides in the state and not in the people. that would mean that division within the state apparatus--e.g. processes of holding the bush administration to account for its actions in iraq---represent divisions within the otherwise unified nation, and so in itself represents the fragmentation of the nation. all of this runs in a direction that is absolutely the opposite of any semblance of democratic notions of popular sovereignty--within which it is the people--divided, committed to contestation, debate, critical reflection--who are the source of state power--and in a democratic polity it is axiomatic that the people ARE NOT ONE---from this follows representations of the political such that division is not in itself something to be feared--and with that the political conditions of possibility for holding an administration to account are generated at the level of conceptions of the political in general.

the bush people CHOSE to go down this authoritarian route at the level of ideology within hours of 9/11/2001. they have framed every last thing they have done in these terms since: in the case of iraq, they have pushed this to its cynical limits by arguing that any internal debate over the legitimacy of the war amounts to the theater of dividedness of the Will--well if the united states were anything like an actual democracy, the Will would ALWAYS be divided at one level or another and this would be an indication of the HEALTH of the polity, not a threat to it. the discourse of the nation, of national will is in itself authoritarian, a rhetoric that loops directly through these nutty ideas that the state in itself IS the unity of the people, that the people who occupy power now ARE the nation, blah blah blah.

so when you attempt to dissolve the issue of false premises for the war in iraq, ace, i wonder if you know what it is that you are really defending. it goes beyond partisan affection for the bush squad. and it is not pretty.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

Do you think Powell lied? Do you think Tenet lied, or sat back and was silent while others lied based on data from the CIA?

Also, help me understand proper decision making technique. If I have pieces of conflicting information and I make a judgement to use the pieces that support a certain action, and then I make a public statement indicating that I have information supporting that action, how is that a lie? What would be the proper technique to arrive a decision? what is the proper technique to communicate the decision in a short speech without commenting on all the data used no matter how material?

Why didn't someone in Congress insist upon looking at the intelligence before voting?

You are correct Kucinich doesn't have to prove anything. However, it would be nice if he had presented a compelling argument.

We would have gone to war with Iraq with or without intelligence on the aluminum tubes. However, I do understand that those who believe Bush and Chaney lied sincerely believe it, and that poor intellegence or making an error in judgement are not possibilities (I think there was poor intelligence, I would have supported the preemtive attack and overthrow of Sadaam anyway, and the only error in judgement was in the way we have handled the "occupation").

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

Yes....Powelll cherry-picked the intelligence and you only need to look at Tenet's declassifed NIE provided to Congress (below)

Under the current national security laws, most members of Congress are not authorized to look at the classfied NIE..only the Intel Committees have access. Congress must, by default rely on the truthfulness of the CIA and WHite House.

And the Dems on the Intel Committee demanded that a declassifed version be provided to the full Congress prior to the vote. Here is what they got:
At the very least, it is a lie of omission...when a President is asking Congress to vote on putting American lives on the line and asking the American people to support such an action, the people deserve to know all the facts and findings from the NIE...not just those that support the President's position

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

The_Jazz

First, I must point out that roachboy must feel particularly strongly on this subject to have found his shift key so consistently throughout his post.

I will admit to not caring about the ideals of the system; I simply care about the functionality of that system and the best, most efficient ways in which the items I support can move through it. That said, the more that comes to light about the Iraq war, the more I come to believe that the system fundamentally failed. More accurately, I think the system was gamed by those in power.

Members of Congress who voted for or against the war did so based only on the information provided by the administration. To my knowledge no member of Congress has unfettered access to raw intelligence in the same manner as the President. The oversite committees receive only briefs prepared by members of the administration and could be steered in certain directions. I have come to believe that they were. The average member of Congress would never be allowed to see (and shouldn't in my opinion) restricted-access intelligence documents. They simply don't have the security clearance necessary. I think that answers the question of why Congress didn't ask for more information - they couldn't. They were only given the information provided by the administration and the rest of the executive branch.

I believe that Colin Powell was similarly steered.

Ace, you have been put in the unfortunate position of trying to defend something that I think that you don't agree with completely. As such, you've become the sounding board upon which all questions on this topic are tested. It seems that you still support the ideals behind the initial invasion, you are starting to doubt some things with the rest of us. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but it's just an observation from the last few months of these conversations and not meant to be taken negatively at all. With it in mind, I basically want to acknowledge your service as the counter-point to all the anti-invasion arguments.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

host

ace....this is an excerpt of the same Cheney interview of Sept. 10, 2006, that Tenet says is a betrayl....Cheney cites Tenet as saying "Slam Dunk" as to Tenet's certainty that intelligence findings justify invading and occupying Iraq:
We now know, because Tenet has finally commented, that Cheney's assertion that Tenet said the justification for going to war is a "Slam Dunk", is false....

Is there anything else that Cheney says above, to defend going to war with Iraq, besides your oft cited, "Saddam paid families of suicide bombers $25,000" that Cheney said to defend going to war, that has not been discredited.....if you see such a thing in the above quote box, please point it out. If not.....isn't it at least disturbing, that the justifications for war that Cheney gave to Russert on 9/10/2006, 3-1/2 years after the invasion of Iraq, are "Slam Dunk", "Zarqawi was present in Iraq"....even though there was no proof that Saddam or his government tolerated his "presence", and it had since been shown that they did not....they had tried to capture him, and that he "trained terrorists at a poison camp".....a long discredited assertion, refuted when Powell first told it to the UN, a camp that the US was accused of allowing to exist because it was about the only "justification" that they had to attack Iraq in early 2003?

The camp that Cheney inaccurately said was at "Kermal" was nearby....proven not to be in an area that Saddam's troops or agents had access to, either by ground or by air....but it was located in an area accessible by US allies....the Kurds, and in an area of the "no fly zone"....under airspace controlled by US and UK warplanes.

Isn't it at least "odd" that Cheney still repeats these disproven and discredited "reasons"....doesn't the "slam dunk" citation finally discredited by Tenet himself, this week, and Cheney repeating them, as recently as 4 weeks ago in an interview with Rush, at least make Cheney's credibility suspect, in your eyes, ace? How do you do it.....how do you not take any of it into account?

Doesn't it make sense that Cheney says this "stuff" because he has nothing better to say to justify going to war....a war that has turned out to be a disaster, and was said by many experts, to be illegal aggression, even before it began? If all Cheney has to justify going to war, is "Saddam paid $25,000" and his "Tenet said slam dunk" and "Zarqawi ran a poison camp" are disproven bullshit spin, would you ever consider them to be lies? Is Cheney allowed, with a democratic majority now, in the congress, to simply go on telling the same lies to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Isn't that dysfunctional, a bad sign of the state of the American system of government, ace.....What are you defending, then? What do you stand for?
Why do you support such a low level of integrity and honesty in your leaders?

roachboy

first off, the last line of mr jazz's post above deserves to be highlighted, so there we are.

second: i'm not talking about ideals in my last post: i'm talking about something far more functional in what i guess i'd call an operational understanding of what this political system is, which is an extension of ideology (the structured relations to the system as a whole, which in turn shapes attitudes toward that system, both internally (amongst members of the polity) and from the outside (international community which watches and reads off what is done or not done information about the american system)...it was meant simply to say that there seem to me to be quite broad implications around this matter that become clear only if you switch the way you see this for a minute (think of it as an experiment)---at bottom, the idea was to link the authoritarian drift in american politics back to the conservative ideology that enabled it from 2001....and so see in the paralysis of the system insofar as doing anything to hold this administration to account for itself, for its actions, particularly in iraq something symptomatic of that greater problem.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

ace...I just dont understand how anyone can accept less than the full truth, including the dissenting intelligence, from this or any president when he is asking to take the country to war.

And I dont understand why this lack of candor with the American should not be investigated futher (since the Repub Congress did virtually nothing), with the hope of preventing it from happening again.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire