Articles of Impeachment against Dick Cheney
 

Dennis Kucinich has followed through on the promise he's been making for the last few days. He's written up and posted Articles of Impeachment against Cheney, and will be presenting them at a news conference at 5:00 this afternoon.

The articles and related documents can be read here: http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm

In short, there are three aspects: Cheney is accused of 1) manipulating intelligence to sell the Iraq war, 2) lying about a connection between Iraq and Al Qaida, and 3) Forwarding a plan to attack Iran without solid evidence of Iranian wrongdoing.

Couple things seem funny to me about this. First, it's impossible not to put this in context of Kucinich's run for the Democratic nomination. There's a strong demand for impeachment in the middle-to-left segment of the party. Is this a play for nomination votes?

Second, why Cheney and not Bush? I know Cheney's had a historically unparalleled amount of independence as VP, and he's been a key player in the administration in both policy and PR roles. Does Kuchinich think Cheney is really the man behind it all? Or is he just the low hanging fruit? The weak link that will break the chain of the whole administration?

I think it is a combination of low hanging fruit and a realization that Cheney is probably responsible for a lot of the missteps. People don't think Bush is all that smart and they believe he is easily manipulated by people around him (Rove and Cheney).


This probably isn't going to go anywhere past the first couple of stages of the impeachment before it is tabled or removed. And if it does get serious it will be come highly partisan and then stall.

The fastest thing to improve Bush's approval ratings would be impeachment proceedings against him or Cheney. Kucinich can't really be that stupid. If he thought it would actually go somewhere I doubt he'd have done it.

In my opinion, this is a very well contemplated move, and likely the most damaging to republican chances in 2008. By bringing to light the "deficiencies" of the Cheney handling of his office they will inevitably lower the standing of his boss without actually damaging the credibility of the office of the POTUS directly. Instead it places the abilities of the MAN holding that position in question, and at the same time brings the obvious corruption of administration power to task.
If this manages to go anywhere (highly unlikely) it may very well accomplish something no one has managed, It might force truth from a deceitful group of people....or at the minimum force them to pull a Gonzalez.

Yeah...we all know how Clintons' rating shot through the roof in similar circumstances.

Clinton's approvals did skyrocket during impeachment. That's why I said that.

I dont doubt Kucinich in his sincerity that this is the right and justifiable thing to do, rather than having any political motivation to boost his (less than marginal) presidential campaign.

But much like his bill for a cabinet-level Department of Peace and Non-Violence, this impeachment resolution is going nowhere. The next step would be for the House Judiciary Committee to hold an impeachment inquiry hearing. Unlike other committee hearings, to hold an impeachment inquiry requires a majority vote of the full House, and at best, he has a handful of Dems who would vote "aye"

Bush could cave without Cheney, or he may be an evil genius. The point is, the only way out of this is to have them both impeached and have president Pelosi choose me as VP.

Would Pelosi become VP if Cheney were impeached?

That would be too funny.

I think Bush would choose another VP.

I don't remember that happening!? It (impeachment proceedings ) were a bad thing......:confused:

In truth, his ratings did go up.....though other factors likely led to this. After the impeachment trial was completed his ratings dropped significantly, Though he still enjoyed numbers double the current President.

"President Clinton's job-approval numbers enjoyed an uptick in the first national polls taken after NATO and Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic signed their tentative agreement. Even so, a successful accord may not solve a more systemic political problem facing the President. A growing public pessimism--about the country and where it is headed--exists independent of events in Kosovo and, for that matter, in spite of a strong economy and a booming stock market.

President Clinton's highest-ever job-approval numbers in Gallup Organization polling for CNN and USA Today came in a survey taken on Dec. 19-20, 1998, the weekend that the House approved articles of impeachment against the President. Six Gallup polls taken during the Jan. 7-Feb. 12 Senate trial showed Clinton's job-approval rating consistently between 65 percent and 70 percent, with his disapproval rating ranging from 27 percent to 33 percent. Clinton enjoyed a postimpeachment halo for another month, with his Gallup job-approval ratings in four polls ranging from 66 percent to 68 percent. This is an extraordinary level for a President in his seventh year in office. Ronald Reagan's job- approval rating in the Gallup Poll, at this point in his second term, was only 48 percent; the very popular Dwight D. Eisenhower, the only other post-World War II President to serve two full terms, had a 64 percent approval rating at this point in his tenure.

From mid-March to early May, eight Gallup polls showed Clinton's approval ratings dropping down into the 59 percent to 64 percent range. A May 23-24 poll showed it dropping even more, down to 53 percent, with 42 percent disapproving of his job performance. These were Clinton's worst numbers in the Gallup Poll since August 1996. His lowest approval rating came early in his first term, in June 1993, when only 37 percent approved of his performance, while 49 percent disapproved. In early September 1994, his disapproval rating climbed to 54 percent. Presidents with job-approval ratings below 50 percent tend to fall into the Rodney Dangerfield zone: They get no respect from political opponents, the media, or even other members of their own party."

http://www.cookpolitical.com/column/1999/061299.php

Cheney's popularity according to the polls is less than 10%, and he is largely viewed as the directing influence of all that has come undone, within this administration. Cheney has done nothing to endear himself to Congress, so where will he find support in response to impeachment proceedings? Even Bush has put some distance between himself and his Vice President.

I think Kucinich made this move because he believes it is the appropriate thing to do, rather than for personal political advantage. Politics will be the major motivation in how others respond to this.

I am inclined to think that Cheney, like Rumsfeld, has become a liability for the President, and that Cheney will resign soon due to medical reasons. This only serves as another distraction to far more important revelations and investigations that are not getting enough notice.

Yes.
As Nixon chose Ford as his Veep after Agnew was forced to resign.

I think the 25th amendment (which primarily deals with the incapacitation of the Pres) would kick in here as well:

Amendment XXV

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...ndmentxxv.html

Confirmation by both the House and Senate would make for an interesting scenario, particularly if we were to extend the scenario further with the thought that Bush could nominate someone like say, Condi Rice?

But it aint gonna happen. Kucinich has ZERO co-sponsors for his impeachment resolution.

If Bush and Cheney were removed from their offices, Pelosi would become president and choose her own vice.

Kucinich would do well to get better press on this and to get more proof. The more proof he has, the more likely he will have important supporters. He's got my vote if I ever life in Ohio.

like others have said, i support this idea but without any illusions about its chances of getting anywhere at this point.

but the situation seems kinda volitile: for example it'll be interesting to see how the subpoena of rice drama plays out: if she testifies and and is forthcoming about the administration's political machinations in the run-up to the iraq debacle, then it would seem possible for this to move--but i do not expect forthcomingness---if she testifies and lies, then all bets are off and this could move forward. so i would expect a real fight over whether she testifies.

while i suspect that the causal linkages above are drawn using a spirograph with lots of wishful thinking shapes included, it nonetheless seems to me that the fate of this initiative is a dependent variable...and that if situationally things move in a straight line, it is a gesture more than anything else...btu it is not obvious that the straight line is the only possible line. so i am waiting to see how other things play out.

Given - you don't think this is going anywhere and given (assuming he has done his homework and knows) the votes are not there, how do you conclude his sincerity is real and not motivated by political reasons?

Just my opinion, from following his words and deeds since before our invasion of Iraq (which he vocally opposed) and based on conversations with friends on Capitol Hill who know him personally.

How is it possible not to filter (cherry pick or whatever you want to call it) through tons of data to make a case on anything, yet alone a war? Seems to me it can not be done. Perhaps we can disagree on the importance of certain information, etc., but everyone should have a right to make their case. So he is guilty of picking information that supports his desire to invade Iraq, isn't it up to those against war to do their due diligence? Perhaps they should be removed from any position of responsibility too.

To anyone saying Cheney lied about this please define what you would consider a "connection"? This term is too vague to say he lied.

This can't be a serious point, that would lead to impeachment. Iranian wrong doing...where to start...

You avoid a direct answer to the question. If he knows this is going nowhere, what is the point? Or, do you believe he thinks this will succeed?

IMO, he based this and many other political decisions on what he believes is the morally correct thing to do (like having a Department of Peace), whether it is politically popular or whether it will succeed or not. Is that so wrong?

I have also said in every discussion here about impeachment, that the evidence is not there. There is plausible deniability by Bush and Cheney on charges like those in the Kucinich resolution.

I believe they should be impeached, but I still havent seen the "smoking gun" that would justify an impeachment inquiry......yet.

Again, no direct response. In other words your opinion is based on - because he said so - others have said so - and he just a good guy.

I am sure everyone already knows what I think, but just in case. This is a political move, designed for a boost in the polls and a boost in fund raising.

Ace, how is it possible to do due diligence without access to the information? Cheney et al spoke of clandestine information without revealing any of the specifics. How is it possible to refute it?

Given that, how could anyone make a case against it? If you're only given the cherry-picked information and none of the conflicting information, you're only left with "feelings" and "suspicions", neither of which are particularly compelling.

Kucinich has always been consistently against the war, and I don't think that he harbors any illussions about being elected President. Sure, these articles further his agenda, but it's an agenda he passionately believes in. What's wrong with that?

By not accepting it. You say the following: I will not comit this nation to war based on clandestine information unless and until your reveal it. You also say the following - I know that you ( Mr. Cheney) have put forth your strongest case for war, it is my responsibility to review all the information, pro and con, before I make final judgement. I will to review all intelligence data, and need to have unhindered access to all the people involved in providing the intellegence. Otherwise, my vote is no!

You don't accept cherry picked information. Never. When I buy a car, I don't rely on the salemen. When I buy a house, I don't rely on the real-estate agent. When I buy a stock I don't rely on my broker. I do my homework. Why would Congress buy a war, without doing their homework. Please tell me, and I will drop this. In every discussion about the war, I bring up the same point. I have never gotten a good answer. If Congress was aspleep at the wheel, how can they now say they where lied to, and believe that thinking people will absolve them of responsibility of buying it? At least Kucinich has been against the war from the begining.

I love passionate people. There is nothing wrong with Kucinich, or him doing what he thinks is right for whatever the reasons. When I call politicing - politicing, there has been a problem with that, however, I will continue to call 'em like I sees 'em.

So what you're saying is that the Executive is fundamentally untrustworthy, and what they say shouldn't be believed without unfettered access to documentary evidence? Because that's PRECISELY what these articles of impeachment say.

I said what I said for all to read. In the words of Reagan- "trust but verify".

Ace, most members of Congress don't have the security clearance necessary to view most of the information. Without making any judgement on whether or not the intelligence was worthy of "top secret" status or not, anyone who sees it has to have gone through the necessary procedures required by law, including background checks, etc. That's not a part of being in either the House or the Senate, although it is to be on the Intelligence Committees. It's not like Congress could just google "Iraq Secret Chemical Weapons" and expect to get credible information of the type necessary to support (or not) the administration's arguement. There is no "Intelligence Consumer Reports" or "The Robb Report on Iraqi Weapons". Using any sort of consumer analogy is one big ol' strawman.

So many Democrats voted by using the "information available at the time". There was no possible way for Congress to do their "homework". The only information that they were allowed, by law, was what the administration was willing to tell them, and even that was supposed to be a major concession on the administration's part. That information proved to be false, and the problem is that the administration knew that. It would be one thing if there wasn't any intelligenct to the contrary, but there was plenty of it. If they didn't know, they should have. Hence the problem.

ace, i have to say that while i recognize the seriousness of the point you're making, i think that this underscores exactly the problem with this administration, similarly to what ratbastid just pointed out. the idea is for the people in charge to look at the data, and then develop a position...not to take a position, then pull facts to support it. that's the entire problem, in a nutshell. they did the latter...and now its backfiring bigtime. not just on them, but the whole country is catching it for that fuck up.

as for kucinich, i agree that to say he doesn't have political motivations is definitely naive...he's a politician. if this issue keeps the questions about many of this administration's policies and procedures in the spot light and / or motivates others to seriously question them, then i think its a victory. just putting impeachment on the table is a big step.

edit: mega-dittos to jazz too.

/god, i love being able to type "mega-fucking-dittos"

additionally, as for the political aspects; don't forget that its just as likely that such a move will lose him votes instead of gaining them. while a lot of people may think cheney is the spawn of satan, we tend to do a bit of rally-round-the-flagpole when its a question of military engagement. at least until it gets really bad, and frankly with the insulation most americans have from this war we're not at the point of losing faith completely on a national scale.

I know we are drifting off topic a bit, but I will be brief.

Psst!:paranoid: I want your vote to comit our country to a multi-billion dollar, bloody war that will cost American lives. I can't tell you exactly why I came to that conclusion, but Iraq is really, really, bad, oh and they are connected to other really, really bad people - trust me.:thumbsup:

What sould the average person do with that? What should elected officials do with that? What should the media do with that? I know I am simplifying this, but perhaps some folks in Congress should have insisted on seeing what Cheney and Bush saw, and report back to the rest. Oh, wait, they did that. Sorry.

I thought the decision at the time was the correct decision, just like millions of others including people in other countries. I thought the reasons given where clear, and I understood them. We did not go to war simply based on the weapons of mass destruction issue or the "link" issue. I was not lied to. My support of invading Iraq was not singularly based on statements by Bush or Cheney. I guess that was not true for the folks in Congress who voted for the war but were against it based on what they think are lies.

Kucinich speaks for himself in the link below. I totally missed the most important reason of all...Iran.

Link

ace:
first off it is beyond ironic that you claim that you would not rely on cherry-picked information in the purchase of a car, but you seem to have relied on it when you decided to support the bush administration and its lurid little colonial adventure in iraq. but wait--you are inclined to trust the administration and so you assume their information is in general truthful--but you are not inclined to trust the car dealer because, well, "car dealer" is just a name in a sentence which does not and cannot refer to anyone in particular.

the answer seems to me obvious--in the run-up to the iraq debacle,congress--republican controlled congress--was presented with manufactured evidence, tendentiously constructed evidence, false evidence from an administration which the then-majority supported politically and which the then-majority was inclined to trust. in 2003 conservatives, like their proxies in the then-majority in congress, were inclined to trust the administration.

there are no objective rules that can obviate the fundamental role played in even the most tightly regulated administrative apparatus by trust, by personal relationships and the expectations built across them.

you seem to want the iraq mess to devolve into mush now because it suits your political purposes to dissolve it into mush.
but you know full well that congress reviewed "evidence" presented them by the administration. you know full well that while a thorough review was possible, it did not happen, and that a good explanation for why it did not happen is the trust the then-majority had in the good faith of the administration--it is just like, say, academic articles--it is always possible that one's footnotes could be wrong or made up--but generally, no-one checks. why? the name of the author is functionally a guarantee against such problems.
why? because of the assumptions about the nature and integrity of review processes in refereed journals--but the broader social context of academic work in general informs this assumption. here too, one;s relation to evidence is fundamentally rooted in one's assumptions about the writer or speaker.

and when it turns out that the rules have been violated, the fault lay with the writer or speaker. the writer is the person responsible for the selection and ordering of information--if the information is fucked up, it is the writer's fault--BEFORE it is the fault of the readers who believed the article was true.

but this is self-evident, ace.
i really do not see what your arguments are geared toward accomplishing.
was congress remiss in accepting the administration's case? yes. whose fault is that? the administration's first and foremost, because they put forward the false evidence and then relied on (an abuse of) trust/credibility.
is congress responsible for the iraq debacle? in part yes--but congress is not responsible for being lied to by the administration.
but you already know all this, ace.
i think you are being disengenous.

I went to Kucinich's websit and read on of the documents used to support his case. Here is what Chaney said about Al Qeada.

http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1A.pdf

There is a clear seperation between Al Qeada and Iraq, I am not sure how the above supports the impeachment, I need some help with it.

Many factors went into my support of the war, including our failure to take Sadaam out of powere during the first Gulf War against Iraq.

At this point - if I were sincerely against the war, my efforts would be focused on ending it, not retreading what got us into the war. If my concern was with Iran and statements coming from the White House on Iran, I would focus my efforts on setting the record straight. To focus on impeachment is either an error in judgement or purely political. But that is just me, Kuncinich is different and clearly smarter than me, I am sure he has a grand plan that I can not see at the moment. A plan that will be more meaningful than just a stunt to get publicity.

ok so now the argument is different.

as for "taking out saddam hussein the first time"--there was no mandate for that. it couldnt have happened. you're dreaming if you think otherwise--as were those fine fellows at theproject for a new american century when they cooked up the idea of a second war--as much a fuck you to the united nations as one against iraq--to right the percieved wrong done to amurica and the john wayne for which it stands.

on the second part---in a way i almost agree with you: the debacle in iraq should be ended. this is a priority, and there should be a showdown in the coming days over this, if bush vetoes the bill that the senate just passed.

but this does not obviate the obvious fact that the administration presented a false case for war in the first place.

the fact of the war in iraq is also a very considerable political liability for the united states internationally, and much is at stake in generating the impression--if not the reality--that the system can correct itself.

so the administration absolutely should be held to account for the fact of the war itself. period. whether this can extend to impeachment or not, i dont know--i doubt that kucinich's articles will go anywhere at the momentm, but like i said earlier, the situation is not stable and parameters may well change.

on iran: the idea of invading iran is pure and simple lunacy. the only reason to even consider such a move is transparently about the administration looking to prop itself up. but the consequences will be a fiasco that will make iraq look like a day in the park. there are no justifications for any such action in any event. ahmadinejad is in an even weaker political position than is george w bush: there is not reason to not expect that his government will fall WITHOUT an american action--though of course (again parallel with the american administration) the best thing that could happen to a weakened reactionary is a nice little war.

I'm stunned at this attempt to put the blame for the administration's falsehoods on the Democrat members of congress, who a) weren't the ones who lied and who b) were in the very marginalized minority at the time.

"Yes, your honor, I sold the child the poison. And YES, I told him it was candy. But HE'S the idiot who ate it!"

Ace, I have read others challenging your "proofs" as mere cherry picking, but I've seen it for myself with this bit:

Ace, you plucked one paragraph from a six page interview (Cheney in Bahrain, 2002) that was just one among the 16 citings you had to choose from. I believe this form of debate to be fundamentally dishonest, and I now understand why your positions have lost credence in this forum.

Anyone interested in a full presentation of Kucinich's articles of impeachment should use the following link:

http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm

As a matter of fact, Kucinich does have a plan. He introduced a bill (HR 1234) with his 12-point plan to end the US occupation of Iraq back in Feb.

The elements of his plan are here (link).

He has also made numerous floor speeches about Iran, often to correct a Bush lie (like Iran is the major source of arms for Iraqi insurgents) or the bellicose rhetoric from Cheney about Iran nuclear capability. Here is just one brief sample from last Sept:

"Iran should not have nuclear weapons; and, along with the United States as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, should work with the community of nations to abolish all nuclear weapons, as is the express intent of the NPT.

"However, this Administration is trying to create an international crisis by inflating Iran's nuclear development into another Iraq WMD hoax. There they go again.

"Today, the House will consider a bill [H.R. 6198, the Iran Freedom Support Act] which will give the Administration a pass on covert activities it has already undertaken in Iran to attempt to destabilize the government. Additionally, today's bill will enable another Rendon-type propaganda machine to feed the US media a steady stream of lies, all to set the stage for a war against Iran.

"Think about it: this, without a single hearing on Iran in this Congress. Think about it: this, while the State Department and DOD are ducking even classified briefings.

"There is a Chinese proverb that says: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Will Congress be fooled again into supporting still another war against still another nation, which is not an imminent threat and which has no intention nor capability of attacking the United States?"

(Congressional Record - pdf)

Wow...another Dem who can multi-task.

IMO, articles of impeachment should be drawn up in the house for Bush and Cheney, immediately. George Tenet should be subpoenaed as a key witness, and kept in custody of the congress, in a "safe house".

Benjamin Ferencz should be enlisted by the house impeachment committee as their counsel, since the main charge agains the POTUS and his VP involve crimes against the US Constitution....willful violations of international treaties that the US senate has ratified, past POTUS's have signed, and that the US has been an enthusiastic party to, and enforcer of....for many years.

I've detailed my support for the above in a new thread, here:
<b>Poll: George Tenet's New Book: Is US in Iraq Similar "Aggressive War" Charged at Nuremberg</b>
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=116872

I don't know what more any of you, or anyone in congress with respect for the US Constitution, and of the principles that we in the U.S. all hold dear, would need before you would take Kucinich and his charges more seriously.
I'm puzzled....are you worn down by cynicism....IMO, this is "it". Tenet lays it out simply and precisely in his new book:
I've never been discouraged from calling what happened in Iraq, what it is....a crime of "War of aggression"....what was described by US prosecutors at Nuremberg as the "ultimate crime against humanity"....because it spawns so many other crimes, once such a war is pursued.
Nothing will happen unless each of us can admit to ourselves that our elected leaders seem to have done this....ordered it....knowing that it was avoidable and not justified by an "imminent threat". It's time to drop the cyniscism...time to shit or get off the pot !

I don't think there were falsehoods.
I think people who voted for the war knew all of the reasons they supported the war and had opportunities to take stands against the war before we actually went to war. To now say it is "Bush's war" without taking their fair share of the responsibility is wrong in my opinion. I don't consider our Congress child like, they are responsible adults.

It is true I have my bias' and put more time and effort into researching those things that support my point of view. I have stated that many times, and in my posts above I state that "we" have a responsibility to do our own homework.

Regarding the quote I cherry picked - I simply read the first submission. I did not go through each one, yet. However, if Kucinich is presenting his best case, and he leads with what I read, he made an error because most won't go through everything if there is no compelling proof to start with. I am going to read the rest.

However, the question is on the table, how can anyone read what Chaney said and believe he directly connected Al Qeada and Iraq? Why was that document used? Perhaps I missed something.

It is a given that members of Congress can multi-task. Do you think it possible that a Democrat can have an agenda to gain publicity or do things for purely political reasons?

uh...ace? isn't any gesture by any politico always done at one level or another because it feeds into the public image of that politico?
it seems a structural feature of being a politico at all.
this seems to me like one of those variables that effectively cancels out as you move to solve an equation that initially involves it.
of you are making a particular claim about kucinich that goes beyond the above--and it is obviously possible to do so in certain cases--then why not just make the claim?

My question to DC has a history to it. I have no problem with people doing what they think is in their best intrest or doing things for political gain, good often comes from it. For some reason when I say a democrat has a political agenda ( perhaps because of my level of certainty or my tone), many seem to take offense to the comment. However, it is what it is, and I do agree that people can be motivated by multiple reasons.

I just read the second exhibit posted by Kucinich.

Here is were Cheney talks about weapons of mass destruction:

This is strike two in my book. Please can someone point out the lie?
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1B.pdf

ace.....the impeachment charges against Cheney are a cumulative reaction to things like.....this:
<b>Curiously, on June 17, 2004, VP Cheney seems to have denied his own Nov. and Dec., 2001, publicly televised, videotaped, and officially archived statements:</b>
3 weeks later, last September, when some of the the determinations about Iraq of the Senate intel. committee were finally released, Mr. Cheney spoke to Tim Russert and said the opposite of what the Senate intel. report and the CIA had concluded. Cheney did the same thing this week, on April 5.....telling the same long disproved falsehoods that he told last September, and many times before that:
That was Cheney, this week, and this was Bush, himself, in 2002 and 2003:
....and Bush again, here:
From my Sept. 12, 2006 post:

Posted May 2, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=63
Posted May 2, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=64
Posted June 26, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=22
Posted Sept. 9, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...93&postcount=7
Posted Sept. 15, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=47
.....and this article:
Mr. Bush was talking about "take threats before they fully materialize"......and when the "Zarqawi was there" declaration is exposed as a lie what remans to justify the invasion of iraq aside from illegal aggressive war?

Note how the Bush administration reacted to Sen. Levn's damning September 8, 2006 statement:
The following is a compilaton of their reaction to Levin and the senate committee report.......

....and Cheney was "at it" again a month later:
ace....consider this:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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....

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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>

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.

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.

ratbastard speaks the truth once again.

Hang out here more often, wudja? :)

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?

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.

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!

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".

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.

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.

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.....

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.

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.

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").

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

I can across an interesting article ( from a diplomacy school, given my views of text book diplomats, go figure). He talks about the flaws in dealing with intelligence, it seems that the standard you are setting with Bush, if applied to historical figures/settings and their faulty use of intelligence it would mean no one would get the benefit of the doubt for an error an judgement ( not that I am saying the Iraq invasion was an error). I could possibly conceed an error in judgement, but not a lie given what I know. And like I have posted many times, leaders need people who can stand up and ask questions when they need to be asked and that we should never blindly accept a "sales pitch" for war without doing our homework and being compfortable with the "whys". I did my homework and I was comfortable with the "whys" and I did not rely on speeches at the UN, to Congress, or interviews on NBC. Hopefully there will not be a next time, but if there is... Here is a quote and link.

http://www.uky.edu/~stempel/error.htm

There was no doubt Bush's ego was tied up into aggressive action. Everyone knew it. Given his singular focus that makes the lack of conviction by those now saying it is Bush's war even more shameful. I think by saying he lied, it is just an excuse since the war turned south.

Here is another quote, I am sure many will enjoy.

This is not brain surgery and I know I have been called a cynic, but I never accept someone else's research or intelligence on blind faith. So, the folks that have been "lied" to seem to be in a catch 22 in my view. You either believed the intelligence and now are making an excuse or you did not do your homework up front. I am not sure what is worse, but Bush did what every decision maker does.

Powell was directly reviewing the intelligence. Tenet was right there by his side. Powell had control of his words. Tenet could have said something to Powell, but did not.

I think the intelligence was our best shot at what we thought. There was intelligence pointing to going to war, and Bush made his case on that information as well as information that was common knowledge. I think our error has been in our occupation.

ace, i can't speak for others, as i was against this little foray from the get go. i remember being at a friend's house when the news conference came on about us dropping hell on baghdad, and thinking to myself 'fuck, here we go. this is not going to end well.' as for the conversation, what i find annoying, personally, is that we are largely having a synthetic conversation in my opinion. if this was a game of risk or axis and allies, no one would suggest invading papau new guinnea to free the new ginneans. i think we clearly went in because of a perceived need to assure access to oil and for the ability to militarily respond to situations in the middle east. if i recall correctly, we had some problems getting approval to fly through certain countries air space when we went into afganistan. i'm as bothered by the fact that we keep rehashing all this wmd and operation iraqi freedom! nonsense as i am by the fact that we went in in the first place. the problem with discussing the united states pre-emptively invading another country to protect our strategic interests in light of concerns over world oil supply, economic stability of the $, and military response times and effectiveness is that it clearly violates international law to do so. so we have all these horseshit (my opinion) justifications for what i think was a cold-blooded decision influenced by think-tank guys like pnac. certainly the fact that the war didn't end in six weeks with iraqi children racing into the streets to wash the feet of our victorious soldiers has not made it easy to get away with. its become very messy, and the fact that our administration seems to have either outright lied or blissfully wallowed in feigned ignornace would seem to be a conversation and investigation that is necessary for the american public to engage in, per roach's post above. what do we really stand for?

ace...you are either intentionally or ignorantly misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I said and the factual information I provided in my last few posts.

I know that there are flaws in dealing with intelligence. I am not faulting Bush's judgement for selecting one set of intelligence date over another, even though I believe, like others have said here, that he was looking for the intel that would support his pre-determined objective to invade Iraq, rather than assessing the intel objectively.

I am faulting him for not diisclosing that there was conflicting intelligence when he made his case to the public (your earlier point that it would taken too much time in his short speeches is a ridiculous rationalization....it would have taken 2 more minutes each time he talked about the Saddams's nuclear capabilities and the threat he posed to the US). The American people had a right to know that there was conflicting intel to which very few members of Congress (and no one in the public) had access.

And I am faulting him for his public comments that Congress had access to the same intelligence he had when they clearly did not. On this issue,the facts are indisputable no matter how you try to spin it... he lied to the American people.

Lying to the American people, or even cherry-picking the intel,are not an impeachable offense....but it is dishonorable and unethical when you are asking for support to take the country to war.

I got that. My counter point is that there is always conflicting intelligence in any analysis of a complex decision. One can not rely on a single source, Bush or whoever, to buy into going to war.

Personally I have never experienced making a tough decision where I Had 100% certainty. when I make decsions on complex issues, I create a short list of the major reasons why I made the decision and use that list to sell my decision. In your book I lie all the time. In my book, I come to my decision and present it to others with confidence and certainty. Perhaps, you can follow a leader who waffles, I can't or won't. I need a guy who believes in his decision and "sells" it that way. People who focus on the reasons not to do something after they have made the decision to do it are not going to be effective. You are either all in or you are not (if you need more cliches, let me know).

It becomes more clear the more time I spend here the difference between a mind like yours and a mind like mine (I am not passing judgement, but there are differences).

Congress had the same intelligence I had and I supported the war. For this point to stick you have to understand when Bush made his decision and what information he used. I think he used the information that everyone knew. I think he clearly stated what information he used. Your position assumes he used information that was highly classified, where is the evidence of that?

Then tell the people that there was conflicting intelligence and why you believe in one set of intel over another if you are asking them to sacrifice. Why would that have been so hard for Bush to do?

This decision was not like any decision you or I make...it affected the lives of thousands of American citizens (and millions of Iraqis) and Bush "sold it" iin speeches that were less than completely candid with the American people.

We agree on one thing.....we have different outlooks and perspectives on many things :)

You dont have the responsiblity for making the most informed decisions you can on behalf of thousands of people who entrust you as their voice in government.

I hope we are a people that stand behind the decisions we make and admit when we have made an error rather than make excuses (I supported the war, but now I don't, I was lied to - I don't support the war, but I will fund it - I don't support sending more troops, but I will confirm the General who wants more troops - Sadaam was a threat, but he wasn't a threat - I am tough on terrorism, but I don't want to fight them unless it is in Afganastan, etc.) At this point Bush does not believe we have made an error, and is acting accordingly. If we think this is an error, we need to end it, and stop playing political games and trying to re-write history so we don't look bad.

On an issue like this I always look to the way Churchill lead. When things looked there worst, he "lied" for the good of the nation and with those "lies" he lifted the spirits of his people and they gained strength and over came adversity. Forget the b.s. about making public statements about this and that and what if's and doubts.

P.s. - If I am ever your President be advised. You will know what to do when I want to go to war. I hope.

Do you really equate the threat posed to the Brits with Germany rolling across Europe and bombs falling on London to the "threat" posed by Saddam to the US?

No. I like Churchill's leadership style. I expect leaders to lead with confidence and certainty using his style as a model. I also like Reagan's easy going/hardline style. I think Bush approached the Iraq problem with confidence and certainty, however I think his "cowboy" attitude was a bit over the top and lacked the "easy going" level of class that Reagan would have used, while taking a hardline stance. If Bush were a better leader we would have had a better out come to this point.

I guess this is what it comes down to here. Only one set of people had unfettered access to ALL of the information. That set of people misrepresented the certainty of their claims and failed to acknowledge or communicate to anyone else the doubt and opposing points of view within the intelligence community. In fact, as dc_dux so succinctly pointed out, they actively prevented responsible parties from having access to a spectrum of views.

My position (and I assume that of dc_dux) holds that Bush ignored/discounted/misrepresented/covered up information that was highly classified. This is not the same as "he used information that was highly classified" (your words, not mine). Several people have said this in many ways in this thread. If that isn't deception or false pretenses, what is it?

i hope we're a people who bust someone's ass out when it is shown they blatantly either lied or strongly manipulated the presentation of evidence/data to "sell" a given direction in something as important as whether or not we would violate international law and pre-emptively attack a sovereign nation. don't get wrong, i thought sadaam was a fucker. fuck him! if i heard that trolls had risen from the sands of the iraqi desert and killed his ass with sticks after feeding his own testicles to him, i don't think i would have given a shit. what i do care about is that the information we do receive from our dear leaders is correct. i also care that we seem to have taken some pretty drastic action, and we're not talking about in terms that make sense to me. i don't understand how a nation of people who like straight talk can put with all the horseshit we are fed everyday. i just don't get it. that's not directed at you ace, i'll also say that i appreciate you sticking to the thread, even if i obviously disagree with you on this point. i suspect i would be ok with you in real life, as long as we didn't talk too much politics. i'd like to see all the people in tfp politics drinking together. now, that's a dream i can get behind.

Bush thought Sadaam was a threat. I thought he was a threat, even without any access to classified information.

Bush thought he needed to be removed from power. I thought he needed to be removed from power, even without access to any classified information.

Bush thought Sadaam had or was seeking nuclear weapons. I thought Sadaam had or was seeking nuclear weapons, even without access to any classified information.

Bush thought Sadaam would cooperate with terrorists in future attacks - if he hadn't already. I thought Sadaam would cooperate with terrorists in future attacks - if he hadn't already.

Today you folks sit around and think that if you only had access to classified information, some information that verified spefics actions and other information that contradicted spefic actions, everything above would not matter. Bush clearly communicated what he thought, and what he thought was true. if you thought his statements were lies, and that caused you to go from Sadaam is not a threat to Sadaam is a threat, there is nothing that can be said that will make a difference.

I suppose it's an impasse. Thanks for your post.

No, it's not an impasse. ace has been complimented, even praised in some posts here, for participating....for coming back again, and again, with his argument. The problem I have, is that ace is an enabler of Bush, especially if he voted for members of congress who will not vote to override Bush's veto yesterday, of the supplemental spending bill that contains a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

As long as there are people with similar opinions to ace's, there will be no impeachment of Cheney or Bush, and US troops will continue to die and be maimed in Iraq.....(for what ????)....$100 billion "supplemental" will continue to eb appropriated (so Bush can continue to point to the budget, instead of the Fed. treasury debt increases that continue at a $500 billion annual rate, and boast in the 2008 SOTU, on how he's reducing budget deficits...)....and what is "praiseworthy", about thinking like that.....when ace cannot make a coherent argument to support his position.

Take his last post, and contrast it to the following:
.....I can make a coherent, airtight case that supports the opposite of what ace posted. He posted earlier that the opposite of attacking Iraq was for the US to continue "taking it up the @ss....". "Taking it", from whom.....ace??? You "feel" what you believe, but I see that you have nothing to post that makes your argument rational or coherent, if it is to compete with this:


<b>Between Feb. 2001, and Sept. 16, 2001, Tenet, Powell, Rice, and Cheney, are all on record, document in the following citations (with links....) telling us that Saddam needed to be "watched", but that he had not rebuilt his military or his WMD capacity, after the 1991 Gulf war....and Rumsfeld, above, said after the US invasion of Iraq, that "The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder,". Furthermore....when Tim Russert challenges Cheney about his 9/16/01, "We have Saddam bottled up", statement, Cheney said the following.

I think that it is especially revealing that all Cheney had to defend the attack on and occupation of Iraq, was the long discredited "Zarqawi was present, before we got there", and the "poison camp" BS. Russert pointed out that the senate intel. committee report had finally been released, discrediting Cheney's justifications for the Iraq invasion. Cheney responded that he "hadn't read it. Cheney had access to the senate intel committee conclusions, in classified form, for at least 2 years before he told Russert that he was unfamiliar with the conclusions. All intel findings.....in official Iraqi records and in post Iraq invasion interviews with Iraqi officials, proved that Saddam and his government had no control over Zarqawi or a relationship with him...the record shows that they wanted to capture him....and post invasion news reporting clearly shows that the "poison camp" was located near the Iran border, in an area controlled by land and air access, by Kurdish militia and their US allies, not by Saddam's government....</b>
<h3>....But there was Cheney, on 9/10/2006, telling Russert about Zarqawi and the Poison Camp....because that was all he had....flimsy....untrue....pathetic reasons to justify a preemptive invasion and occupation of a sovereign, foreign country....</h3>

...and here is Cheney, denying what he said earlier...when it is still located on a white house web page, today:
.....he was responding to the 2004 conclusions in the 9/11 commission report.....spewing the same examples about Zarqawit that were dismissed by the 9/11 commission, doubted in many news articles when Powell presented them to the UN in Feb., 2005, and totally debunked when Cheney was stilling using the "Zarqawi and his poison camp BS", and Bush, too..... in Aug., 2006, through Cheney's interview with Rush, just 4 weeks ago:


I posted this on 11/14/2005

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=34
Clinton's CIA director, George Tenet, refuted some of your points, just three weeks after Bush took office in 2002. Powell and Rice made statments in 2001 that were identical to what Tenet said:
The article linked here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/in...er=rssuserland

and other links displayed in my post earlier today, persuasively indicate that congress did not have access to the comprehensive, and contradictory intelligence information that the Bush administration had access to before congress had to make the decision to vote for authorization for a possible war in Iraq..... http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...05&postcount=3

It does take time to examine these details. The alternative is to listen to Bush's Nov. 11 speech or Ken Mehlman's statements on Russert's "Meet the Press", yesterday. Bush and Mehlman are both "on message" concerning the intelligence information that congress was privy to....the problem is that what those two are saying is not backed up by news reporting, including the WaPo reporting on Nov. 11:
<b>If I am mistaken about the deficiencies in your arguments, show me ace....</b>

The difference is, you and Bush are in the minority on that opinion, and you always have been. This was, at the time, a representative democracy. It actually takes something called the will of the people, which is what Bush was out to muster.

I never thought Saddam was a threat. I believed and still believe that he was contained and isolated both by the lingering US presence in the area, and by his political and religious opposition in surrounding states--a balance we tromped all over.

Not many people remember it, but there was a lot of skepticism in the air even when the WMD talk was being slung around. I personally never believed it. The whole Nigerian Uranium thing read like a Robert Ludlum sub-plot. I've never in my life been afraid of an aluminum tube. My believing the lie is not a necessary condition to say that it is a lie.

My opinion is that you and Bush had the wrong opinion. The majority of Americans (70% or so) agree with me, for whatever that's worth. The opinion of Dennis Kucinich, among many others, is that Cheney and Bush cherry-picked the intelligence that fit their already-formed opinion, including intelligence they already knew had been falsified. That's called a lie.

It turns out that America and I were right about Saddam not being a threat to the US, having connections to Al Qaida, or having WMDs. So... do you just shrug your shoulders about that? Gee, sorry about the thousands of dead Americans, and the tens of thousands of wounded. Never mind the hundreds of thousands of dead brown people--they don't count, so why count them? We wanted to cowboy in there, so we did and damn the consequences.

I can only hope that in the end, it'll be the opinion of Congress that determines whether these in-my-opinion lying scumbag murderers deserve to keep their jobs.

How else would I take issue with the posts that "gave credit" to ace, seemingly for simply continuing to post unsubstantiated opinions to counter intensely and thoroughly documented opinions that assert that the opposite is true, than in the way that I went about it. This occurs in the context of a Bush veto of the supplemental appropriations bill, just after the month of April, when it is reported that 104 more US soldiers were killed in Iraq, in April.

I'm not saying it's an excuse not to be polite, but Bush could not block legislation that mandates a time table for US withdrawal, without the support of people who need no real reasons for going Iraq and staying there, and who need no honest justification, even now. Who is stopping the impeachment process by criticizing Kucinich and his reasoning?

Edit: I had a question, but sent it via pm instead.

Pen

ace...if Bush tooks us to war and invaded Iraq based solely on the information you had (which I think is highly doubtful) or based on what he "thought" and did not rely on intel from the CIA, DIA, NSA, etc..., it would be unconscionable and very likely an act of malfeasance in office and would justify an impeachment inquiry.

And if he did rely on classified intel (and cherry-picked it - which is supported by the facts and not just your or my opinion) and did not provide access to the same intel to members of Congress (also supported by facts not opinion) when asking them to authorize what amounted to a war resolution, it is equally unconscionable and unethical, although probably not impeachable in and of itself.

Either way (he didnt rely on the best and latest intel available or he withheld portions of it from the other branch of govt responsible for sending us to war), your position has no moral standing.

precisely how is a president supposed to make intelligence generally available to the public so they can evaluate it? There are two problems with that proposition, even laying aside the fact that it simply isn't done, and no president has ever done it, of either party. (There are good reasons for that.)

1. If you have any experience analyzing data, you know there are always outliers, data points that diverge from the overall pattern. Sometimes they are meaningful, most of the time they are noise. You guys who are saying you would have assigned higher reliablity to the outlying data points now are being totally disingenuous - back in 2002-2003 <i>everyone</i>, including the intelligence services of pretty much every foreign country including many who opposed the war, thought Saddam had active WMD programs and WMDs. The people here who think they would have known better are just blowing smoke - you're not trained or able to make those judgments (neither am I), and the idea that you would have been able to if only you had seen the facts is silly. What you have now is hindsight. But we all have that. If you're so smart, tell me today what will happen in, say, Kazakhstan's furtures markets in April 2009. Not so ready to to do it? I'm not surprised.

Raw data is pretty much useless. It needs to be analyzed by people who know what they're doing. That excludes the people here. It also excludes most members of Congress.

2. Intelligence data don't get released because that would compromise sources and methods. This one is so obvious it shouldn't need to be mentioned.

There might be many good arguments about whether we should have gone into Iraq, but the idea that the raw data should have been released to the public so that the "truth" could have been discerned is both ill-advised and not consonant with reality.

I did not suggest that a president should make intel or raw data generally available to the public....we are talking about a summary of an NIE. Although Bush had declassified and made public another NIE for political purpose to refute Joe Wilson's charges.

I suggested that Bush should provide a declassified summary to members of Congress that is not misleading like the one the CIA provided (with WH approval) prior to the Oct 02 vote....if you had read what I posted earlier in this discussion:
loquitor.....do you think the declassified NIE summary provided to members of Congress as described above was appropriate or acceptable in order for those members to have the additional information requested in order to make a more informed vote?

Both you ("how is a president supposed to make intelligence generally available to the public .....and the idea that raw data should have been released to the public") and ace ("you folks sit around and think that if you only had access to classified information") are distorting, or just havent understood, what I and others have said.-- (1) that Bush, in his public speeches, should have said in general terms that there was conflicting intel, (2) Bush should not have lied to the public and said he "went to Congress with the same intel he had" and (3) that members of Congess should have been made aware of the conflicting intel (in summary form) prior to being asked to vote to send the country to war.