Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-25-2007, 10:07 AM   #1 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
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?
ratbastid is offline  
Old 04-25-2007, 10:18 AM   #2 (permalink)
Junkie
 
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.
Rekna is offline  
Old 04-25-2007, 10:49 AM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
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.
loquitur is offline  
Old 04-25-2007, 12:07 PM   #4 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
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.
Yeah...we all know how Clintons' rating shot through the roof in similar circumstances.

Last edited by tecoyah; 04-25-2007 at 12:08 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
tecoyah is offline  
Old 04-25-2007, 01:50 PM   #5 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
Clinton's approvals did skyrocket during impeachment. That's why I said that.
loquitur is offline  
Old 04-25-2007, 02:03 PM   #6 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
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"
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 04-25-2007, 02:53 PM   #7 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 04-25-2007, 03:14 PM   #8 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
Would Pelosi become VP if Cheney were impeached?

That would be too funny.
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 04-25-2007, 03:28 PM   #9 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
I think Bush would choose another VP.
Willravel is offline  
Old 04-25-2007, 03:40 PM   #10 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: rural Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
Clinton's approvals did skyrocket during impeachment. That's why I said that.
I don't remember that happening!? It (impeachment proceedings ) were a bad thing......
__________________
Happy atheist
Lizra is offline  
Old 04-25-2007, 04:17 PM   #11 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
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
tecoyah is offline  
Old 04-25-2007, 05:14 PM   #12 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
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.
__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007
Elphaba is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 07:54 AM   #13 (permalink)
Upright
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
Would Pelosi become VP if Cheney were impeached?

That would be too funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
I think Bush would choose another VP.
Yes.
As Nixon chose Ford as his Veep after Agnew was forced to resign.
ConspiracyTheor is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 08:08 AM   #14 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
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.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 08:39 AM   #15 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 09:04 AM   #16 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
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.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 09:32 AM   #17 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
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"
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?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 09:36 AM   #18 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
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.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 04-26-2007 at 09:38 AM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 09:47 AM   #19 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
In short, there are three aspects: Cheney is accused of 1) manipulating intelligence to sell the Iraq war,
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.

Quote:
2) lying about a connection between Iraq and Al Qaida, and
To anyone saying Cheney lied about this please define what you would consider a "connection"? This term is too vague to say he lied.

Quote:
3) Forwarding a plan to attack Iran without solid evidence of Iranian wrongdoing.
This can't be a serious point, that would lead to impeachment. Iranian wrong doing...where to start...

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


Last edited by aceventura3; 04-26-2007 at 09:49 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 09:57 AM   #20 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
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.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 10:03 AM   #21 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
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?
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.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 10:33 AM   #22 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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.
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?
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 10:53 AM   #23 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
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?
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!

Quote:
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.
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.

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

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 11:08 AM   #24 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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!
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.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 11:18 AM   #25 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
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".
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 11:26 AM   #26 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
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.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 11:31 AM   #27 (permalink)
pig
pigglet pigglet
 
pig's Avatar
 
Location: Locash
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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.
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.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Last edited by pig; 04-26-2007 at 11:36 AM..
pig is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 11:40 AM   #28 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
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.
I know we are drifting off topic a bit, but I will be brief.

Psst! 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.

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.

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


Last edited by aceventura3; 04-26-2007 at 11:50 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 12:00 PM   #29 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
Kucinich speaks for himself in the link below. I totally missed the most important reason of all...Iran.

Link
__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007
Elphaba is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 01:08 PM   #30 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
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.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 01:23 PM   #31 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphaba
Kucinich speaks for himself in the link below. I totally missed the most important reason of all...Iran.

Link
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

Quote:
Well, I sense that some people want to believe that there is only one issue that I ‘m concerned about. And/or that somehow, I am out here to organize a military adventure with respect to Iraq; that’s not true. The fact is, we are concerned about Iraq, that’s one of many issues we’re concerned about. But in all of the stops that I’ve made so far, we’ve talked not only about the war on terror, which is, in many respects, more imminent, ongoing current activity. We talked about the importance of our continued efforts in Afghanistan as well as making certain that the Al Qaeda doesn’t relocate to any other country in the region
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.

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


Last edited by aceventura3; 04-26-2007 at 01:31 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 01:47 PM   #32 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
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.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 02:13 PM   #33 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
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!"
ratbastid is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 04:51 PM   #34 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
Ace, I have read others challenging your "proofs" as mere cherry picking, but I've seen it for myself with this bit:

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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

"Well, I sense that some people want to believe that there is only one issue that I ‘m concerned about. And/or that somehow, I am out here to organize a military adventure with respect to Iraq; that’s not true. The fact is, we are concerned about Iraq, that’s one of many issues we’re concerned about. But in all of the stops that I’ve made so far, we’ve talked not only about the war on terror, which is, in many respects, more imminent, ongoing current activity. We talked about the importance of our continued efforts in Afghanistan as well as making certain that the Al Qaeda doesn’t relocate to any other country in the region"
Quote:
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.
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
__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007
Elphaba is offline  
Old 04-26-2007, 07:49 PM   #35 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
...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.
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.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 04-26-2007 at 08:18 PM.. Reason: added link to Congressional Record
dc_dux is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 09:46 AM   #36 (permalink)
Banned
 
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:
Quote:
George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, has lashed out against Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials in a new book, saying they pushed the country to war in Iraq
without ever conducting a “serious debate” about whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States....

.......“There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,” Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years.
<b>Nor, he adds, “was there ever a significant discussion” about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.......</b>
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.
Quote:
http://www.roberthjackson.org/Man/Sp...arris_Tyranny/
<b>The Crime Of Waging Aggressive War</b>

An Address by Whitney R. Harris

Prosecutor at the Trial of the Major German War Criminals
At Nuremberg and the Author of TYRANNY ON TRIAL
The Robert H. Jackson Center
October 1, 2004

.........We need not trouble ourselves about the many abstract difficulties that can be conjured up about what constitutes aggression in doubtful cases… By all the canons of plain sense, these were unlawful wars of aggression in breach of treaties and in violation of assurances.”

Justice Jackson observed that these were the wars of aggression of the defendants in the dock. He concluded his closing speech with this analogy. “[These defendants] stand before the record of this trial as blood-stained Gloucester stood by the body of his slain king. He begged of the widow, as they beg of you: ‘Say I slew them not.’ And the Queen replied, ‘Then say they were not slain.” But dead they are…’ If you were to say of these men that they are not guilty, it would be as true to say there has been no war, there are no slain, there has been no crime.”

Upon the conclusion of the arguments of counsel, the case was submitted to the Tribunal for its opinion that was issued on October 1, 1946, precisely fifty-eight years ago to this very day. On the issue of aggressive war, the Tribunal declared: “The charges in the indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive war are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

The Tribunal held that of the twenty-two defendants brought to trial before it, twelve were guilty of the crime of waging aggressive war. ..........
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 !
host is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 09:56 AM   #37 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
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!"
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphaba
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
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Wow...another Dem who can multi-task.
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?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."


Last edited by aceventura3; 04-27-2007 at 10:04 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 10:10 AM   #38 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
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?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 10:15 AM   #39 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
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:

Quote:
With respect to the question on Iraq, the United States has made clear in statements by the president and others in his administration that we are concerned about the Iraqi pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and in particular, the failure of the government of Iraq to comply with U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 agreed to at the end of the Gulf War which committed Iraq to get rid of, eliminate all of their weapons of mass destruction. We know that that has not happened, that they have not complied with 687. We know that they have chemical weapons. Of course they’ve used them in the past against the Iranians and the Curds. We know they have biological weapons, and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.
This is strike two in my book. Please can someone point out the lie?
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1B.pdf
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."


Last edited by aceventura3; 04-27-2007 at 10:25 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 10:55 AM   #40 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I don't think there were falsehoods....
....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.

<b>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.</b>
ace.....the impeachment charges against Cheney are a cumulative reaction to things like.....this:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresid...p20011114.html
Interview of the Vice President
by CBS's 60 Minutes II
November 14, 2001

......<b>Gloria Borger: Well, you know that Muhammad Atta the ringleader of the hijackers actually met with Iraqi intelligence.

Vice President Cheney: I know this. In Prague in April of this year as well as earlier. And that information has been made public. The Czechs made that public. Obviously that's an interesting piece of information.</b>

Gloria Borger: Sounds like you have your suspicions?

Vice President Cheney: I can't operate on suspicions. The President and the rest of us who are involved in this effort have to make what we think are the right decisions for the United States and the national security arena and that's what we're doing. And it doesn't do a lot of good for us to speculate. We'd rather operate based on facts and make announcements when we've got announcements to make. .........
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresid...p20011209.html
December 9, 2001

The Vice President Appears on NBC's Meet the Press

.......RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no.

<b>Since that time, a couple of articles have appeared which I want to get you to react to. The first: The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out..
</b>
........RUSSERT: The plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers.

Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

<b>CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.</b>

Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue...........
<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>
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10036925/
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Nov. 11th
Updated: 10:08 a.m. ET Nov 14, 2005

......MATTHEWS: All this week we‘ve been examining the Bush administration‘s claims about Iraq that sold America on the war. We‘ve looked at claims that Saddam was a nuclear threat, that our troops would be greeted as liberators and that administration ally Ahmed Chalabi could be trusted.

All of those claims, of course, were false. Tonight, we offer you a closer look at another key White House argument. The alleged link between Iraq and 9/11. HARDBALL correspondent David Shuster reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAVID SHUSTER, HARDBALL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Just days after the 9/11 attack, Vice President Cheney on “Meet the Press” said the response should be aimed at Osama bin Laden‘s al Qaeda terror organization, not Saddam Hussein‘s Iraq.

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Saddam Hussein is bottled up at this point, but clearly we continue to have fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.

TIM RUSSERT, NBC HOST: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

CHENEY: No.

SHUSTER: But during that same time period, according to Bob Woodward‘s book, “Bush at War,” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for military strikes on Iraq. And during cabinet meetings, Cheney quote, expressed deep concern about Saddam and would not rule out going after Iraq at some point.

That point started to come 11 months later, just before 9/11‘s first anniversary. The president and vice president had decided to redirect their war on terror to Baghdad.

So, with the help of the newly-formed White House Iraq group, which consisted of top officials and strategists, the selling of a war on Iraq began and the administration‘s rhetoric about Saddam changed.

Not only did White House hawks tell The New York Times for a front-page Sunday exclusive that Saddam was building a nuclear weapon, and not only did five administration officials that day go on the Sunday television shows to repeat the charge.......

CHENEY: That he is in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.

SHUSTER: But the White House started claiming that Iraq and the group responsible for 9/11 were one in the same.

BUSH: The war on terror—you can‘t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.

We‘ve learned that Iraq has trained members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.

He‘s a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda.

SHUSTER: In pushing the Saddam/Iraq/9/11 connection, both the president and the vice president made two crucial claims.

First, they alleged there had been a 1994 meeting in Sudan between Osama bin Laden and an Iraqi intelligence official.

BUSH: We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.

SHUSTER: After the Iraq war began, however, the 9/11 Commission was formed and reported that while Osama bin Laden may have requested Iraqi help, quote, Iraq apparently never responded.

<b>The other crucial pre-war White House claim was that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met in a senior Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech republic in April of 2001.

GLORIA BORGER, CNBC HOST: You have said in the past that it was quote, pretty well confirmed.

CHENEY: No, I never said that.

BORGER: OK, I think that is...

CHENEY: ... I never said that. That‘s absolutely not...</b>
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
By Jim Miklaszewski
Chief Pentagon correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:14 p.m. ET March 2, 2004

......In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and <b>the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.</b>

....The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, >but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. “Here’s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we’re suffering as a result inside Iraq,” Cressey added.
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3070394/
Positive test for terror toxins in Iraq
Evidence of ricin, botulinum at Islamic militants’ camp
By EXCLUSIVE By Preston Mendenhall
MSNBC

SARGAT, Iraq, April 4 - Preliminary tests conducted by MSNBC.com indicate that the deadly toxins ricin and botulinum were present on two items found at a camp in a remote mountain region of northern Iraq allegedly used as a terrorist training center by Islamic militants with ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network.

<h3>.....The territory of northern Iraq where the traces of ricin were detected is not under the control of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.</h3>
Quote:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh091806.shtml

.....As of August 21, Bush was still flatly asserting that Saddam “had relations with Zarqawi.” Raddatz asked him why he said it—and Bush engaged in standard blather. This has gone on, for year after year, because the press corps sits there and takes it—as they did last Friday, when Bush dissembled in their faces without challenge again.
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 21, 2006

Press Conference by the President
White House Conference Center Briefing Room

......Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- <h3>who had relations with Zarqawi.</h3>
(Watch him deliver the "Zarqawi" lie in a 2 minute video, here:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Bus...-08-21-062.wmv )


Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.

Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

Q What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q The attack on the World Trade Center?

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case. .......
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:
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17970427/
Saddam’s pre-war ties to al-Qaeda discounted
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Updated: 10:56 a.m. ET April 6, 2007

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.

The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.......
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070405-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
April 5, 2007

Interview of the Vice President by Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh Show
Via Telephone

1:07 P.M. EDT

Q It's always a great privilege to have the Vice President, Dick Cheney, with us. Mr. Vice President, welcome once again to our program.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you, Rush. It's good to be back on......

.....Q It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs -- I forget the name of the committee -- in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal '08 is going to actually remove the phrase "global war on terror," because they don't think it's applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes. But they're going to try to rid the defense appropriation bill -- and, thus, official government language -- of that term. Does that give you any indication of their motivation or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure -- well, it's just flawed thinking. I like Ike Skelton; I worked closely with Ike when I was Secretary of Defense. He's Chairman of the Armed Services Committee now. Ike is a good man. He's just dead wrong about this, though. Think about -- <b>just to give you one example, Rush, remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, al Qaeda affiliate; ran a training camp in Afghanistan for al Qaeda, then migrated -- after we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; organized the al Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene,</b> and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra Mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni. This is al Qaeda operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq. ......
That was Cheney, this week, and this was Bush, himself, in 2002 and 2003:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20030208.html

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 8, 2003

President's Radio Address

......... One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. ........
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030206-17.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 6, 2003

President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment"

.......One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists, who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. The network runs a poison and explosive training center in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. The head of this network traveled to Baghdad for medical treatment and stayed for months. Nearly two dozen associates joined him there and have been operating in Baghdad for more than eight months.

The same terrorist network operating out of Iraq is responsible for the murder, the recent murder, of an American citizen, an American diplomat, Laurence Foley. The same network has plotted terrorism against France, Spain, Italy, Germany, the Republic of Georgia, and Russia, and was caught producing poisons in London. The danger Saddam Hussein poses reaches across the world.

This is the situation as we find it. Twelve years after Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm, and 90 days after the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote, Saddam Hussein was required to make a full declaration of his weapons programs. He has not done so. Saddam Hussein was required to fully cooperate in the disarmament of his regime; he has not done so. Saddam Hussein was given a final chance; he is throwing that chance away. ......
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds

By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 6, 2003; Page A01

...... Then, in declaring the end of major combat in Iraq on May 1, Bush linked Iraq and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions."

Moments later, Bush added: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got." .......
....and Bush again, here:
Quote:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html -
From my Sept. 12, 2006 post:
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...24&postcount=3

Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060910.html
.....Q Then why in the lead-up to the war was there the constant linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's a different issue. Now, there's a question of whether or not al Qaeda -- whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11; separate and apart from that is the issue of whether or not there was a historic relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. The basis for that is probably best captured in George Tenet's testimony before the Senate intel committee in open session, where he said specifically that there was a pattern, a relationship that went back at least a decade between Iraq and al Qaeda......

........we know that Zarqawi, running a terrorist camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, after we went into 9/11 -- then fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02......

.........Zarqawi was in Baghdad after we took Afghanistan and before we went into Iraq. You had the facility up at Kermal, a poisons facility run by an Ansar al-Islam, an affiliate of al Qaeda......
<b>Cheney was saying it, even though this was reported, just two days before:</b>
Quote:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2410591
By JIM ABRAMS, AP Writer Fri Sep 8, 12:17 PM ET

WASHINGTON - There's no evidence
Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on
Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts
President Bush's justification for going to war.....

.....It discloses for the first time an October 2005
CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."......
<b>The rest of this post consists of 17 news article excerpts that refute Mr. Cheney's assertions to Tim Russert last September, and to Rush Limbaugh, this week....</b>

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:
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/po...tel.ready.html
Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Doubts

By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: November 6, 2005

WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 — A top member of Al Qaeda in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.

The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, “was intentionally misleading the debriefers’’ in making claims about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda’s work with illicit weapons.

The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Mr. Libi’s credibility. Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi’s information as “credible’’ evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.

Among the first and most prominent assertions was one by Mr. Bush, who said in a major speech in Cincinnati in October 2002 that “we’ve learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases.’’
click to read the rest...   click to show 


In outlining reasons for its skepticism, the D.I.A. report noted that Mr. Libi’s claims lacked specific details about the Iraqis involved, the illicit weapons used and the location where the training was to have taken place...
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060320-7.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2006

President Discusses War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom

.....Q Mr. President, at the beginning of your talk today you mentioned that you understand why Americans have had their confidence shaken by the events in Iraq. And I'd like to ask you about events that occurred three years ago that might also explain why confidence has been shaken. Before we went to war in Iraq we said there were three main reasons for going to war in Iraq: weapons of mass destruction, the claim that Iraq was sponsoring terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11, and that Iraq had purchased nuclear materials from Niger. All three of those turned out to be false. My question is, how do we restore confidence that Americans may have in their leaders and to be sure that the information they are getting now is correct?

THE PRESIDENT: That's a great question. (Applause.) First, just if I might correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say that he was a state sponsor of terror -- by the way, not declared a state sponsor of terror by me, but declared by other administrations. We also did say that Zarqawi, the man who is now wreaking havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq. And so the state sponsor of terror was a declaration by a previous administration. But I don't want to be argumentative, but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America.

Like you, I asked that very same question, where did we go wrong on intelligence. The truth of the matter is the whole world thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It wasn't just my administration, it was the previous administration. It wasn't just the previous administration; you might remember, sir, there was a Security Council vote of 15 to nothing that said to Saddam Hussein, disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. The basic premise was, you've got weapons. That's what we thought.

When he didn't disclose, and when he didn't disarm, and when he deceived inspectors, it sent a very disconcerting <b>message to me, whose job it is to protect the American people and to take threats before they fully materialize.</b> My view is, he was given the choice of whether or not he would face reprisal. It was his decision to make. And so he chose to not disclose, not disarm, as far as everybody was concerned. ......
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:
Quote:
http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroo....cfm?id=262690
News from Senator Carl Levin of Michigan
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 8, 2006

Contact: Press Office
Phone: 202.228.3685
Senate Floor Statement on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Phase II Report

Today the Senate Intelligence Committee is releasing two of the five parts of Phase II of the Committee’s inquiry into prewar intelligence. One of the two reports released today looks at what we have learned after the attack on Iraq about the accuracy of prewar intelligence regarding links between Saddam Hussein and al Qa’ida. The report is a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration’s unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein was linked with al Qa’ida, the perpetrators of the 9-11 attack.....

......The Administration statements also flew in the face of the CIA’s January 2003 assessment that al-Libi was not in position to know whether training had taken place.

So here’s what we’ve got.

<h3>The President says Saddam had a relationship with Zarqawi.</h3> The Senate Intelligence Committee found that the CIA concluded in 2005 that “the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.”

<h3>The President said Saddam and al Qa’ida were “allies.”</h3> The Intelligence Committee found that prewar intelligence shows that Saddam Hussein“viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime.” Indeed, the Committee found that postwar intelligence showed that he “refused all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support.”

The Vice President called the claim that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta met with the Iraqi intelligence officer “credible” and “pretty much confirmed.” The Intelligence Committee found the intelligence shows that “no such meeting occurred.”

<h3>The President said that Iraq provided training in poisons and gasses to al Qa’ida.</h3> The Intelligence Committee found that postwar intelligence supported the prewar intelligence assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at “anywhere” in Iraq and that the terrorist who made the claim of training was “likely intentionally misleading his debriefers” when he said Iraq had provided poisons and gasses training.

But the Administration’s efforts to create the false impression that Iraq and al Qa’ida were linked didn’t stop with just statements. One of the most significant disclosures in the Intelligence Committee’s report is the account of <h3>the Administration’s successful efforts to obtain the support of CIA Director George Tenet to help them make that false case.</h3>

These events were of major significance – going to the heart of the Administration’s case for war on the eve of a congressional vote on whether to authorize that war.

On October 7, 2002, at a speech in Cincinnati, the President represented that linkage existed between Saddam and terrorist groups. He said that “Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorist.”

But that very day, October 7, 2002, <h3>in a letter to the Intelligence Committee the CIA declassified,</h3> at the request of the Committee, the CIA assessment that it would be an “extreme step” for Saddam Hussein to assist Islamist terrorists in conducting a weapons of mass destruction attack against the United States and that the likelihood of Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction, if he did not feel threatened by an attack, was “low.”

When made public, the CIA assessment would undercut the President’s case. Something had to be done. So, on October 8, 2002, the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, issued a statement that “There is no inconsistency between our view of Saddam's growing threat and the view as expressed by the President in his speech.” The Tenet statement was aimed at damage control and undercut the CIA’s own crucial assessment at a critical time. The New York Times quoted Tenet prominently in a major story on October 9th.

<h3>We called Tenet before the Intelligence Committee on July 26, 2006.

In his testimony, quoted in the Intelligence Committee’s report, Mr. Tenet admitted that perhaps there was an inconsistency between the President's statement and the CIA's assessment.</h3>

Mr. Tenet said that he issued his statement denying an inconsistency after policymakers expressed concern about the CIA’s assessment as expressed in the declassified October 7th letter again, that it would be an extreme step for Saddam to assist Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD attack.<h3> Tenet admitted to the Intelligence Committee that the policymakers wanted him to “say something about not being inconsistent with what the President had said.” Tenet complied.</h3>

Tenet acknowledged to the Committee in his July 26, 2006, testimony that issuing the statement was the “wrong thing to do.” Well, it was much more than that. It was a shocking abdication of a CIA Director’s duty not to act as a shill for any administration or its policies. Director Tenet issued that statement at the behest of the Administration on the eve of the Congress’s debate on the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. The use of the Director of Central Intelligence by the Administration to contradict his own Agency’s assessment in order to support a policy goal of the Administration was reprehensible and seriously damaged the credibility of the CIA.
The following is a compilaton of their reaction to Levin and the senate committee report.......

Quote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213211,00.html
Transcript: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on 'FOX News Sunday'

Sunday, September 10, 2006

WASHINGTON — The following is a partial transcript of the Sept. 10, 2006, edition of "FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace":


.....WALLACE: I don't have to tell you that one of the criticisms of the Bush administration — we heard it again today from Sen. Jay Rockefeller — is that all of you manipulated intelligence to push the country into war.

I want to discuss just one area, the issue of whether Iraq helped Al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction.

Here's what the president said in October of 2002.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: We've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: And in March 2003, just before the invasion, you said, talking about Iraq, "and a very strong link to training Al Qaeda in chemical and biological techniques."

But, Secretary Rice, a Senate committee has just revealed that in February of 2002, months before the president spoke, more than a year, 13 months, before you spoke, that the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded this — and let's put it up on the screen.

"Iraq is unlikely to have provided bin Laden any useful CB" — that's chemical or biological — "knowledge or assistance."

Didn't you and the president ignore intelligence that contradicted your case?

RICE: What the president and I and other administration officials relied on — and you simply rely on the central intelligence. The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, gave that very testimony, that, in fact, there were ties going on between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back for a decade. Indeed, the 9/11 Commission talked about contacts between the two.

We know that Zarqawi was running a poisons network in Iraq. We know that Zarqawi ordered the killing of an American diplomat in Jordan from Iraq. There were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Now, are we learning more now that we have access to people like Saddam Hussein's intelligence services? Of course we're going to learn more. But clearly ...

WALLACE: But, Secretary Rice, this report, if I may, this report wasn't now. This isn't after the fact. This was a Defense Intelligence Agency report in 2002.

Two questions: First of all, did you know about that report before you made your statement?

RICE: Chris, we relied on the reports of the National Intelligence Office, the NIO, and of the DCI. That's what the president and his central decision-makers rely on. There are ...

WALLACE: Did you know about this report?

RICE: ... intelligence reports and conflicting intelligence reports all the time. That's why we have an intelligence system that brings those together into a unified assessment by the intelligence community of what we're looking at.

That particular report I don't remember seeing. But there are often conflicting intelligence reports.

I just want to refer you, though, to the testimony of the DCI at the time about the activities. ...

WALLACE: That's the head of central intelligence.

RICE: Yes, head of central intelligence — that were going on between Al Qaeda and between Iraq.

But let me make a broader point. The notion, somehow — and I've heard this — the notion, somehow, that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power seems to me quite ludicrous.

Saddam Hussein had gone to war against his neighbors twice, causing more than a million deaths. He had dragged us into a war in 1991 because he invaded his neighbor Kuwait. We were still at war with him in 1998 when we used American forces to try and disable his weapons of mass destruction. We went to war again with him, day in and day out, as he shot at our aircraft trying to patrol no-fly zones. This was a mass murderer of more than 300,000 of his own people, using weapons of mass destruction.

The United States and a coalition of allies finally brought down one of the most brutal dictators in the Middle East and one of the most dangerous dictators in the Middle East, and we're better off for it.
Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/20/cheney-lies/

...Cheney’s statement is a lie. Here’s precisely what the Senate Intelligence Committee found: http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

<i>Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and…the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.</i> [p. 109]....
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060912-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 12, 2006

Press Briefing by Tony Snow

...Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?

MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.

Q There was a link --

MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.

Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?

MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it.

Q The Senate report said they didn't turn a blind eye.

MR. SNOW: The Senate report -- rather than get -- you know what, I don't want to get into the vagaries of the Senate report, but it is pretty clear, among other things, again, that there were al Qaeda operators inside Iraq, and they included Zarqawi, they included a cleric who had been described as the best friend of bin Laden who was delivering sermons on TV. But we are simply not going to go to the point that the President is -- the President has never made the statement that there was an operational relationship, and that's the important thing, because I think there's a tendency to say, aha, he said that they were in cahoots and they were planning and doing stuff; there's no evidence of that. ....
Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/15/bush-zarqawi-iraq/

Bush Rewrites History on Zarqawi Statements

During today’s press conference, ABC News reporter Martha Raddatz asked Bush why he continues to say Saddam “had relations with Zarqawi,” despite the Senate Intelligence Report findings that Hussein “did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.” Bush replied: “I never said there was an operational relationship.” Watch it:

In fact, Bush has repeatedly asserted that Saddam “harbored” and “provided safe-haven” to Zarqawi:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040617-3.html
BUSH: [Saddam] was a threat because he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi… [6/17/04]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040923-8.html
BUSH: [Saddam] is a man who harbored terrorists - Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Zarqawi. [9/23/04]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030306-8.html
BUSH: [Zarqawi’s] a man who was wounded in Afghanistan, received aid in Baghdad, ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen, USAID employee, was harbored in Iraq. [3/6/03]

Transcript:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html

MARTHA: Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And yet a month ago, you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?

BUSH: The point I was making to Ken Herman’s question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. <b>I never said there was an operational relationship.</b>
....and Cheney was "at it" again a month later:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...061019-10.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
October 19, 2006

Satellite Interview of the Vice President by WSBT-TV, South Bend, Indiana
2nd Congressional District -
Representative Chris Chocola

........Q Are you saying that you believe fighting in Iraq has prevented terrorist attacks on American soil? And if so, why, since there has not been a direct connection between al Qaeda and Iraq established?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the fact of the matter is there are connections. Mr. Zarqawi, who was the lead terrorist in Iraq for three years, fled there after we went into Afghanistan. He was there before we ever went into Iraq. The sectarian violence that we see now, in part, has been stimulated by the fact of al Qaeda attacks intended to try to create conflict between Shia and Sunni......
ace....consider this:
Quote:
<p><b>12/13 November <b style="color:black;background-color:#99ff99">2005</b></b> ~ <b> Congress had "access to the <b>same</b> <b>intelligence</b> as the administration"?</b> (If this information - and much more like it - can be found on the internet after a search of a few minutes, why does Mr Bush think he can continue to make such assertions?)<br>What Congress and we in the UK heard was that <ul>" The British government has learned.... Our <b> intelligence</b> sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html"target=inboxframe> 2003 State of the Union address</a></ul> Yet even the <b>NIE</b> had judged in October 2002, the tubes were rocket fuselages with no connection to uranium. From "Iraq's Continuing Program for Weapons of Mass Destruction <a href="05nov12nie.html"target=inboxframe>Key
Judgements</a> (from October 2002 National <b style="color:black;background-color:#ff66ff">Intelligence</b> Estimate )<ul> "INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets...." <a href="05nov12nie.html"target=inboxframe>Read in full</a></ul> See also from <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200511080006"target=inboxframe>MediaMatters.org </a> "Conservatives falsely claimed White House and Congress saw "<b style="color:black;background-color:#ff9999">same</b> <b style="color:black;background-color:#ff66ff">intelligence</b>" on Iraqi threat"


<p><b>12/13 November <b style="color:black;background-color:#99ff99">2005</b></b> ~ A document ( See <a href="05nov12dia.html"target=inboxframe>New York Times</a> ) from the Defense <b style="color:black;background-color:#ff66ff">Intelligence</b> Agency (DIA), only recently declassified and thus not read by Congress at the time, shows that strong doubts were voiced about the credibility of certain informants such as the Al Qaeda scientist known as "Curveball" and Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, whose statements were used as the foundation for claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons.<br><i>Aluminum tubes</i> were substituted by Powell at the last minute to replace the Niger-yellowcake connection favored by the President in his State of the Union speech.
<p><b>12/13 November <b style="color:black;background-color:#99ff99">2005</b></b> ~<b> Who was responsible for the erroneous information being presented to the American public, Congress, and the international community?</b>

The White House even withheld from Senate investigators the <b style="color:white;background-color:#00aa00">Presidential Daily Briefings</b> (PDBs) on Iraq delivered to the Oval Office before the war (See <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5403731"target=inboxframe>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5403731</a>)<ul> "....In April 2004, the <b style="color:black;background-color:#ff66ff">Intelligence</b> Committee released a report that concluded that "much of the information provided or cleared by the Central <b style="color:black;background-color:#ff66ff">Intelligence</b> Agency for inclusion in Secretary Powell's [United Nation's] speech was overstated, misleading, or incorrect."
."...... the administration also refused to turn over to the committee contents of the president's morning <b style="color:black;background-color:#ff66ff">intelligence</b> briefings on Iraq, sources say. These documents, known as the Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB, are a written summary of <b style="color:black;background-color:#ff66ff">intelligence</b> information and analysis provided by the CIA to the president...." <a href="http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1027nj1.htm"target=inboxframe>National Journal</a></ul>



<p><b>12/13 November <b style="color:black;background-color:#99ff99">2005</b></b> ~ "We were so appalled at what had arrived from the White House".... <a href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/2004/vanityfair0504.html"target=inboxframe>Vanity Fair 2004</a> <ul> ".... As the I.N.C.'s Washington adviser, Francis Brooke, admits, he urged the exile group to do what it could to make the case for war: "I told them, as their campaign manager, 'Go get me a terrorist and some W.M.D., because that's what the Bush administration is interested in.'"<a name="nie"></a> As for Iraq's links to al-Qaeda, Powell's staff was convinced that much of that material had been funneled directly to Cheney by a tiny, separate <b>intelligence</b> unit set up by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "We were so appalled at what had arrived from the White House," says one official." <a href="vanityfair.html"target=inboxframe>Read in full</a></ul>
host is offline  
 

Tags
articles, cheney, dick, impeachment

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:36 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360