Jane Fonda, Kerry, Prescott & GHW Bush,& Reagan Traitors?=Bush & Nixon War Criminals? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 04-26-2005, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

Well, how many people did Hitler kill? 20 million plus? How many people did the Communists kill? 100 million plus?

Uncle Joe and the other assorted Communists made Hitler look like a Cubscout in comparison. And that's the kind of people Jane Fonda was supporting and working on their behalf....

Hitler BAD.
Communists FAR WORSE.

pan6467, as the exchange the past few days between China and Japan demonstrate, there is a continuing need to discuss the issues of the past political crimes.

The statement above is in a class, all by itself, IMO, since it was posted in a forum where information exists to compare it to documented opinions.

Willravel · 04-26-2005, 06:39 PM

How many did America kill (I know already, but feel free to venture a guess)? Is the number of how many we have killed itself a measure of who is better or worse?

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-26-2005, 07:38 PM

America killed people in an armed conflict, doesn't really stack up to genocide. Actually, there was that whole thing with the Indians. My bad.

host · 03-02-2006, 11:57 AM

There is a new report from Murray Waas, an award winning investigative reporter who I find to be consistantly reliable, that indicates that the Bush administration knew that there was not enough justification to go to war against Saddam and Iraq, but they did it anyway, and then they lied to the world about what they knew, and when they knew it, that would make their justification for war much less certain, or.... legal, before the March 2003 was even ordered to commence.

Is it over reaching to consider what they did, if Murray Waas and numerous other disclosures are correct....that they "fixed the facts" to "match the policy".....was to conduct a secret and illegal policy of agressive war? If these reports are correct, with past U.S. facilitation of Saddam, detailed by me in another thread here as recently as earlier today, how would you characterize the U.S. policy of war in Iraq, vs. what they told the world to justify it, beforehand, if it is not aggressive war?

How far lower can the current domestic approval rating for Bush of 34 percent, drop to.....before he is compelled to board Air Force One for the last time....for a one way trip to Crawford? For Nixon, that number was 24 percent. If this report is true, and you still support this administration and believe, for the most part....what they tell us, what would it take for you to disapprove of their performance? Does it matter to you if they are truthful, especially on the reasons that they give you for going to war?

According to Chief Nuremberg War Crimes Prosecutor, SCOTUS Justice Robert Jackson.......

Quote:

http://www.roberthjackson.org/Man/theman2-6-12/
....President Truman approved the Jackson report, and Jackson entered into negotiations with European officials and devised the London Charter of August 8, 1945, which established the doctrinal underpinnings of Nuremberg, introducing the procedure and substance that was to govern the trials of the Nazi leaders.

Jackson drafted the original charges against the Nazis, outlining three categories of crimes for which the defeated Germans would be called to account. The first category included in the draft was the crime of aggressive war (Crimes Against Peace). Jackson considered this to be the most heinous international crime. He set as a priority that German aggression would be subject to prosecution, and he intended that the crime of aggression’s ambit be as broad as possible.

In Jackson's own words...at the Nuremberg trials:

Quote:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/jack02.htm
Statement by Justice Jackson on War Trials Agreement; August 12, 1945

........We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.

I therefore want to make clear to the American people that we have taken an important step forward in this instrument in fixing individual responsibility of war-mongering, among whatever peoples, as an international crime.....

Quote:

http://hotstory.nationaljournal.com/...es/0302nj1.htm
By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, March 2, 2006

Two highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war cast doubt on key public assertions made by the president, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials as justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, according to records and knowledgeable sources.

The first report, delivered to Bush in early October 2002, was a one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate that discussed whether Saddam's procurement of high-strength aluminum tubes was for the purpose of developing a nuclear weapon.

Among other things, the report stated that the Energy Department and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research believed that the tubes were "intended for conventional weapons," a view disagreeing with that of other intelligence agencies, including the CIA, which believed that the tubes were intended for a nuclear bomb.

The disclosure that Bush was informed of the DOE and State dissents is the first evidence that the president himself knew of the sharp debate within the government over the aluminum tubes during the time that he, Cheney, and other members of the Cabinet were citing the tubes as clear evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program. Neither the president nor the vice president told the public about the disagreement among the agencies.

When U.S. inspectors entered Iraq after the fall of Saddam's regime, they determined that Iraq's nuclear program had been dormant for more than a decade and that the aluminum tubes had been used only for artillery shells.

The second classified report, delivered to Bush in early January 2003, was also a summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, this one focusing on whether Saddam would launch an unprovoked attack on the United States, either directly, or indirectly by working with terrorists.

The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States -- except if "ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime" or if he intended to "extract revenge" for such an assault, according to records and sources.

The single dissent in the report again came from State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR, which believed that the Iraqi leader was "unlikely to conduct clandestine attacks against the U.S. homeland even if [his] regime's demise is imminent" as the result of a U.S. invasion.

On at least four earlier occasions, beginning in the spring of 2002, according to the same records and sources, the president was informed during his morning intelligence briefing that U.S. intelligence agencies believed it was unlikely that Saddam was an imminent threat to the United States.

However, in the months leading up to the war, Bush, Cheney, and Cabinet members repeatedly asserted that Saddam was likely to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or to provide such weapons to Al Qaeda or another terrorist group.

The Bush administration used the potential threat from Saddam as a major rationale in making the case to go to war. The president cited the threat in an address to the United Nations on September 12, 2002, in an October 7, 2002, speech to the American people, and in his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003.

The one-page documents prepared for Bush are known as the "President's Summary" of the much longer and more detailed National Intelligence Estimates that combine the analysis and judgments of agencies throughout the intelligence community.

An NIE, according to the Web site of the National Intelligence Council -- the interagency group that coordinates the documents' production -- represents "the coordinated judgments of the Intelligence Community regarding the likely course of future events" and is written with the goal of providing "policy makers with the best, unvarnished, and unbiased information -- regardless of whether analytic judgments conform to U.S. policy." (The January 2003 NIE, for example, was titled "Nontraditional Threats to the U.S. Homeland Through 2007.")

As many as six to eight agencies, foremost among them the CIA, the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the INR, contribute to the drafting of an NIE. If any one of those intelligence agencies disagrees with the majority view on major conclusions, the NIE includes the dissenting view.

The one-page summary for the president allows intelligence agencies to emphasize what they believe to be the conclusions from the broader NIE that are the most important to communicate to the commander-in-chief.

The President's Summary is among the most highly classified papers in the government. References to the summaries are contained in footnotes in the so-called Robb-Silberman report -- officially, the report of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction -- that was issued in March 2005 on the use of intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. The White House has refused to declassify the summaries or to give them to congressional committees.

The summaries stated that both the Energy and State departments dissented on the aluminum tubes question. This is the first evidence that Bush was aware of the intense debate within the government during the time that he, Cheney, and members of the Cabinet were citing the procurement of the tubes as evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program.

In his address to the U.N. General Assembly on September 12, 2002, the president asserted, "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon."

On October 7, 2002, less than a week after Bush was given the summary, he said in a speech in Cincinnati: "Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahedeen' -- his nuclear holy warriors.... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

On numerous other occasions, Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and then-U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte cited Iraq's procurement of aluminum tubes without disclosing that the intelligence community was split as to their end use. The <h4>fact that the president was informed of the dissents by Energy and State is also significant because Rice and other administration officials have said that Bush did not know about those dissenting views when he made claims about the purported uses for the tubes.

On July 11, 2003, aboard Air Force One during a presidential trip to Africa, Rice was asked about the National Intelligence Estimate and whether the president knew of the dissenting views among intelligence agencies regarding Iraq's procurement of the aluminum tubes.</h4>

Months earlier, disagreement existed within the administration over how to characterize the aluminum tubes in a speech that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell gave to the U.N. on February 5, 2003. Breaking ranks with others in the administration, Powell decided to refer to the internal debate among government agencies over Iraq's intended use of the tubes.

Asked about this by a reporter on Air Force One, Rice said: "I'm saying that when we put [Powell's speech] together... the secretary decided that he would caveat the aluminum tubes, which he did.... The secretary also has an intelligence arm that happened to hold that view."

<h4>Rice added, "Now, if there were any doubts about the underlying intelligence to that NIE, those doubts were not communicated to the president, to the vice president, or to me."</h4>

The one-page October 2002 President's Summary specifically told Bush that although "most agencies judge" that the use of the aluminum tubes was "related to a uranium enrichment effort... INR and DOE believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons uses."

The lengthier NIE -- more than 90 pages -- contained significantly more detail describing the disagreement between the CIA and the Pentagon's DIA on one hand, which believed that the tubes were meant for centrifuges, and State's INR and the Energy Department, which believed that they were meant for artillery shells. Administration officials had said that the president would not have read the full-length paper. They also had said that many of the details of INR's dissent were contained in a special text box that was positioned far away from the main text of the report.

But the one-page summary, several senior government officials said in interviews, was written specifically for Bush, was handed to the president by then-CIA Director George Tenet, and was read in Tenet's presence.

In addition, Rice, Cheney, and dozens of other high-level Bush administration policy makers received a highly classified intelligence assessment, known as a Senior Executive Memorandum, on the aluminum tubes issue. Circulated on January 10, 2003, the memo was titled "Questions on Why Iraq Is Procuring Aluminum Tubes and What the IAEA Has Found to Date."

The paper included discussion regarding the fact that the INR, Energy, and the United Nations atomic energy watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, all believed that Iraq was using the aluminum tubes for conventional weapons programs.

The lengthier NIE also contained a note regarding the aluminum tubes disagreement:

"In INR's view, Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.

"INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets."

One week after Rice's comments aboard Air Force One, on July 18, 2003, the Bush administration declassified some portions of the NIE, including the passage quoted above, regarding INR's dissent regarding the aluminum tubes.

But the Bush administration steadfastly continued to refuse to declassify the President's Summary of the NIE, which in the words of one senior official, is the "one document which illustrates what the president knew and when he knew it." The administration also refused to furnish copies of the paper to congressional intelligence committees.

That a summary was also prepared for Bush on the question of Saddam's intentions regarding an unprovoked attack on the United States is significant because the administration has claimed that the president was unaware of intelligence information that conflicted with his public statements and those of the vice president and members of his Cabinet on the justifications for attacking Iraq.

According to interviews and records, Bush personally read the one-page summary in Tenet's presence during the morning intelligence briefing, and the two spoke about it at some length. Sources familiar with the summary said it was highly significant that the president was informed that it was the unanimous conclusion of the intelligence agencies participating in the production of the January 2003 NIE that Saddam was unlikely to consider attacking the U.S. unless Iraq was attacked first.

Cheney received virtually the same intelligence information, according to the same records and interviews. The president's summaries have been shared with the vice president as a matter of course during the Bush presidency.

The conclusion among intelligence agencies that Saddam was unlikely to consider attacking the United States unless attacked first was also outlined in Senior Executive Intelligence Briefs, highly classified daily intelligence papers distributed to several hundred executive branch officials and to the congressional intelligence oversight committees.

During the second half of 2002, the president and vice president repeatedly cited the threat from Saddam in their public statements. "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," Cheney declared on August 26, 2002, to the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

In his September 12 address to the U.N. General Assembly, Bush said: "With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors."

In an October 7 address to the nation, Bush cited intelligence showing that Iraq had a fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons. "We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States," the president declared.

"We know that Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America," he added. "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."

In his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address, the president once again warned the nation: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

In March 2003, as American, British, and other military forces prepared to invade Iraq, the president repeated the warnings during a summit in the Azores islands of Portugal and in a March 17 speech to the nation on the eve of the war. "The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological, or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country," Bush said in the March 17 speech. "The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it."

Senior Bush administration officials say they had good reason to disbelieve the intelligence that was provided to them by the CIA, noting that the intelligence the agency had provided earlier regarding Iraq was flawed.

And more recently, a 511-page bipartisan report by the Senate Intelligence Committee on prewar intelligence regarding Iraq concluded: "Despite four decades of intelligence reporting on Iraq, there was little useful intelligence collected that helped analysis determine the Iraqi regime's possible links with Al Qaeda."

The White House declined to comment for this story. In a statement, Frederick Jones, a spokesman for the National Security Council said, "The president of the United States has talked about this matter directly, as have a myriad of other administration officials. At this juncture, we have nothing to add to that body of information."

The 9/11 commission concluded in its final report that no evidence existed of a "collaborative operational relationship" between Saddam and Al Qaeda, adding, "Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with Al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

-- <a href="http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/waas.htm">Previous coverage</a> of pre-war intelligence and the CIA leak investigation from Murray Waas.

dksuddeth · 03-02-2006, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Nope. She was practicing free speech, and was anti-war. Nothing illegal about that.

I have to agree with this. meeting the enemy and sitting on their weapons is NOT aid and comfort nor is it in any way 'war' against american troops.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Same as Jane. Kerry was a hero for what he did.

When did lying to congress make one a hero?

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Of course. He should have been prosecuted for aiding a state at war with America.

I agree with this as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

We're still not 100% sure about his election (the POWs release being possibly heald longer until after the election for weapons).

Are you inferring that he somehow rigged the election?

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

What he did to Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras were beyond horrific, but a traitor he was not for those.

agreed

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Nothing I can prove, yet. Plenty of adding facts, but no proof.

let me know when you can prove that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Nixon, as a private citizen during the 1968 presidential race, sought to delay and disrupt the Paris peace talks, thereby prolonging the war in Vietnam and leading to the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and millions of Vietnamese. Did someone say traitor?

This does not make one a traitor. One would actually have to do something that aided the enemy over america. All this did was prolong a war already in progress but aided neither side.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Hahahaha. Of course. He is guilty of being an accomplice to over 3000 U.S. murders. I don't know if I have time to list all the ways, so I figure one is enough.

He is guilty of being CinC and ordering an invasion to enforce multiple resolutions from a cease fire agreement from 12 years before. Troops died because it's war. Last I looked, that was not treasonous nor traitorous. When you can throw some proof up here that he knowingly sent americans over there with absolutely no intention of winning the objectives, i'll reconsider.

Ustwo · 03-02-2006, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I have to agree with this. meeting the enemy and sitting on their weapons is NOT aid and comfort nor is it in any way 'war' against american troops.

Being used for propaganda purposes of your own free will by the enemy doesn't equal aid?

Willravel · 03-02-2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

When did lying to congress make one a hero?

Not lying to congress, fighting in a war and risking his life for what he thought was freedom. Trying to raise awareness of the reality of the war made him a hero. I don't condone lying to congress.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Are you inferring that he somehow rigged the election?

Not rigged, like George W., but he used influence to undermine his opponent that happened to be aiding an enemy of America and a group that was holding American hostages. The latter part is what pisses me off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

let me know when you can prove that.

I will, but don't count on it too soon. I'm still stuck knee deep in the 9/11 stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

This does not make one a traitor. One would actually have to do something that aided the enemy over america. All this did was prolong a war already in progress but aided neither side.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...312540,00.html good article from guardian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

He is guilty of being CinC and ordering an invasion to enforce multiple resolutions from a cease fire agreement from 12 years before. Troops died because it's war. Last I looked, that was not treasonous nor traitorous. When you can throw some proof up here that he knowingly sent americans over there with absolutely no intention of winning the objectives, i'll reconsider.

I'd say that he is responsible for the needless deaths of American soldiers. That's treason in my eyes. When you choose to be loyal to Saudi money and corporate interests over the good of his own country, you are a traitor.

Willravel · 03-02-2006, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Being used for propaganda purposes of your own free will by the enemy doesn't equal aid?

People are used for propoganda purpouses every day. Jack Bauer is walking propoganda. George Cloony, Ralph Fines, Steven Speildburg....being an entertainer means being a tool for propoganda, and it's not always American. If someone was fundamentally effected by Jane Fonda sitting on a gun, they're probably already brainwashed over a dozen times.

I give aid to Cuba by smoking their cigars!

Ustwo · 03-02-2006, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

People are used for propoganda purpouses every day. Jack Bauer is walking propoganda. George Cloony, Ralph Fines, Steven Speildburg....being an entertainer means being a tool for propoganda, and it's not always American. If someone was fundamentally effected by Jane Fonda sitting on a gun, they're probably already brainwashed over a dozen times.

I give aid to Cuba by smoking their cigars!

Apples in my oranges.

Willravel · 03-02-2006, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Apples in my oranges.

I dare you to be more vague.

The fact is that we were never at war (Vietnam was a conflict). The fact is that she never took ana ctive role against our government. All she did was say things like "don't bomb Vietnam". Had I been alive at that time, I would have been saying the same thing.

dksuddeth · 03-02-2006, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...312540,00.html good article from guardian.

This has what to do with nixon? thats where my comment was directed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'd say that he is responsible for the needless deaths of American soldiers. That's treason in my eyes. When you choose to be loyal to Saudi money and corporate interests over the good of his own country, you are a traitor.

and I, again, say they were not needless. Hussein was not abiding by the terms of the cease fire nor was he adhering to the numerous resolutions applied to him and his government.

dksuddeth · 03-02-2006, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Being used for propaganda purposes of your own free will by the enemy doesn't equal aid?

Until they make 'stupidity' and 'ignorance' illegal, no.

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-02-2006, 04:18 PM

One of my favorite stories is how recently Jane Fonda was on some tour, possibly for a book, at any rate some GI from Nam threw a dip in and proceeded to wait in line for hours, not once relinquishing his saliva, once his turn was up he spat 4 hours worth of wad on her. Served the bitch right.

Ustwo · 03-02-2006, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

One of my favorite stories is how recently Jane Fonda was on some tour, possibly for a book, at any rate some GI from Nam threw a dip in and proceeded to wait in line for hours, not once relinquishing his saliva, once his turn was up he spat 4 hours worth of wad on her. Served the bitch right.

Hope its a true story and not an ubran legend. I'd pay to see that.

Marvelous Marv · 03-02-2006, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

According to Chief Nuremberg War Crimes Prosecutor, SCOTUS Justice Robert Jackson.......

In Jackson's own words...at the Nuremberg trials:

I really admire Jackson.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert H Jackson

The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils which. leave no home in the world untouched.

and there's this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert H Jackson

What makes this inquest significant is that these prisoners represent sinister influences that will lurk in the world long after their bodies have returned to dust. We will show them to be living symbols of racial hatreds, of terrorism and violence, and of the arrogance and cruelty of power. They are symbols of fierce nationalisms and of militarism, of intrigue and war-making which have embroiled Europe generation after generation, crushing its manhood, destroying its homes, and impoverishing its life. They have so identified themselves with the philosophies they conceived and with the forces they directed that any tenderness to them is a victory and an encouragement to all the evils which are attached to their names. Civilization can afford no compromise with the social forces which would gain renewed strength if we deal ambiguously or indecisively with the men in whom those forces now precariously survive.

Willravel · 03-02-2006, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

This has what to do with nixon? thats where my comment was directed.

Sorry, I misread the quote of a quote of a quote. Nixon, as a private citizen during the 1968 presidential race, sought to delay and disrupt the Paris peace talks, thereby prolonging the war in Vietnam and leading to the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and millions of Vietnamese. His actions proved tbhat he was willing to sell out his country for his political career. I consider that being a traitor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

and I, again, say they were not needless. Hussein was not abiding by the terms of the cease fire nor was he adhering to the numerous resolutions applied to him and his government.

We have solved nothing in Iraq, therfore the deaths were needless.

dksuddeth · 03-02-2006, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Sorry, I misread the quote of a quote of a quote. Nixon, as a private citizen during the 1968 presidential race, sought to delay and disrupt the Paris peace talks, thereby prolonging the war in Vietnam and leading to the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and millions of Vietnamese. His actions proved tbhat he was willing to sell out his country for his political career. I consider that being a traitor.

Vietnam wasn't lost during Nixons term, to my knowledge, and there is no overt evidence to suggest that nixon made efforts to cause americas loss, therefore, traitor would not be correct terminology. Inept, incompetent, maybe even unethically opportunistic....but not traitor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

We have solved nothing in Iraq, therfore the deaths were needless.

Saddam Hussein is no longer in power and the new Iraqi government does not have WMD's. Two things alone that were solved. UN resolution 1441 can now be disposed of and the cease fire from 91 is no longer in effect. Two more things solved. There is no more government sanctioned oppression of a certain sect of people due to a government that is representative of its people. Thats the biggest thing resolved.

Willravel · 03-02-2006, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Saddam Hussein is no longer in power and the new Iraqi government does not have WMD's. Two things alone that were solved. UN resolution 1441 can now be disposed of and the cease fire from 91 is no longer in effect. Two more things solved. There is no more government sanctioned oppression of a certain sect of people due to a government that is representative of its people. Thats the biggest thing resolved.

The WMDs have been gone since the early 90s, and Saddam Husain's power was failing before the Iraqi war (thanks, ironically, to places like FALLUJAH, where Hussain resistence was growing). I suspect that we interfered with a building revolution. We all know that revolution from within is better in bringing about change than outside interferance, soooo....no to those first two (At least in my mind). In early December, 2002, Iraq filed a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for UN resolution 1441. The UN and the US said that this failed to account for all of Iraq's chemical and biological agents. We went in and they had none of the chemical and biological weapons that the UN and US suggested. Iraq complied completly back in November of 2002. Wikipedia has a really grea article on 1441 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Secu...esolution_1441).

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-02-2006, 10:14 PM

It's pretty hilarious when people talk in some overtly legal, completely affirmative sense, like they are not wrong. But as reality would have it, it could not be further from the truth.

Excuse the unnecessary bludgeoning of a dead horse, but people here seem to have little concept of constitutional law (that little document that is the ultimate, and final legal authority of the country) or sovereign/ real politic(k).

Bush had the authority of congress to act in Iraq. As the Executive, read Commander-in-Chief, he is allowed to act in good faith the execution of all laws passed by congress. Further more your conspiracies would never hold up to legal scrutiny, regardless of how good/bad the current post Iraq War conflict is going, he was allowed to act by congress the legislative body; can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted contrary to good faith? Don't lie to yourself or me, becuase the answer is no.

To many people here carry a burdening and debilatating sense of idealism, especially in their political application. This is clearly seen in their view of American common/domestic/statuatory law. But it is further seen in their incessant attempt to somehow assert that the Iraqi conflict is illegal on some "international" scale.

Would someone be so kind as to tell me what the President affirms an oath to? Is it the UN? Maybe could someone direct as to what legal authority the UN operates under? Is there some innate legal authority? Perhaps conceded? When did America as a sovereign nation ever concede any legal authority to the UN in some capacity that would limit its own action in Iraq? To further, under what statutes would any American actors equate to war criminals? Is America treaty to the ICC?

Interesting, no?

Willravel · 03-02-2006, 10:29 PM

Bush could do a lot of stuff legally...who cares? Does the fact that it's legal make it right? Of course not. The decision to go to war with Iraq, though legal under US law, was stupid and unnecessary.

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-02-2006, 10:44 PM

First off, a leader under the American system, can only operate under a legal capacity, that again is the constitution. I care for one.

And not to thread jack, and not to mudsling, I'm sorry it comes down to it, but, several members here on the "left" often apply to some relative subjective approach to reality, what makes your moral compass so right? I find abortion completely abhorrent, yet it is legal.

A true leader, and please don't even equate Bush to this mold, is as moral as a hurricane to quote a pretentious and fabeled fictious TV character. America has it's needs, it is completely stupid to ignore Iraq as a matter of policy, and lineated necessity for our policy needs. At best it is extremely short sighted, but by and large is ignorant of the real world political scheme. As such it is neither stupid, nor unnecessary.

Willravel · 03-02-2006, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

First off, a leader under the American system, can only operate under a legal capacity, that again is the constitution. I care for one.

The legality of the Iraq war, at least the legality under US law, was never an issue, right or left. It's a strawman to suggest otherwise. Because US law was never an issue in the Iraq war, why are you mentioning it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

And not to thread jack, and not to mudsling, I'm sorry it comes down to it, but, several members here on the "left" often apply to some relative subjective approach to reality, what makes your moral compass so right? I find abortion completely abhorrent, yet it is legal.

The argument I am making is that the Iraqi war has yielded no positive results. If I can prove this is true, then the moral compas becomes moot, as logic becomes a primary argument against the war. If, legistically, the war had no positive results for either the US or iraq, then Bushco was clearly not justified in starting it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

A true leader, and please don't even equate Bush to this mold, is as moral as a hurricane to quote a pretentious and fabeled fictious TV character. America has it's needs, it is completely stupid to ignore Iraq as a matter of policy, and lineated necessity for our policy needs. At best it is extremely short sighted, but by and large is ignorant of the real world political scheme. As such it is neither stupid, nor unnecessary.

A true leader works with allies and subordinates in order to benifit all parties, does not work from a throne, is open to all the options, finishes the job he or she starts, knows that leadership skills come from learning, and can accept credit for his or her failings, and responsibility for his or her failures.

The Iraq War was not and is not one of America's needs. I am not suggesting that we completly ignored Iraq, but to accuse them of having weapons and links to an attack on US soil, only to find both are totally wrong....well that's bad policy.

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-02-2006, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The legality of the Iraq war, at least the legality under US law, was never an issue, right or left. It's a strawman to suggest otherwise. Because US law was never an issue in the Iraq war, why are you mentioning it?

First Will, I don't appreciate you saying the legality under US law has never been an issue. In the context of this board that isn't true, as seen in this thread on several accounts Bush is labeled as a war criminal for his actions, the conflict is labeled as illegal. That's why I mention it. Again I reassert the FACT that international law holds no weight, no muster, and at best in the context of this issue is a matter of politicking by other foreign sovereign states.

Quote:

The argument I am making is that the Iraqi war has yielded no positive results. If I can prove this is true, then the moral compas becomes moot, as logic becomes a primary argument against the war. If, legistically, the war had no positive results for either the US or iraq, then Bushco was clearly not justified in starting it.

I can't really argue against this comment so much. Hell we might even agree, perhaps maybe wholly if you would concede that a moral compass is completely moot, but I doubt you would. Logic cannot factor in, again I would attest this to short sightedness, no disrespect intended, but I feel compelled to quote old treebeard and say "don't be hasty" at least in how it applies to political capital; hindsight is always going to be 20-20. For me the end will always justify the means, my end is different then yours, so perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.

Quote:

A true leader works with allies and subordinates in order to benifit all parties, does not work from a throne, is open to all the options, finishes the job he or she starts, knows that leadership skills come from learning, and can accept credit for his or her failings, and responsibility for his or her failures.

The Iraq War was not and is not one of America's needs. I am not suggesting that we completly ignored Iraq, but to accuse them of having weapons and links to an attack on US soil, only to find both are totally wrong....well that's bad policy.

You will are an Idealist, can't knock you for that. Others like myself would argue that a true leader should follow a Machiavellian mold, probably more of a realist mold. A true leader serves no master but their ambition; they never lend their power in such a way that would hinder their own; hell in a historical sense, dating back to Washington one of America's precepts has been to steer clear of allies, as they hinder our interests in a means to serve their own. I agree you finish what you start, I hope Shrub and America after him can do that, and do it right.

The war in Iraq was one of America's needs, again it comes down to policy, and it is an issue that time will reveal. I guess all this gab is a matter of perspective.

Willravel · 03-03-2006, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

First Will, I don't appreciate you saying the legality under US law has never been an issue. In the context of this board that isn't true, as seen in this thread on several accounts Bush is labeled as a war criminal for his actions, the conflict is labeled as illegal. That's why I mention it. Again I reassert the FACT that international law holds no weight, no muster, and at best in the context of this issue is a matter of politicking by other foreign sovereign states.

The thing is that when the question of legality is applied to the Iraq war, it is usually international law, which is absurdly fuzzy on preemptive wars and even more fuzzy about situations as complicated as the one we're in. We are in a situation where the intelligence leading up to the war was either incorrectr (no ones fault), or a lie (big prolem). Until we can make a determination about the nature of the intelligence, we cannot determine if the war was wholely preemptive and unwarranted. I think this is where I remember the legal issue beig debated, which I can understand. That conversation will have to wait for more proof, though. For now, it's going to have to remain unsolved and on the back burner. I will say though that forging and distorting federal intillegence is a serious crime, and IF there are people responsible for pushing a war though by changing and distorting intelligence gathered then we could have US law take action in this eventually. But again, We'll have to wait and see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

I can't really argue against this comment so much. Hell we might even agree, perhaps maybe wholly if you would concede that a moral compass is completely moot, but I doubt you would. Logic cannot factor in, again I would attest this to short sightedness, no disrespect intended, but I feel compelled to quote old treebeard and say "don't be hasty" at least in how it applies to political capital; hindsight is always going to be 20-20. For me the end will always justify the means, my end is different then yours, so perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.

I can never discout morality completly and more than I can remove and arm or an eye ball. It's a part of me. I do realize that my morality is not always the same as those who I am communicating with, and I've learned to live with that. Luckly, there is something that is universal: fact. You really believe the ends justify the means? That's usually a situational, or case by case type of statement. Does an omlett justify breaking eggs? Absolutely. Does better technology and stability justify WWII? Probably not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

You will are an Idealist, can't knock you for that. Others like myself would argue that a true leader should follow a Machiavellian mold, probably more of a realist mold. A true leader serves no master but their ambition; they never lend their power in such a way that would hinder their own; hell in a historical sense, dating back to Washington one of America's precepts has been to steer clear of allies, as they hinder our interests in a means to serve their own. I agree you finish what you start, I hope Shrub and America after him can do that, and do it right.

What use is a selfish leader?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

The war in Iraq was one of America's needs, again it comes down to policy, and it is an issue that time will reveal. I guess all this gab is a matter of perspective.

Well at it's coore the whole big mess we calll Tilted Politics is about perspective. Its important that everyone understand that. I know that social programs like universal healthcare or libraries, schools, colleges, and adult education would have been a better investment from that $500b than rebuilding a country that we are trearing apart. At the same time there are a million other opinions all with equal merrit about the very same thing. It's all based on the sensation and perception, or that makes us who we are: individuals. We aren't the Borg (or one minded automotans with one opinion and one goal).

host · 03-03-2006, 12:17 PM

aceventura3, Mojo_PeiPei, and Ustwo, et al, should consider themselves very fortunate that their position that Bush is not a war criminal , requires no arguments that are anchored by facts, because, if Murray Waas has reported reliably, the October 3, 2004 NY Times reporting linked below, meshes so well with Waas's new disclosures, if we lived in a republic with functioning representative government, Bush would be facing an impeachment trial in the senate....in a heartbeat:
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=1
<h4>Important Notice !!! The link above points to a page where an enitre NY Times, Oct. 3, 2004 News Article is displayed, under the "fair use" doctrine. The article contents have no relationship to "truthout . org. Any attempt to denigrate or distract from the information in the article by linking it's contents to truthout .org, is a cheap, "troll like" tactic intentionally posted by folks here who should know better!! Challenge: post another link that displays the article at another site, and I'll change the link to the article in this post.</h4>

(The following describes the article that I posted on this thread yesterday..)

Quote:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1002115278
'National Journal': More Evidence That Press and Public Misled on Iraq

By E&P Staff

Published: March 02, 2006 8:00 PM ET

NEW YORK More records have emerged suggesting that President Bush knew he was not telling the truth when he made various statements to the press during the run-up to the Iraq war concerning the threat to America from the Saddam Hussein regime.

Murray Waas, who has broken several key stories recently related to the Plame/CIA leak case for the nonpartisan National Journal, returned Thursday on the magazine's Web site with a detailed acount of two highly classified intelligence reports that were delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war......

To refresh your memories about the article that I posted here yesterday, here's the "intro":

Quote:

http://hotstory.nationaljournal.com/...es/0302nj1.htm
By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, March 2, 2006

Two highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war cast doubt on key public assertions made by the president, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials as justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, according to records and knowledgeable sources.

The first report, delivered to Bush in early October 2002, was a one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate that discussed whether Saddam's procurement of high-strength aluminum tubes was for the purpose of developing a nuclear weapon.

Among other things, the report stated that the Energy Department and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research believed that the tubes were "intended for conventional weapons," a view disagreeing with that of other intelligence agencies, including the CIA, which believed that the tubes were intended for a nuclear bomb.

The disclosure that Bush was informed of the DOE and State dissents is the first evidence that the president himself knew of the sharp debate within the government over the aluminum tubes during the time that he, Cheney, and other members of the Cabinet were citing the tubes as clear evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program. Neither the president nor the vice president told the public about the disagreement among the agencies.....

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-03-2006, 01:37 PM

How is anything I have stated not anchored with fact? For someone who seems so intelligent host, you really don't get it. Hell Will might not be sold on what I've said, but I'm sure he at least grasps the argument.

My whole argument is based off of factual law , the constitution, not some op-ed with accusations, agendas, and half truths skewed to make a subjective case.

Marvelous Marv · 03-03-2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

aceventura3, Mojo_PeiPei, and Ustwo, et al, should consider themselves very fortunate that their position that Bush is not a war criminal , requires no arguments that are anchored by facts, because, if Murray Waas has reported reliably, the October 3, 2004 NY Times reporting linked below, meshes so well with Waas's new disclosures, if we lived in a republic with functioning representative government, Bush would be facing an impeachment trial in the senate....in a heartbeat:
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=1
<h4>Important Notice !!! The link above points to a page where an enitre NY Times, Oct. 3, 2004 News Article is displayed, under the "fair use" doctrine. The article contents have no relationship to "truthout . org. Any attempt to denigrate or distract from the information in the article by linking it's contents to truthout .org, is a cheap, "troll like" tactic intentionally posted by folks here who should know better!! Challenge: post another link that displays the article at another site, and I'll change the link to the article in this post.</h4>

(The following describes the article that I posted on this thread yesterday..)

To refresh your memories about the article that I posted here yesterday, here's the "intro":

Link

Quote:

To put the issue of weapons of mass destruction in a truthful historical perspective Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on June 8 published an excellent article in the Washington Post stating: "There is something surreal about the charges flying that President Bush lied ... [about weapons of mass destruction]. The absurdity of this charge is mind-boggling. ... Start with this: The Iraqi government in the 1990s admitted to U.N. weapons inspectors that it had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax and a few tons of VX for years."

Kagan also cites the report that chief weapons inspector Hans Blix delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27 stating that: (1) there is "no convincing evidence" they were ever destroyed, (2) Iraq possessed enough "bacterial growth media" to produce "5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax," (3) "it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin" and (4) there were 6,500 "chemical bombs" weighing 1,000 tons that Iraq admitted producing but whose whereabouts were unknown.

Kagan also provides detailed quotes from former vice president Al Gore, former CIA director John Deutch and former secretary of defense William Cohen of the Clinton administration, all piously warning the nation of the dangers of Saddam's secret weapons. Finally, Kagan closes his article with excerpts from a speech made by former president Clinton, who stated unequivocally that Iraq had 5,000 gallons of botulinum, 2,000 gallons of anthrax, 25 biological-filled Scud warheads and 157 aerial bombs.

At the conclusion of his speech Clinton warned of "the kind of threat Iraq poses - a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists who travel the world among us unnoticed."

Even Clinton was right at times. Could you post any information you possess that contradicts the above, or that makes you a more reliable source than Kagan, Blix, or Clinton?

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-03-2006, 03:19 PM

I'm betting, what were the words Host, "an attempt to denigrate" the source is going to pop up.

host · 03-03-2006, 11:48 PM

[1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

How is anything I have stated not anchored with fact? For someone who seems so intelligent host, you really don't get it. Hell Will might not be sold on what I've said, but I'm sure he at least grasps the argument.

My whole argument is based off of factual law , the constitution, not some op-ed with accusations, agendas, and half truths skewed to make a subjective case.

[2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Link

....Even Clinton was right at times. Could you post any information you possess that contradicts the above, or that makes you a more reliable source than Kagan, Blix, or Clinton?

[3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

I'm betting, what were the words Host, "an attempt to denigrate" the source is going to pop up.

[1]
Responding to to Mojo_PeiPei:
<h5>The irony is rich because, after your inaccurate insinuation that I had posted an "op-ed", Marvelous Marv posted an "op-ed" to serve (so far) as the entire rebuttal intended to counter the best researched MSM REPORTING of the specifics of the Bush admin. pre-war lie campaign, narrowed to one issue...aluminum tubes, that I have come across, made particulalry more damning when coupled with the March 2, 2006 report by Murray Waas.

Then.... you followed up with your "taunt"...daring me to "denigrate" Marv's "offering" !</h5>

None of the three items that I posted are "op-ed"....I made that quite clear already.

I changed the NY Times Sunday 03 October 2004 (below) article link to a link where you cannot read the body of the article unless you purchase it. Would you prefer that the article be blocked from view, than available on the truthout .org site?

Quote:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...A90994DC404482
Skewed Intelligence Data in March to War in Iraq
By David Barstow, William J. Broad, and Jeff Gerth
The New York Times

Sunday 03 October 2004

The article above is a "hard news" report from Oct. 3, 2004 that details all references by the Bush admin. members to aluminum tubes linked to Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons development program.

Quote:

http://hotstory.nationaljournal.com/...es/0302nj1.htm
By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, March 2, 2006

Two highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war cast doubt on key public assertions made by the president, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials as justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, according to records and knowledgeable sources.....

The article above is a "hard news" report, by an investigative journalist, just as the NY Times piece preceding it, is. When you read the NY Times report, in the new context of Murray Waas's report on what Bush and Rice and Cheney, et al, knew when they made the statements that are quoted in the Oct. 3, 2004 article, they seem to have knowingly and deliberately lied the U.S. into an unnecessary, unjustified, and thus, illegal war. At the very least, this "news" should bring calls for immediate attention to completion of the Senate Intel Committee's Phase II report, delayed since July 8, 2004!

Quote:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1002115278
'National Journal': More Evidence That Press and Public Misled on Iraq

By E&P Staff

Published: March 02, 2006 8:00 PM ET

NEW YORK More records have emerged suggesting that President Bush knew he was not telling the truth when he made various statements to the press during the run-up to the Iraq war concerning the threat to America from the Saddam Hussein regime.

Murray Waas, who has broken several key stories recently related to the Plame/CIA leak case for the nonpartisan National Journal, returned Thursday on the magazine's Web site with a detailed acount of two highly classified intelligence reports that were delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war......

No "op-ed" in the above piece either....just a description of Murray Waas's background from his peers. I thought that it might be helpful, since the MSM is not "liberal" enough to <a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=murray+waas&btnG=Search+News">pick up</a> his report too quickly. But they will...give them time. Here's the "Mouse's" News Network, mentioning Waas (and Bush's deception)...now:

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238
The Note: Home Is Where the Polls Are
WASHINGTON, Mar. 3
Politics of Iraq:

National Journal's Murray Waas reports that the President received "highly classified intelligence reports containing information at odds with his justifications for going to war."

So....no "op-ed", Mojo!

[2] Marvelous Marv....Clinton's CIA director, just months after Clinton left office, makes it quite clear in the quote box below that Saddam (Tenet remarks on 07 February 2001)"his ability to project power outside Iraq's borders is severely limited, largely because of the effectiveness and enforcement of the No-Fly Zones. His military is roughly half the size it was during the Gulf War and remains under a tight arms embargo. He has trouble efficiently moving forces and supplies-a direct result of sanctions."

Marvelous Marv, you asked,

Quote:

Even Clinton was right at times. Could you post any information you possess that contradicts the above, or that makes you a more reliable source than Kagan, Blix, or Clinton?

I answered the "Clinton" portion of your question by offering a quote from his appointee, CIA Director George Tenet, spoken by him just 18 days after Clinton's term as POTUS ended.

Ah...yes....your "op-ed" is rife with the opinions of PNAC board member, Robert Kagan, co-author of PNAC's "one-note song"....pre-9/11 justifications for imperialistic power projection looked even better on 9-12. Kagan....correct less frequently than a broken clock:

Quote:

"Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty."

Scholar Robert Kagan, April 9, 2003

In march, 2003, Blix asked for more time for UN weapons inspectors to complete their inspections in Iraq. Bush rattled his sword and, in the rush to war, the inspectors had no choice but to end the inspections that would have resulted in conclusions that would have avoided war, spared countless numbers from death or shattered lives. Give it up, guys. If Foxnews likely voter pollling results reported on March 3, hold or build, voters will vote for democrats to replace the House majority by a 48 percent to 34 percent margin, and the question of whether Bush launched a war of aggression will be examined to the same detail that will rival "blue dress stain" in 1998.

You may have negelcted to read or overlooked my "evidence", posted a number of times before on TFP, and re-posted below, that Powell, Rice, and even Wolfowitz agreed or expanded on Tenet's assessment that Saddam posed no signifigant threat, and that the "no fly zone" policy of ten years was working to contain Saddam. There is also a "Time" report that Rumsfeld believed similarly, even in 2002. Read my "challenge" below, and consider that Scott McClellan, speaking for the POTUS, conceded that there were no WMD in Iraq, and that there was no evidence that WMD had been moved out of Iraq. What more do you require, Marvelous Marv? Tell me, and if you promise to read it and fairly digest it, I'll endeavor to provide it!

[3]It's not necessary to "denigrate" Marvelous Marv's link and excerpt from the same link, Mojo_PeiPei. I request that you and Marv consider that what he posted and you apparently support was a July 20, 2003 response to my post of a 03 Oct 2004 investigative news report by three NY Times reporters that detailed three years of Bush administration efforts to exaggerate the threat to the U.S. of Saddam's nuclear weapons development program, coupled with Murray Waas's report from March 2, 2005. I'll leave it to the tow or three other readers who might be interested enough to skim through all this, to decide if Marv's "offering" is akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight?
How does a July 20, 2003 article, written when no determination was made as to whether the WMD that Rumsfeld "knew were there, east, west, north, and south of Baghdad", actually....were....there,
....contribute to furthering the discussion I initiated?
<h4>Scott McClellan's Jan. 12, 2005 admission has been enough to destroy arguments very similar to the one Marv linked to, but "there you go again!</h4>

I Posted <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1941627&postcount=88">this</a> on a TFP thread on Nov. 18, 2005. Here's an excerpt.....a question that no one who takes your "side" of the "argument", has ever been able to answer.
If anyone has answered with an organized rebuttal, please point me to a link!

Quote:

.....When I post quotes...for example, from Tenet, Powell, and Rice that all make it clear that, prior to 9/11 these key spokespeople for this administration were of the unanimous opinion that Saddam's Iraq bore continued close scrutiny, but there was a consensus that his military was no threat to his neighbors, that the "no fly zone" and trade sanctions were working as intended to keep Saddam from recontituting his prior, WMD programs, and inventories.

No one from the conservative, "defender of Bush et al" POV, who I have posted the points in the above link, has ever offered an explanation or a rebuttal to my premise that Tenet, Powell, and Rice were all of the same opinion regarding the threat that Saddam and his ambitions posed. No one has been willing to discuss the curious paradox of the above three officials all committing to a policy of "closely watching" what Saddam is up to, yet suddenly being part of a massive "about face", wherein Saddam is transformed almost overnight into a threat that justifies an invasion to stop, not only towards his neighbors, but even imminently to the U.S. mainland itself.

I've posted the contents of the post linked above, politicophile, at least a dozen times in these threads. You ignored the quotes in the contents of the post, and the MSM news reports of CBS news/Rumsfeld, Time's early 2002 report that Rumsfeld knew that Iraq was weak but requested intel to the contrary from the CIA "ten times", Bush's "Eff" Saddam, we're taking him out"
quote, and Wolfowitz's comments to congress that acknowledged that the "no fly" zone had been effective, but that it cost more than an invasion would, going forward......

My comments in the preceding quote box referred to the following example of my post Clinton, pre-9/11 quotes of Bush administration "heavyweights":

I posted the following, on Nov. 15, 2005:

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=42
.....You've ignored the following because it destroys your argument. I apologize for posting these quotes again....in the same forum topic, but I know of no better examples of what "holdouts" at this late date, must ignore in order to use "the appeal to Clinton". 26 months after Clinton's speech, his CIA director made it clear that Saddam did not even pose a threat to his neighbors, and that the "no fly zones" were achieving the intended effect. Two weeks later, Powell, the general who had prosecuted the '91 gulf war against Iraq, when he served as chairman of the joint chiefs, reiterated even more persuasively, what Tenet had said. Five months after that, Rice again backed both earlier statements.

There is never a response to these quotes, presumably because there is no convincing way to refute the assessments made in each one. They are consistent in that all three....CIA Director Tenet, Sec'y of State Powell, and NS Advisor Rice....in a time period that began with Tenet, 26 months after your citation, continuing to Rice's statements, 31 months after Clinton's speech, presumably after the new Bush administration had more time to assess the "threat" or, in this case....lack of one....that Saddam's Iraq actually posed:

Quote:

http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_02/alia/a1020708.htm
07 February 2001

Text: CIA's Tenet on Worldwide Threat 2001
.............IRAQ

Mr. Chairman, in Iraq Saddam Hussein has grown more confident in his ability to hold on to his power. He maintains a tight handle on internal unrest, despite the erosion of his overall military capabilities. Saddam's confidence has been buoyed by his success in quieting the Shia insurgency in the south, which last year had reached a level unprecedented since the domestic uprising in 1991. Through brutal suppression, Saddam's multilayered security apparatus has continued to enforce his authority and cultivate a domestic image of invincibility.

High oil prices and Saddam's use of the oil-for-food program have helped him manage domestic pressure. The program has helped meet the basic food and medicine needs of the population. High oil prices buttressed by substantial illicit oil revenues have helped Saddam ensure the loyalty of the regime's security apparatus operating and the few thousand politically important tribal and family groups loyal.

There are still constraints on Saddam's power. His economic infrastructure is in long-term decline, and his ability to project power outside Iraq's borders is severely limited, largely because of the effectiveness and enforcement of the No-Fly Zones. His military is roughly half the size it was during the Gulf War and remains under a tight arms embargo. He has trouble efficiently moving forces and supplies-a direct result of sanctions. These difficulties were demonstrated most recently by his deployment of troops to western Iraq last fall, which were hindered by a shortage of spare parts and transport capability........

Quote:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/forme...s/2001/933.htm
Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001

(lower paragraph of second Powell quote on the page)
.............but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.................

Quote:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/le.00.html

...........KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?

RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.

We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that..............

politicophile, the statements above seem to speak in unison, they were made, beginning 26 months after the Clinton "smoking gun" speech that you cited. Do the 2001 statements of Tenet, Powell, or Rice, indicate to you that a few months later, this would be a logical "followup" reported about the Bush administration, just 40 days after Rice spoke to CNN?:

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in520830.shtml

(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

or this....in March 2002?

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...mep.saddam.tm/
First Stop, Iraq

By Michael Elliott and James Carney
Monday, March 24, 2003 Posted: 5:49 PM EST (2249 GMT)

How did the U.S. end up taking on Saddam? The inside story of how Iraq jumped to the top of Bush's agenda -- and why the outcome there may foreshadow a different world order

"F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase.

or this...nine months after Rice's CNN appearance....

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...235395,00.html
May 5, 2002
............Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe. Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed. The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack — a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic — was discredited last week..............

Even Wolfowitz, in this "pitch" for the proposed invasion, did not deny that the existing Iraq "containment" policy had been effective. He seemed to think that invading Iraq would save money......

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061100723.html

Testimony by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of Iraq policy, before a House subcommittee on Feb. 28, 2003, just weeks before the invasion, illustrated the optimistic view the administration had of postwar Iraq. He said containment of Hussein the previous 12 years had cost "slightly over $30 billion," adding, "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to spend another $30 billion to be there for another 12 years." As of May, the Congressional Research Service estimated that Congress has approved $208 billion for the war in Iraq since 2003..............

....and I posted the following three reports on <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=1695374&highlight=mcclellan+weapons+thought#post1695374">a TFP thread</a> on March 2, 2005

Quote:

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6834079/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6834079/</a>
U.S. found no evidence WMD moved from Iraq
No signs that weapons were smuggled, intelligence officials say
The Associated Press
Updated: 2:24 a.m. ET Jan. 17, 2005

WASHINGTON - As the hunt for weapons of mass destruction dragged on unsuccessfully in Iraq, top Bush administration officials speculated publicly that the banned armaments may have been smuggled out of the country before the war started.

Whether Saddam Hussein moved the WMD — deadly chemical, biological or radiological arms — is one of the unresolved issues that the final U.S. intelligence report on Iraq’s programs is expected to address next month.

But intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never “a piece,” said one — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere.

<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1620839&postcount=74">http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1620839&postcount=74</a>

<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1674786&postcount=49">http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1674786&postcount=49</a>

Quote:

(Posted for the first time by host on a TFP thread)
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050112-7.html#1">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050112-7.html#1</a>

Excerpt from Scott McClellan Press Briefing, Jan. 12, 2005

Q The President accepts that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, he said back in October that the comprehensive report by Charles Duelfer concluded what his predecessor had said, as well, that the weapons that we all believed were there, based on the intelligence, were not there. And now what is important is that we need to go back and look at what was wrong with much of the intelligence that we accumulated over a 12-year period and that our allies had accumulated over that same period of time, and correct any flaws.

Q I just want to make sure, though, because you said something about following up on additional reports and learning more about the regime. You are not trying to hold out to the American people the possibility that there might still be weapons somewhere there, are you?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I just said that if there are -- if there are any other reports, obviously, of weapons of mass destruction, then people will follow up on those reports. I'm just stating a fact.

Quote:

<a http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/in...12cnd-wmd.html
(copy and paste above link in google search box, you made need to register at nytimes site to view article)
Search for Illicit Weapons in Iraq Ends

By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune

Published: January 12, 2005

ASHINGTON, Jan. 12 - The White House confirmed today that the search in Iraq for the banned weapons it had cited as justifying the war that ousted Saddam Hussein has been quietly ended after nearly two years, with no evidence of their existence.

That means that the conclusions of an interim report last fall by the leader of the weapons hunt, Charles A. Duelfer, will stand. That report undercut prewar administration contentions that Iraq possessed biological and chemical weapons, was building a nuclear capability and might share weapons with Al Qaeda. A White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, insisted today that the war was justified. He rejected the suggestion that the administration's credibility had been gravely wounded in ways that could weaken its future response to perceived threats.

The administration appeared to be dropping today even the suggestion that banned weapons might be deeply buried or well hidden in Iraq. Mr. McClellan said that President Bush had already concluded, after the October release of an interim report from Mr. Duelfer, "that the weapons that we all believed were there, based on the intelligence, were not there."

Some administration officials have suggested that some arms might have been moved out of Iraq, perhaps to Syria. But Mr. McClellan appeared to rule that out.

04-26-2005, 07:38 PM	#43 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	America killed people in an armed conflict, doesn't really stack up to genocide. Actually, there was that whole thing with the Indians. My bad. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 04-27-2005 at 07:10 AM..

03-02-2006, 04:18 PM	#53 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	One of my favorite stories is how recently Jane Fonda was on some tour, possibly for a book, at any rate some GI from Nam threw a dip in and proceeded to wait in line for hours, not once relinquishing his saliva, once his turn was up he spat 4 hours worth of wad on her. Served the bitch right. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

03-02-2006, 10:14 PM	#59 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	It's pretty hilarious when people talk in some overtly legal, completely affirmative sense, like they are not wrong. But as reality would have it, it could not be further from the truth. Excuse the unnecessary bludgeoning of a dead horse, but people here seem to have little concept of constitutional law (that little document that is the ultimate, and final legal authority of the country) or sovereign/ real politic(k). Bush had the authority of congress to act in Iraq. As the Executive, read Commander-in-Chief, he is allowed to act in good faith the execution of all laws passed by congress. Further more your conspiracies would never hold up to legal scrutiny, regardless of how good/bad the current post Iraq War conflict is going, he was allowed to act by congress the legislative body; can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted contrary to good faith? Don't lie to yourself or me, becuase the answer is no. To many people here carry a burdening and debilatating sense of idealism, especially in their political application. This is clearly seen in their view of American common/domestic/statuatory law. But it is further seen in their incessant attempt to somehow assert that the Iraqi conflict is illegal on some "international" scale. Would someone be so kind as to tell me what the President affirms an oath to? Is it the UN? Maybe could someone direct as to what legal authority the UN operates under? Is there some innate legal authority? Perhaps conceded? When did America as a sovereign nation ever concede any legal authority to the UN in some capacity that would limit its own action in Iraq? To further, under what statutes would any American actors equate to war criminals? Is America treaty to the ICC? Interesting, no? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

03-02-2006, 10:44 PM	#61 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	First off, a leader under the American system, can only operate under a legal capacity, that again is the constitution. I care for one. And not to thread jack, and not to mudsling, I'm sorry it comes down to it, but, several members here on the "left" often apply to some relative subjective approach to reality, what makes your moral compass so right? I find abortion completely abhorrent, yet it is legal. A true leader, and please don't even equate Bush to this mold, is as moral as a hurricane to quote a pretentious and fabeled fictious TV character. America has it's needs, it is completely stupid to ignore Iraq as a matter of policy, and lineated necessity for our policy needs. At best it is extremely short sighted, but by and large is ignorant of the real world political scheme. As such it is neither stupid, nor unnecessary. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

03-03-2006, 01:37 PM	#66 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	How is anything I have stated not anchored with fact? For someone who seems so intelligent host, you really don't get it. Hell Will might not be sold on what I've said, but I'm sure he at least grasps the argument. My whole argument is based off of factual law , the constitution, not some op-ed with accusations, agendas, and half truths skewed to make a subjective case. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-26-2005, 06:39 PM	#42 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	How many did America kill (I know already, but feel free to venture a guess)? Is the number of how many we have killed itself a measure of who is better or worse?

03-02-2006, 10:29 PM	#60 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Bush could do a lot of stuff legally...who cares? Does the fact that it's legal make it right? Of course not. The decision to go to war with Iraq, though legal under US law, was stupid and unnecessary.

03-03-2006, 03:19 PM	#68 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I'm betting, what were the words Host, "an attempt to denigrate" the source is going to pop up. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.