NyTimes Downplays Premise That Evidence to Justify Impeachment of Bush is Available. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 06-16-2005, 11:50 AM

I offered documentation in a recent thread on "One Party Rule", that house judiciary committee chair James Sensenbrenner, Jr. has all but shut down the investigatory oversight responsibility of the committee, the place where articles of impeachment would be drafted against Bush administration officials.
The question I ask here, is why, in the face of what I offer below, including in the second quote box, reported by Time in April, 2002, combined with the revelation of the "Downing Street Memos", is why is the NY Times helping to discourage a proper reaction to all of the evidence? Why are they discrediting
sentiment in favor of an impeachment investigation against Bush for launching an illegal war in Iraq that is now a disaster, and lying abou the threat to the U.S. that Saddam alledgedly posed, in 2002?

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...235395,00.html
May 05, 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.......

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/po...14downing.html
News Analysis
A Peephole to the War Room: British Documents Shed Light on Bush Team's State of Mind
By TODD S. PURDUM
Published: June 14, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 13 - The disclosure of British government memorandums portraying the Bush administration as bent on war with Iraq by the summer of 2002, and insufficiently prepared for post-invasion problems, has caused a political stir on both sides of the Atlantic, in part because opponents of President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair see the documents as proof that both men misled their countries into war.

But the documents are not quite so shocking. Three years ago , the near-unanimous conventional wisdom in Washington held that Mr. Bush was determined to topple Saddam Hussein by any means necessary. Plenty of people - chief among them Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state - were also warning in public and private that the Pentagon was ill prepared for prolonged occupation.

What no one knew then for certain (though some lonely voices did predict it) is that American forces would find none of the lethal chemical or biological weapons that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair said made Iraq so dangerous, or that the anti-American insurgency would be so durable and deadly. That is why the British memos' foresight - read with the benefit of hindsight - rings so bittersweet for those who tried in vain to avert the war, and remain aghast at its human and material costs.

Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, plans to hold an informational forum about the memos (without Republican participation) on Thursday. Blogs are awash in discussions of the memos, and full of criticism of the mainstream American media for not paying them more mind.

In an interview on Monday, Mr. Conyers said that "it isn't that there wasn't any discussion" of the issues in the memos three years ago, "but it was all being put down, almost uniformly" by administration officials. Now, he added, "unless the British intelligence service can't take accurate notes of a meeting, it was very well understood that this was exactly what was going to happen."

The memos do shed new light on the thinking of senior British officials, and their view of American thinking, in the months before the invasion. At a minimum, they suggest that the Bush administration paid no less (and no more) heed to the concerns of its closest ally than it did to those of its own secretary of state.

But the memos are not the Dead Sea Scrolls. There has been ample evidence for many months, and even years, that top Bush administration figures saw war as inevitable by the summer of 2002. In the March 31, 2003, issue of The New Yorker, with the invasion just under way, Richard N. Haass, then the State Department's director of policy planning, said that in early July 2002 he asked Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, whether it made sense to put Iraq at the center of the agenda, with a global campaign against terrorism already under way. "And she said, essentially, that that decision's been made, don't waste your breath," he said then.

By July 2002, daily newspapers were filled with details of war plans, which had been seeping out since late spring, and internal administration disputes over whether the planning was adequate. In August, Vice President Dick Cheney made a bellicose speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, in which he warned that a return of United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq "would provide no assurance whatsoever" of Mr. Hussein's compliance.

The so-called Downing Street memo, a summary of a prime minister's meeting on July 23, 2002, does not put forward specific proof that Mr. Bush had taken any particular action, only a general sense that "it seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided." It describes the impression of Britain's chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," but does not elaborate.

Rather, what the memo seems to emphasize is that the United States could build greater support for any military action - especially from Britain - by first confronting Iraq through the United Nations, the course it eventually took at the urging of Mr. Blair and Mr. Powell.

The latest memo published, first in The Washington Post and The Times of London over the weekend, is from July 21, 2002. It warned that "a post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise," in which "Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden."

For better or worse, the questions raised anew by the memos are not likely to go away.
By TODD S. PURDUM
Published: June 14, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 13 - The disclosure of British government memorandums portraying the Bush administration as bent on war with Iraq by the summer of 2002, and insufficiently prepared for post-invasion problems, has caused a political stir on both sides of the Atlantic, in part because opponents of President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair see the documents as proof that both men misled their countries into war.

Last summer, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a scathing, unanimous report that "most of the major key judgments" in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's illicit weapons were "either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting."

By prior agreement, the committee focused only on the role played by intelligence agencies, and reserved the question of how policy makers used intelligence for a future study, which is bogged down in internal disputes and competing priorities.

But Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the committee's ranking Democrat, said Monday in a statement, "The committee has an obligation to answer these questions, and the American people deserve answers. Only then can we provide a full and complete accounting of the mistakes leading up to the war in Iraq and what changes are necessary to fix them."

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...235395,00.html
..............."We're Taking Him Out"
His war on Iraq may be delayed, but Bush still vows to remove Saddam. Here's a look at White House plans
By DANIEL EISENBERG
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR

Posted Sunday, May. 05, 2002
Two months ago, a group of Republican and Democratic Senators went to the White House to meet with Condoleezza Rice, the President's National Security Adviser. Bush was not scheduled to attend but poked his head in anyway — and soon turned the discussion to Iraq. The President has strong feelings about Saddam Hussein (you might too if the man had tried to assassinate your father, which Saddam attempted to do when former President George Bush visited Kuwait in 1993) and did not try to hide them. He showed little interest in debating what to do about Saddam. Instead, he became notably animated, according to one person in the room, used a vulgar epithet to refer to Saddam and concluded with four words that left no one in doubt about Bush's intentions: "We're taking him out."

Dick Cheney carried the same message to Capitol Hill in late March. The Vice President dropped by a Senate Republican policy lunch soon after his 10-day tour of the Middle East — the one meant to drum up support for a U.S. military strike against Iraq. As everyone in the room well knew, his mission had been thrown off course by the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.<b> But Cheney hadn't lost focus. Before he spoke, he said no one should repeat what he said, and Senators and staff members promptly put down their pens and pencils.</b> Then he gave them some surprising news. The question was no longer if the U.S. would attack Iraq, he said. The only question was when....................

....................A front-page story in the New York Times on April 28 claimed that Bush had all but settled on a full-scale ground invasion of Iraq early next year with between 70,000 and 250,000 U.S. troops. But military and civilian officials insist that there is no finalized battle plan or timetable — and that Bush has not even been presented with a formal list of options. Instead, the Times story, with its vision of a large-scale troop deployment, seems to have been the latest volley in the bureaucratic war at home, leaked by uniformed officers who think some of their civilian overseers have been downplaying the size and difficulty of an attack...................

.................Still, planning for some kind of military action is clearly under way. Earlier this year, Bush signed a supersecret intelligence "finding" that authorized further action to prepare for Saddam's ouster. Mindful of widespread concern that a post-Saddam Iraq could quickly be torn apart by ethnic violence and regional meddling, the White House is increasing its efforts to devise a workable replacement government.........................

....................Invasion is not the only alternative being considered, but it is the most likely. Taking the Afghanistan campaign as their model, many proponents of action, including Senator John McCain, still believe that before the U.S. commits to a full-scale invasion, it's worth trying to overthrow Saddam in a proxy war with the help of a local opposition force much like the Northern Alliance, aided by American special forces and air power.......................

.............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...................

.................f that sounds like another potential Somalia, it's easy to understand why the President, for all his tough talk, is not about to rush into anything. "Bush cannot embark on a mission that fails," says Geoffrey Kemp, a former member of President Reagan's National Security Council now at the Nixon Center in Washington. "Given what happened to his father and the hype in this Administration, it would be the end." And for Saddam, yet another new beginning.

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.

The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room. A year later, Bush's outburst has been translated into action, as cruise missiles and smart bombs slam into Baghdad.

But the apparent simplicity of his message belies the gravity at hand. Sure, the outcome is certain: America will win the war, and Saddam will be taken out. But what is unfolding in Iraq is far bigger than regime change or even the elimination of dangerous weapons.

The U.S. has launched a war unlike any it has fought in the past. This one is being waged not to defend against an enemy that has attacked the U.S. or its interests but to pre-empt the possibility that one day it might do so.......

Quote:

http://www.maconareaonline.com/news.asp?id=11137
Palast for Conyers: The Other Downing Street 'Memos'
By: Greg Palast
Thur June 16, 2005 7:27 AM ET

MACON,GA.- Greg Palast, unable to attend hearings in Washington Thursday, has submitted the following testimony:

Chairman Conyers,

It's official: The Downing Street memos, a snooty New York Times "News Analysis" informs us, "are not the Dead Sea Scrolls." You are warned, Congressman, to ignore the clear evidence of official mendacity and bald-faced fibbing by our two nations' leaders because the cry for investigation came from the dark and dangerous world of "blogs" and "opponents" of Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush.

.......On May 5, "blog" site Buzzflash.com carried my story, IMPEACHMENT TIME: "FACTS WERE FIXED," bringing the London Times report of the Downing Street memo to US media which seemed to be suffering at the time from an attack of NADD -- "news attention deficit disorder."

The memo, which contains the ill-making admission that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed" to match the Iraq-crazed fantasies of our President, is sufficient basis for a hearing toward impeachment of the Chief Executive. But to that we must add the other evidence and secret memos and documents still hidden from the American public. ........

......On BBC Television's Newsnight, Aljibury himself explained,

"It is an invasion, but it will act like a coup. The original plan was to liberate Iraq from the Saddamists and from the regime."

March 2001 - Vice-President Dick Cheney meets with oil company executives and reviews oil field maps of Iraq. Cheney refuses to release the names of those attending or their purpose. Harper's has since learned their plan and purpose -- see below.

October/November 2001 - An easy military victory in Afghanistan emboldens then-Dep. Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to convince the Administration to junk the State Department "coup" plan in favor of an invasion and occupation that could remake the economy of Iraq. And elaborate plan, ultimately summarized in a 101-page document, scopes out the "sale of all state enterprises" -- that is, most of the nation's assets, ". especially in the oil and supporting industries."

2002 - Grover Norquist and other corporate lobbyists meet secretly with Defense, State and Treasury officials to ensure the invasion plans for Iraq include plans for protecting "property rights." The result was a pre-invasion scheme to sell off Iraq's oil fields, banks, electric systems, and even change the country's copyright laws to the benefit of the lobbyists' clients. Occupation chief Paul Bremer would later order these giveaways into Iraq law.

Fall 2002 - Philip Carroll, former CEO of Shell Oil USA, is brought in by the Pentagon to plan the management of Iraq's oil fields. He works directly with Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. "There were plans," says Carroll, "maybe even too many plans" -- but none disclosed to the public nor even the US Congress.

January 2003 - Robert Ebel, former CIA oil analyst, is sent, BBC learns, to London to meet with Fadhil Chalabi to plan terms for taking over Iraq's oil.

March 2003 - What White House spokesman Ari Fleisher calls "Operations Iraqi Liberation" (OIL) begins. (Invasion is re-christened "OIF" -- Operation Iraqi Freedom.)

March 2003 - Defense Department is told in confidence by US Energy Information Administrator Guy Caruso that Iraq's fields are incapable of a massive increase in output. Despite this intelligence, Dep. Secretary Wolfowitz testifies to Congress that invasion will be a free ride. He swears, "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. .We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon," a deliberate fabrication promoted by the Administration, an insider told BBC, as "part of the sales pitch" for war.

May 2003 - General Jay Garner, appointed by Bush as viceroy over Iraq, is fired by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The general revealed in an interview for BBC that he resisted White House plans to sell off Iraq's oil and national assets.

"That's just one fight you don't want to take on," Garner told me. But apparently, the White House wanted that fight.

The general also disclosed that these invade-and-grab plans were developed long before the US asserted that Saddam still held WDM:

"All I can tell you is the plans were pretty elaborate; they didn't start them in 2002, they were started in 2001."

November/December 2003 - Secrecy and misinformation continues even after the invasion. The oil industry objects to the State Department plans for Iraq's oil fields and drafts for the Administration a 323-page plan, "Options for [the] Iraqi Oil Industry." Per the industry plan, the US forces Iraq to create an OPEC-friendly state oil company that supports the OPEC cartel's extortionate price for petroleum.

The Stone Wall

Harper's and BBC obtained the plans despite official denial of their existence, then footdragging when confronted with the evidence of the reports' existence.

Still today, the State and Defense Departments and White House continue to stonewall our demands for the notes of the meetings between lobbyists, oil industry consultants and key Administration officials that would reveal the hidden economic motives for the war.

What are the secret interests behind this occupation? Who benefits? Who met with whom? Why won't this Administration release these documents of the economic blueprint for the war?

To date, the State and Defense Department responses to our reports are risible, and their answers to our requests for documents run from evasive to downright misleading. Maybe Congress, with it's power of subpoena, can do better.

Blogs, the Media and Democracy

Let me conclude with a comment about those pesky "blogs" that so bother the New York Times. We should stand and offer a moment of quiet gratitude to the electronic swarm of gadfly commentators who make it so much harder for the US media to ignore news not officially blessed. Yes, Judith Miller's breathless reports for The Times that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction may have maintained "access" for the mainstream press to its diet of White House propaganda, but the blogs insure that, whatever nonsense the US press is biting on, the public need not swallow

RangerDick · 06-16-2005, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Why are they discrediting sentiment in favor of an impeachment investigation against Bush for launching an illegal war in Iraq that is now a disaster, and lying about the threat to the U.S. that Saddam alledgedly posed, in 2002?

You're question is fatally flawed in that it is dependant on outright false assumptions. That said, I'll attempt to answer anyway. There are 2 reasons.....

1. There is/was nothing illegal about the war in Iraq. Repeating it over and over does not make it any truer.
2. The "Bush lied" meme is quite old and worn out. Repeating it over and over does not make it any truer. I repeat, repeating it over and over does not make it any truer.

There are already a million threads about these topics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

why is the NY Times helping to discourage a proper reaction to all of the evidence?

By "proper reaction" I suspect that you mean "reaction that host wants to see". If the NYT isn't trying to lynch Bushco on a particular topic, it's a safe bet to say that there ain't much there.

roachboy · 06-16-2005, 01:38 PM

nice way to avoid the problem, ranger.

it might help if you actually read the various accounts of the various memos that are at the heart of this particular round of contreversy about the war in iraq: there are in the neighborhood of 7--they make it pretty clear that bush was decided on war by july 2002. they are explicit about the administration and its actions in cooking up intel to justify their policy decision.

but i suspect that, if none of the mountain of other information that has been available all along that the case for war was empty, i doubt this will persuade you. not even the central memo, written by the chief of mi6. better to believe limbaugh i suppose on this kind of thing.

2. unless you have secret information that the rest of the world does not know about, i fail to see how anyone at this point could possible maintain that the wmd charges were true, that the connection to terrorism argument was true--that there was anything in the administrations case for war that was not false.
well, except that george w bush, wolfowitz et al, wanted saddam hussein out of power.
that part is obviously accurate.
that there was no legal basis for it is--for you--secondary. obviously.
but nothing else.

3. folk in politics who at one point supported this debacle seem to be locating their spines, which were dutifully checked at the door by noon on 9/11/2001. have a look:

Quote:

June 16, 2005
Small Bipartisan Group in House Presses for Iraq Exit Strategy
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, June 16 - A resolution calling on President Bush to announce an exit strategy from Iraq was introduced in the House today by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including one who was once so upset about French opposition to the war that he wanted the House cafeterias to change the name "French fries" to "freedom fries."

Two Republicans and two Democrats held a news conference in which they prodded President Bush to announce a withdrawal timetable by the end of the year. Their resolution calls on him to start bringing American troops home by Oct. 1, 2006.

"Our troops have done everything we've asked of them," said one sponsor, Representative Neil Abercrombie, Democrat of Hawaii. "It's time to get serious about an exit strategy."

Representative Walter B. Jones, a North Carolina Republican, who not many months ago was so incensed by French opposition to the American-led military campaign in Iraq, agreed. "After 1,700 deaths, over 12,000 wounded and $200 billion spent, we believe it is time to have this debate and discussion," he said.

The other sponsors are Representatives Ron Paul, Republican of Texas, and Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio.

The lawmakers introduced their measure a day after Celeste Zappala, whose son died in Iraq, visited Capitol Hill to demand "a very quick exit strategy." With opinion polls showing a drop in support for the war, and a British memo asserting that the Bush administration had intended to go to war as early as the summer of 2002, the words "exit strategy" are being uttered by both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill.

The flurry began over the weekend, when Mr. Jones called for the Bush administration to set specific goals for leaving Iraq.

Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, has introduced in the Senate a measure similar to the nonbinding resolution that Mr. Jones and his House colleagues are offering. In the House, the International Relations Committee last week voted overwhelmingly, 32 to 9, to call on the White House to develop and submit a plan to Congress for establishing a stable government and military in Iraq that would "permit a decreased U.S. presence" there.

Representative John Conyers Jr., a Michigan Democrat, was convening a forum today on the so-called Downing Street Memo, a leaked document that appeared to suggest that the White House had made a decision to go to war in the summer of 2002. Next week, Representative Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois Democrat, is planning to read on the House floor the names of approximately 1,700 Americans who have died in the war.

Though most Republicans are steering clear of the exit strategy discussion, a handful are joining in. Representative Howard Coble of North Carolina, for instance, said on Wednesday that he was considering it.

"I'm not suggesting pulling out tomorrow or next month," said Mr. Coble, who favored going to war, "but I want that to be an option. I don't want us to spend an eternity in Iraq. So conceptually, I'm inclined to embrace Walter Jones's proposal."

Such comments by Republicans would have been heresy before last November's election, because no one in the party wanted to weaken President Bush. But now, with 2006 midterm elections approaching, members of Congress are hearing from constituents who are growing uneasy about the war. So a nascent discussion is emerging in Congress about America's involvement in Iraq and whether it is time for re-evaluation.

"Certainly, people are breaking ranks, and saying, 'You know what, things are not hunky-dory,' " said Representative Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York, who sponsored the measure that passed the International Relations Committee last week. Much to Mr. Crowley's surprise, it drew support from the panel's chairman, Representative Henry J. Hyde, Republican of Illinois, and 12 other Republicans.

Many Republicans - and a number of Democrats, including Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate Democratic leader - oppose setting a specific timetable for troop withdrawal, saying that to do so would only embolden insurgents. The Pentagon reiterated that position today. Lawrence DiRita, the principal Defense Department spokesman, said that to set an "artificial deadline" in Washington would be unwise, since "the situation in Iraq is developing along based on events in Iraq."

But lawmakers are keeping an eye on the polls, which reflect growing discontent with the war.

In a recent Gallup poll, 6 in 10 Americans who responded said the United States should withdraw all or some of its troops from Iraq. In another poll, by ABC News and The Washington Post, two-thirds of those questioned said the American military had gotten bogged down in Iraq. That is a welcome development for people like Ms. Zappala.

Her son, Sgt. Sherwood Baker, a National Guard reservist who in his civilian life was a social worker for mentally retarded adults, was killed last year after just six weeks in Iraq. He was assigned to the team looking for unconventional weapons, said his mother, who is director of the commission on aging for the city of Philadelphia and a co-founder of Gold Star Families of Peace, which represents relatives of fallen soldiers.

On Wednesday, the group met with Mr. Jones. "We actually gave him a little certificate for his courage," Ms. Zappala said. Though she said she was under no illusions that American troops would withdraw from Iraq any time soon, "that the conversation is happening," she said, "is very, very important."

so there is some pressure already starting within congress.
in itself, this story is not much--but it is well past time that this administration be held to account at some level for its actions.
so this is good to see.
i suspect things are only going to get worse for your boy george.

4. but it wont go so far as impeachment.
that is simply not going to happen.
not as a matter of ethics or legality or the legitimacy of the case to be made against bush and his actions running up to this war.
impeachment is a matter of who runs the show in congress. the republicans tried to impeach bill clinton for a blowjob (blah blah blah, i know, dont bother to correct it), that is over more or less nothing.
now there really is something that could (and to my mind should) be acted upon--but we all know that republicans who control congress would not impeach george w bush. not even for this.

so much for accountability.
but hey, the right is not big on accountability.
they like to talk about it, they like the word, they like to try to to persuade others that they should be held accountable--but when it comes to one of their own, there is none.

Charlatan · 06-16-2005, 05:16 PM

I was just going to post and see what people thought of the Downing Street Memos... interesting that so far the response is to just ignore it and give Bush yet another pass...

My prediction is that this will just infuriate those of us that see this war as unjustified and give those who believe in this war just another excuse to accuse the left as out to get Bush...

It really is gaulling.

MSD · 06-16-2005, 07:22 PM

[QUOTE=roachboy]it might help if you actually read the various accounts of the various memos that are at the heart of this particular round of contreversy about the war in iraq: there are in the neighborhood of 7--they make it pretty clear that bush was decided on war by july 2002. they are explicit about the administration and its actions in cooking up intel to justify their policy decision./QUOTE]
Actually, as I was researching bias and selective exposure in media for a communications term paper this spring, I found the following quote from March of 1999 by Bush, spoken to the ghostwriter of his autobiography.

Quote:

One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.

He was itching for a chance.

Elphaba · 06-16-2005, 08:31 PM

Bush quote: "I've won the trifecta." Made shortly after 9/11 to the "haves."

RangerDick · 06-16-2005, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

nice way to avoid the problem, ranger.

it might help if you actually read the various accounts of the various memos that are at the heart of this particular round of contreversy about the war in iraq: there are in the neighborhood of 7--they make it pretty clear that bush was decided on war by july 2002. they are explicit about the administration and its actions in cooking up intel to justify their policy decision.

Nice way to avoid the point of my post, roach. Memos schmemos. Like I said in my previous post, there is/was nothing illegal about the war in Iraq. That is crucial to the original question posed by host, thereby rendering his question null. Prove me wrong. It is good form when proposing a question to at least establish the basis on which it is formed. In this case, the question is based on pure bullshit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

but i suspect that, if none of the mountain of other information that has been available all along that the case for war was empty, i doubt this will persuade you. not even the central memo, written by the chief of mi6. better to believe limbaugh i suppose on this kind of thing.

In an attempt to not relive the several "is the Iraq war justified" threads, I'll simply refer you to the "search" function. And what does Limbaugh have to do with this topic? Troll.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

2. unless you have secret information that the rest of the world does not know about, i fail to see how anyone at this point could possible maintain that the wmd charges were true, that the connection to terrorism argument was true--that there was anything in the administrations case for war that was not false.
well, except that george w bush, wolfowitz et al, wanted saddam hussein out of power.
that part is obviously accurate.
that there was no legal basis for it is--for you--secondary. obviously.
but nothing else.

No legal basis? Perhaps you should read the Congressional Joint Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq. Maybe you already have, in either case, it's quite obvious that you are not an expert in law if you continue to maintain that the Iraq war is illegal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

3. folk in politics who at one point supported this debacle seem to be locating their spines, which were dutifully checked at the door by noon on 9/11/2001. have a look:

so there is some pressure already starting within congress.
in itself, this story is not much--but it is well past time that this administration be held to account at some level for its actions.
so this is good to see.
i suspect things are only going to get worse for your boy george.

First, George is not "my boy" any more than John F'in Kerry or Gorebot is "your boy". You need to dutifully check that shit at the door.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

4. but it wont go so far as impeachment.
that is simply not going to happen.
not as a matter of ethics or legality or the legitimacy of the case to be made against bush and his actions running up to this war.
impeachment is a matter of who runs the show in congress. the republicans tried to impeach bill clinton for a blowjob (blah blah blah, i know, dont bother to correct it), that is over more or less nothing.
now there really is something that could (and to my mind should) be acted upon--but we all know that republicans who control congress would not impeach george w bush. not even for this.

so much for accountability.
but hey, the right is not big on accountability.
they like to talk about it, they like the word, they like to try to to persuade others that they should be held accountable--but when it comes to one of their own, there is none.

I recall a recent thread in which you called out a conservative poster for similar broadstroke comments. But hey, nice try. Bottom line, the war is not, was not, and never will be illegal.

RangerDick · 06-16-2005, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Bush quote: "I've won the trifecta." Made shortly after 9/11 to the "haves."

Context El, context. Dubya was just excited because he hit on the ponies at Pimlico.

spectre · 06-16-2005, 10:05 PM

Let's watch the tone guys. You all know better than to bait or troll. And remember to report posts for baiting or trolling rather than calling people out on it.

roachboy · 06-17-2005, 06:09 AM

ranger:

moving away from the previous tonal register.
let's see if this works.

two points/questions:

1. in the strict sense--sadly--you are right. there seems to be no recourse for what i see as an outcome shaped by hysteria (the congressional approval of bushwar).

the question of whether the approval was rooted in false premises is, from ths viewpoint, a political rather than directly legal one.

the argument that i was making above actually converges with yours in a backhanded way: there will be no hearing, no process, no impeachment--not because there are not problems, not because there are not a thousand reasons that the bush squad should be held to account, but simply because there is no possibility that the congress would initiate it (as over against the clinton thing--the point there was that initiating impeachment is a purely political move.)

you appear to be fine with that, from your responses.

i would argue that this possibility--that hysteria can override normal checks and result in launching a war on false pretenses---is a significant political problem that should require a political response. surely you would concede--were you to consider the matter--that if one were to find the case against bushwar compelling, that teh call for some type of serious response, some type of serious censure of the responsable parties within the bush administration--would follow.

2. it is hard to tell from your post which claims support which:

does your dismissal of the mountain of proof that the administration cooked intel, bent information, concocted rationales for war condition your argument about legality, or does your position on legality lead you to dismiss everything that contradicts the administration's case for war?

this is the question around which assumptions as to your politics turned.
i confess that i assumed you worked from the first position.
but i could have been wrong and maybe you work from the second in that your initial post was directed primarily at the logic of host's opening (insofar as you saw impeachment to be a type of fantasy).

if you read your post from the first viewpoint, then you work from a more or less standard conserviatve ideological position and it is perfectly reasonable to associate that position with its sources, and to switch from discussing your particular variant of that ideology to the ideology itself.

if it is the second that informs your post, then things are otherwise--in that you could be talking from a variety of positions--and i would apologize for the flourishes in my response.

so which is it?

host · 06-17-2005, 10:13 AM

Impeachment investigation of Bush a fantasy? With Bush's plunging approval rating, increasingly weak underpinnings in the American (and world) economy, (crude oil is $58.00/bbl today), an unsustainable bubble in real estate, and a "reserve" currency "value" that is dependent on the Chinses government continuing to postpone the day when it decides to cut it's losses by divesting it's U.S. dollar reserves, and Bush fiscal/foreign/tax policy aggravated federal and trade deficits menacing any potential for improving support for the purchasing power of the dollar, the U.S. is 17 months and one mid-term congressional election away from the possibility of a shift in the balance of political power in congress.

Timing, of course, is crucial, but there is inertia in the direction of poorer economic times ahead for an increasing number of potential voters, potentially aggravated by a decline in the value of their real estate holdings, a higher risk of job loss, and 17 more months of sustained higher energy prices, and much, much, more, if an additional one trillion dollars in new trade deficit accumulation, coupled with the need of the federal treasury to fund 17 more months of federal deficit spending by attempting to attract $650+ billion in foreign capital inflows for T-Bill purchases (the same category of "worthless IOU's" that Bush claims are the only "asset" in the SSI trust fund), has a negative effect on dollar exchange rates, vs. commodities and/or foreign currencies, not to mention that it is no longer up to the Fed when to stop raising interest rates, because foreign demand for new issues of T-Bills will determine rates.

In addition, aside from Karl Roves ability to use any tactics to win election campaigns, (ask John McCain about that) what have Bush administration officials and Republican congressional leaders,(and those who support them), been right about?

Folks, this scenario is setting us up for one of two things (or both); an implosion of the political power of these thugs, (see the article in the bottom quote box for the latest revelation of their judgment in dealing with the few "poodle" allies that they still have not completely alienated), or another 9/11 style, "terror" incident, coinciding with and dampening the effect of whatever political setback for them acts as a catalyst. (When was the last time that the color coded terror alert "swatch" has been elevated since the election last november?) If they botch the smokescreen of a contrived "terror" incident designed to increase their waning grip on political power, we may see a convergence of currency and political crises.

One thing is certain; there will no respite from Bush aggravated, economic, military, and morale decline, along with further erosion in the constitutionally protected rights of residents in a country that practices perpetual and "pre-emptive" war.

Each of us should look at our own track record of the last few years. Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Do you support the bulk of the Bush agenda?

What have you been right about? Could you have done a better job, personally, of supporting the 1700 American troops who have died, or the thousands that are adjusting to life as amputees? Did you keep your personal commitment to advocate sending them to war, "only as a last resort". Did Bush ?

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1111
McClellan: If You Opposed The War You Don’t Count

At today’s press briefing, White House spokesman Scott McClellan was asked about the letter Rep. John Conyers sent to the President asking questions about the Downing Street Memo. The letter has been signed by 112 members of Congress and 550,000 concerned citizens.

QUESTION: On another topic, has the president or anyone else from the administration responded to the letter sent last month by Congressman John Conyers and signed by dozens of members of the House of Representatives regarding the Downing Street memo? Has the president or anyone else responded?

MCCLELLAN: Not that I’m aware of.

QUESTION: Why not?

MCCLELLAN: Why not? <h4>Because I think that this is an individual who voted against the war in the first place</h4> and is simply trying to rehash old debates that have already been addressed.

So remember, if you opposed the war in Iraq don’t bother asking questions. You don’t count anymore.

Quote:

<h2 class="title"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1114" title="Permanent Link: NYT Pulls A Gannon on Downing Street">NYT Pulls A Gannon on Downing Street</a></h2>

<p>At <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050616-5.html">yesterday’s press briefing</a>, Scott McClellan <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1111">made the assertion</a> that if you opposed the Iraq War, well, you don’t really count. The President doesn’t care what you have to say. Apparently <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/politics/17downing.ready.html">neither does the New York Times</a>. The stalwart of the “liberal media” covered <a href="http://www.truthout.org/cblog.shtml">the Conyers hearings</a> with the headline “Antiwar <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/politics/17downing.ready.html">group says leaked British memo</a> shows Bush misled public on his war plans.” The lede to the article makes a point of stressing the type of people behind these dubious hearings:</p>
<blockquote><p>Opponents of the war in Iraq held an unofficial hearing on Capitol Hill on Thursday to draw attention to a leaked British government document that they say proves their case that President Bush misled the public about his war plans in 2002 and distorted intelligence to support his policy.
</p></blockquote>
<p>It isn’t until later in the article that the NYT bothers to mention that the hearings were being chaired by no less than the ranking minority member on the House Judiciary Committee Rep. John Conyers (D-MI). </p>
<p>The paper goes on to say that “the hearing and other events…reflected antiwar sentiment re-energized” by <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1078">the British memos</a> and as well as plummeting support for the war in Iraq. Of course, they don’t bring up the fact that <a href="http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=807215#3">the current state of the war in Iraq</a> is another possible explanation for the “re-energized” antiwar sentiment.</p>

<p>Funny enough, the article does point out how McClellan responded to inquiries about the hearing. But then they play his lapdog one more time: “Activists have accused mainstream news organizations of playing down the document’s significance, even as antiwar bloggers have seized upon it as evidence.”<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200506160002"> Silly activists</a>.</p>
<p>One of the witnesses at the hearing was John Bonifaz. A constitutional lawyer, Bonifaz is the <a href="http://www.nvri.org/about/who.shtml">founder and general counsel</a> for the <a href="http://www.nvri.org/index.html">National Voting Rights Institute</a>. Furthermore, he used to work with the <a href="http://www.crp.org/">Center for Responsive Politics</a> and his writings have been published in both the Yale Law and Policy Review as well as the Columbia Law Review. How did the NYT sum up all his accomplishments? “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/politics/17downing.ready.html">John Bonifaz, anti-war activist</a>.”</p>
</div>

Attempt to recognize who the fuck we are dealing with here...... evidently, the British administration is finally starting to......

Quote:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...p?story=647397
US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor

17 June 2005

American officials lied to British ministers over the use of "internationally reviled" napalm-type firebombs in Iraq.

Yesterday's disclosure led to calls by MPs for a full statement to the Commons and opened ministers to allegations that they held back the facts until after the general election.

Despite persistent rumours of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm, Adam Ingram, the Defence minister, assured Labour MPs in January that US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq.

But Mr Ingram admitted to the Labour MP Harry Cohen in a private letter obtained by The Independent that he had inadvertently misled Parliament because he had been misinformed by the US. "The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you," he told Mr Cohen. "I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position."

Mr Ingram said 30 MK77 firebombs were used by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in the invasion of Iraq between 31 March and 2 April 2003. They were used against military targets "away from civilian targets", he said. This avoids breaching the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which permits their use only against military targets.

Britain, which has no stockpiles of the weapons, ratified the convention, but the US did not.

The confirmation that US officials misled British ministers led to new questions last night about the value of the latest assurances by the US. Mr Cohen said there were rumours that the firebombs were used in the US assault on the insurgent stronghold in Fallujah last year, claims denied by the US. He is tabling more questions seeking assurances that the weapons were not used against civilians.

Mr Ingram did not explain why the US officials had misled him, but the US and British governments were accused of a cover-up. The Iraq Analysis Group, which campaigned against the war, said the US authorities only admitted the use of the weapons after the evidence from reporters had become irrefutable.

Mike Lewis, a spokesman for the group, said: "The US has used internationally reviled weapons that the UK refuses to use, and has then apparently lied to UK officials, showing how little weight the UK carries in influencing American policy."

He added: "Evidence that Mr Ingram had given false information to Parliament was publicly available months ago. He has waited until after the election to admit to it - a clear sign of the Government's embarrassment that they are doing nothing to restrain their own coalition partner in Iraq."

The US State Department website admitted in the run-up to the election that US forces had used MK77s in Iraq. Protests were made by MPs, but it was only this week that Mr Ingram confirmed the reports were true.

Mike Moore, the Liberal Democrat defence spokes-man, said: "It is very serious that this type of weapon was used in Iraq, but this shows the US has not been completely open with the UK. We are supposed to have a special relationship.

"It has also taken two months for the minister to clear this up. This is welcome candour, but it will raise fresh questions about how open the Government wished to be... before the election."

The MK77 bombs, an evolution of the napalm used in Vietnam and Korea, carry kerosene-based jet fuel and polystyrene so that, like napalm, the gel sticks to structures and to its victims. <h4>The bombs lack stabilising fins, making them far from precise.</h4>

j8ear · 06-17-2005, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Impeachment investigation of Bush a fantasy? With Bush's plunging approval rating, increasingly weak underpinnings in the American (and world) economy, (crude oil is $58.00/bbl today), an unsustainable bubble in real estate, and a "reserve" currency "value" that is dependent on the Chinses government continuing to postpone the day when it decides to cut it's losses by divesting it's U.S. dollar reserves, and Bush fiscal/foreign/tax policy aggravated federal and trade deficits menacing any potential for improving support for the purchasing power of the dollar, the U.S. is 17 months and one mid-term congressional election away from the possibility of a shift in the balance of political power in congress.

Yes, an impeachment of Bush is nothing more then a fantasy.

//de-toned\\

-bear

Mantus · 06-17-2005, 03:01 PM

Ranger and now J8ear offer some odd counterpoints. Both flat out deny that the administration misled us into accepting a war in the face of allot of evidence. I don't really understand how such views are justified.

j8ear · 06-17-2005, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus

Ranger and now J8ear offer some odd counterpoints. Both flat out deny that the administration misled us into accepting a war in the face of allot of evidence. I don't really understand how such views are justified.

I did nothing of the sort. Nothing what so ever.

I'm sure that the existing evidence was pooled to support the premise and what didn't was overlooked.

Is that impeachable? Certainly not.

-bear

Lebell · 06-17-2005, 05:31 PM

I am closely watching this thread for tone.

That being said, my own comment is that if the liberal NYT says that there isn't enough evidence or reason to impeach Bush, there probably isn't.

Host, your spin on the news is...interesting.

j8ear · 06-17-2005, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I am closely watching this thread for tone.

Message received.

host · 06-17-2005, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I am closely watching this thread for tone.

That being said, my own comment is that if the liberal NYT says that there isn't enough evidence or reason to impeach Bush, there probably isn't.

Host, your spin on the news is...interesting.

Lebell, my "spin" is that the NY Times may seem liberal, just as Fox News may seem conservative. Sadly, both, along with the Washington Post, and NBC, etc.,
are businesses intent on retaining existing "eyeballs", while desperately trying to attract new ones, any way that they can.

(If this post is "too long", it is intended to be read by the few folks who will find it interesting enough to read. As the comment on the lower part of the page on this link, http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0617/dailyUpdate.html partially reads, "Fred Kaplan, who does an extensive analysis of the memo for Slate.com, writes that the [Downing Street]memo is both insignificant and significant......
.....On the other hand, he writes, historians will one day use it as a "primary-source documents" and will be a "key footnote in the history books."".)

NBC used Dateline's broadcast earlier this evening to shill for Katy Couric's upcoming coup.....a semi-exclusive interview with the "runaway bride", one last attempt to squeeze a little more mileage out of a pathetic non-story that has demonstrated an ability to attract viewer interest. A current effor in that regard is the overexposure of the teen missing in Aruba http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr...nG=Search+News
( 4220 seperate links on a google news search ).

In contrast, the MS media does not wish to elevate the controversy sparked by the early May, UK Sunday Times reporting of the "Downing Street Memo", ( DSM )by giving it the coverage that it deserves, because no news organization wants to jeapordize "access" by further anatagonizing the Bush White House.
Only 1822 google news links for "Downing Memo" appear,
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr...nG=Search+News even now, at the height of this story's exposure, principally due to the huge efforts of congressman John Conyers.

Bob Woodward, managing editor at WaPo at age 62, chose access to the White House several years ago, with the goal of writing <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743204735/102-3376232-6609754?v=glance">Bush at War</a> . WaPo news reporter Dana Milbank, who shares membership in the Yale secret society, "Skull and Bones" was chosen to cover the White House while Woodward was trading his "access" for avoidance of his newspaper asking hard questions in the "run up" to the invasion of Iraq.
Woodward at 29 would hardly have avoided covering the Watergate story in exchange for access to the Nixon White House.

The other excuse for non-coverage of the "DSM" is that the media knows that the majority of Americans will not be attracted to following that story, either because of political or idealogical reasons, or because it seems too complicated for their short lil spans of attention. There's no sex, no "Tom & Katy", no "Jacko", no easily promoted sound bites, and the media cannot control the direction of the story. It's very similar to the coverage that the "run up to war" received, in the first place. "WMD", "evil dictator who gassed his own people", "9/11", "terror", "al-queda" "Saddam" "terror".....then......"Shock and Awe".

Fox News has signed Wesley Clark in an effort shore up ratings:
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/06/15/...ws_channel.php
Fox is not concerned about losing existing viewers, as Cheney said, "I usually watch Fox News....." They recognize the need to attract new ones, and Clark iis the "bait".

IMO, it is also difficult to report on the contradictions and deceptions that emanate from the white house press briefings conducted by Scott McClellan, reduced by what amounts to being the apologist for a failed presidency that is comprised of yet to be indicted conspirators. He seems more and more eerily similar to "Baghdad Bob", as U.S. troops invaded Iraq.

I'll proudly wear the "FRINGE" label, if the quotes below, pass for the remarks and the press briefings of a credible, legitimate presidency in a "free" society !

With the following quotes from Bush (Jan 31. 2003) and then a Jan. 12, 2005 exchange with the press where McClellan admits that there are "no WMD" and that none are likely to be found, he nonetheless declares on June 16, 2005 that, "Iraq is critical to winning the war on terrorism. It is critical to our long-term security here at home.". "Failed but promoted" former NSA director Condi Rice was heard to parrot McClellan's "long-term security" nonsense in news reports, the same day.

McClellan then goes on to make the excuse for the white house refusing to respond to a letter received more than a month ago, signed by 88 congress members, requesting more information regarding the contention of "the Downing Street" memo, that the White House "intended to "fix the facts" around the plan to invade Iraq, in July 2002". McClellan dismissed the need to respond to the letter by pointing out that the author, Conyers, had "voted
against the war". He offered only the feeble retort "that this has already been discussed", in response to questions as to whether the other 87 signatories, including 2 Republicans, deserved answers to the five questions in the letter.
The letter was resubmitted to the white house, that same day, this time signed by 122 congress members, and 560,000 citizens. The press has been maneuvered into covering this, and it the pressure will grow, either because a formal inquiry on the same matter will be convened in the UK, or because the memo leaker will continue to feed the British press with authentic and embarassing information that will further discredit Bush and Blair.

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030131-23.html
THE PRIME MINISTER: Adam.

Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050112-7.html
.............. 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.

Q And finally, what is the President's assessment of the damage to American credibility that might have been done by his very forceful case that there were weapons and his launching of a war on that basis?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, nothing has changed in terms of the President's view....................

........... Q I'm talking about preemptive military action.

MR. McCLELLAN: Right. And that's the last option that you always want to pursue. But the President is going to continue working closely with our friends and allies to confront the threats that we face --

Q How can he do it again --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we continue to take steps to improve our intelligence. That's what the President is going to do. We have very good relationships with countries across the world because of the President's efforts over the last few years...............

.......... Q Even if the information is wrong?.............

............. Q Secretary Rumsfeld said you go -- infamously, he said, "you go to war with the Army that you have." Well, this administration went to war, when it went to war, based on information that proved to be incorrect. Does the President now regret the timing of this? Does he feel that the war effort and its aftermath and the post-immediate war conflict phase was undermined by that timetable and intelligence that was wrong?

MR. McCLELLAN: Based on what we know today, the President would have taken the same action, because this is about protecting the American people. As I said -- .................

......... Q Two follow-ups. There's been quite a bit of talk that Syria might have hidden some of these weapons of mass destruction. Is the government of Syria cooperating at all in the search for WMD?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you have the report from Charles Duelfer. You can go and look at that report in terms of addressing those issues, and I think the President has spoken to the whole issue of weapons of mass destruction. Obviously, if there are any other reports that come to people's attention, they'll follow up on those reports. ......

Q Scott, are you saying that the President -- it's the President's view that the WMD situation has not hurt United States credibility around the world?....

......... Q So if the information is wrong, is there no consequence?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q If the information about WMDs is wrong, as we all agree now, is there no consequence? ........

............. Q Scott, did the White House intend to, at any point, come out and tell the American people that the search for WMD was over?............

........... Q Scott, you've addressed the intelligence failures. Based on that, would the President send a Secretary of State -- Condoleezza Rice -- to the United Nations to make the same kind of case that Secretary Powell made based on U.S. intelligence?...........

.............. Q Well, to put a finer point on it, does he have enough confidence in the current quality of intelligence to go to the United Nations with it, if need be, or not -- as was mentioned, Korea, Iran, or some other --............

............. Q Has it improved enough, though, for him to act on it?

MR. McCLELLAN: He will -- he will act on intelligence that he receives to protect the American people. When we have actionable intelligence, we will act on it. And this President has acted on it in a number of cases...................

......... Q One question on Iraq. Are you worried that with your report, countries like France will gather more credibility than the U.S. in discussions in the Security Council of the United Nations? ............

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050616-5.html
............The President wants to see the troops come home soon. But the best way to honor the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform is to complete the mission.

Iraq is critical to winning the war on terrorism. It is critical to our long-term security here at home. A free Iraq will help transform a dangerous region of the world. A free Iraq will send a signal to the rest of the Middle East, those who -- the people in the Middle East who are standing up for freedom. And so the President will be talking about this.............

.............. Elaine, go ahead. Let me keep going because the President is going to be speaking here shortly, so I want to try to get around to others who have their hands up, as well.

Q Scott, on another topic, has the President or anyone else from the administration responded to the letter sent last month by Congressman John Conyers and signed by dozens of members of the House of Representatives, regarding the Downing Street memo? Has the President or anyone else responded?

MR. McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of.

Q Why not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Why not? Because I think that this is an individual who voted against the war in the first place and is simply trying to rehash old debates that have already been addressed. And our focus is not on the past. It's on the future and working to make sure we succeed in Iraq.

These matters have been addressed, Elaine. I think you know that very well. The press --

Q Scott, 88 members of Congress signed that letter.

MR. McCLELLAN: The press -- the press have covered it, as well.

Q What do you say about them?

Q But, Scott, don't they deserve the courtesy of a response back?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, this has been addressed. Go ahead. ................

............... April.

Q Scott, on John Conyers, John Conyers is walking here with that letter again, as you have acknowledged from Elaine's comment. But 88 leaders on Capitol Hill signed that letter. Now, I understand what you're saying about him, but what about the other 88 who signed this letter, wanting information, answers to these five questions?

MR. McCLELLAN: How did they vote on the war -- the decision to go to war in Iraq?

Q Well, you have two -- well, if that's the case, you have two Republicans who are looking for a timetable. How do you justify that?

MR. McCLELLAN: I already talked about that.

Q I understand, but let's talk about this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Like I said --

Q Well, just because -- I understand -- but wait a minute, that's not -- if leaders from Congress -- if you're talking about unifying and asking for everyone to come together, why not answer, whether they wanted the war or not, answer a letter where John Conyers wrote to the President and then 88 congressional leaders signed? Why not answer that?

MR. McCLELLAN: For the reasons I stated earlier. This is simply rehashing old debates that have already been discussed. ..............

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200506170006
by Jamison Foser
Week ending June 17, 2005
www.mediamatters.org
action@mediamatters.org

This week:

As controversy over pre-war intelligence grows, Washington Post leads the coverup..........

.........As controversy over pre-war intelligence grows, Washington Post leads the coverup

In May 2001 -- just months into President Bush's first term -- Washington Post reporter John F. Harris wrote a column for his paper's Outlook section, arguing:

Are the national news media soft on Bush? The instinctive response of any reporter is to deny it. But my rebuttals lately have been wobbly. The truth is, this new president has done things with relative impunity that would have been huge uproars if they had occurred under Clinton. Take it from someone who made a living writing about those uproars.

[...]

Above all, however, there is one big reason for Bush's easy ride: There is no well-coordinated corps of aggrieved and methodical people who start each day looking for ways to expose and undermine a new president.

[...]

Reporters and editors do not work like commentators. There are no newsroom deliberations about how "soft" or "mean" to be on a president. And we aim to make our own judgments about what's important, rather than respond in Pavlovian fashion to whatever ideologues or interest groups are inveighing about. But there's no denying that we give more coverage to stories when someone is shouting. For example, the toughest coverage Bush has gotten has been over decisions to suspend environmental rules issued by Clinton, which infuriated liberals.

Harris's premise -- that negative stories about Bush hadn't gained traction because Democrats hadn't been "shouting" loudly enough -- has been dusted off and reused by others to defend the media's failure to thoroughly cover stories damaging to Bush. The Post's Dan Froomkin noted as much in January 2005, when he wrote: "One frequently mentioned factor in the algebra of White House coverage during the first term was that the opposition didn't make the anti-Bush case very forcefully."

The notion that tepid Democratic criticism of Bush is to blame for lackadaisical media coverage of the president was always a flimsy justification for not following up on Bush administration scandals, but now even "flimsy" is too kind: If they hadn't been before, House Democrats began shouting this week, with several openly discussing whether the president has committed impeachable offenses.

The week began with a report in the Middletown, New York,<a href="http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2005/06/13/drhousem.htm">Times Herald-Record</a> that Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) raised the possibility that Bush's misuse of pre-war intelligence may constitute an impeachable offense:

What if President Bush lied to Congress and the American people, used those lies to gain congressional approval for military action against Iraq and launched a war that killed 1,700 Americans and tens of thousands of others?

That might have been a hypothetical question a month ago; it might not be hypothetical anymore.

In fact, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley, says the answer to the question could lead to the impeachment of President Bush.

[...]

[C]alls for a congressional inquiry into the questions raised by the memo are growing louder, with some even discussing a Bush impeachment.

"If the president intentionally twisted the facts about the Sept. 11 attacks and the Iraq war, and lied to Congress about it, and then elicited authorization from Congress to launch a war that's caused the deaths of 1,700 U.S. men and women along with tens of thousands of others, that is definitely an impeachable offense," Hinchey said.

Curiously, Hinchey's comments weren't picked up by any news source available on Nexis, other than in an op-ed published in the Baltimore Sun.

On Thursday, House Democrats held a forum to discuss the Downing Street memo and pre-war intelligence. The Associated Press reported:

Amid new questions about President Bush's drive to topple Saddam Hussein, several House Democrats urged lawmakers on Thursday to conduct an official inquiry to determine whether the president intentionally misled Congress.

At a public forum where the word "impeachment" loomed large, Exhibit A was the so-called Downing Street memo, a prewar document leaked from inside the British government to The Sunday Times of London a month and a half ago. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, organized the event.

Recounting a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair's national security team, the memo says the Bush administration believed that war was inevitable and was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam.

"The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," one of the participants was quoted as saying at the meeting, which took place just after British officials returned from Washington.

The president "may have deliberately deceived the United States to get us into a war," Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said. "Was the president of the United States a fool or a knave?"

[...]

The White House refuses to respond to a May 5 letter from 122 congressional Democrats about whether there was a coordinated effort to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy, as the Downing Street memo says.

[...]

Conyers and a half-dozen other members of Congress were stopped at the White House gate later Thursday when they hand-delivered petitions signed by 560,000 Americans who want Bush to provide a detailed response to the Downing Street memo. When Conyers couldn't get in, an anti-war demonstrator shouted, "Send Bush out!" Eventually, White House aides retrieved the petitions at the gate and took them into the West Wing.

"Quite frankly, evidence that appears to be building up points to whether or not the president has deliberately misled Congress to make the most important decision a president has to make, going to war," Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, said earlier at the event on Capitol Hill.

Misleading Congress is an impeachable offense, a point that Rangel underscored by saying he's already been through two impeachments. He referred to the impeachment of President Clinton for an affair with a White House intern and of President Nixon for Watergate, even though Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment.

But while the AP, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/politics/17downing.ready.htm">The New York Times</a>,<a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/16/lol.04.html">CNN</a>, and other news outlets gave the forum serious, if imperfect, coverage, The Washington Post covered it only with a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html">"Washington Sketch"</a> by Dana Milbank. Too busy cracking wise about Democrats' "trip to the land of make-believe" to provide readers a serious account of the proceeding, Milbank referred to the participants as a "hearty band of playmates" and described T-shirts worn by activists several blocks away -- but <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1113">couldn't be bothered</a> to note that more than 120 members of Congress, including the House Minority Leader, have signed a letter demanding the president answer questions about the Downing Street memo.

Milbank's snide dismissal of the forum, by the way, ran on page A6 of the Post; the tone and the placement of the piece call to mind Post executive editor Leonard Downie Jr.'s 2004 admission that the paper had been too dismissive of administration critics. Post media reporter Howard Kurtz <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58127-2004Aug11?language=printer">wrote</a> on August 12, 2004:

In retrospect, said Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr., "we were so focused on trying to figure out what the administration was doing that we were not giving the same play to people who said it wouldn't be a good idea to go to war and were questioning the administration's rationale. Not enough of those stories were put on the front page. That was a mistake on my part."

Across the country, "the voices raising questions about the war were lonely ones," Downie said. "We didn't pay enough attention to the minority."

We eagerly await Downie's latest apology, and that of his colleagues. They'll need a new excuse, though: the claim that Democrats are failing to "shout" loud enough won't fly this time.

Hard to believe as it may be, the Post's wisecracks about the forum didn't constitute the most dismal coverage of the event: Fox News Channel didn't bother to show up. The closest Fox News came to covering the forum was Carl Cameron's report on Special Report With Brit Hume:

CAMERON: Meanwhile, Detroit Congressman John Conyers went over some old ground, unveiling and delivering to the White House a half-million petitions collected by the liberal group MoveOn.org. They demand answers about Britain's so-called Downing Street memo, which critics say indicates the Bush administration deceived the public in the run-up to the Iraq war, charges both the president and Tony have flatly denied and that White House aides almost refuse to discuss.

"Went over some old ground"? Where could Cameron have gotten the idea that the Downing Street memo is "old ground"? From White House press secretary Scott McClellan, perhaps? Cameron's report was followed by a clip of McClellan:

MCCLELLAN: This is an individual who voted against the war in the first place and is simply trying to rehash old debates.

To recap: members of the U.S. House of Representatives, meeting in the Capitol building, discussed the possible impeachment of the President of the United States -- and Fox News didn't deem that worth even mentioning. What, exactly, does a member of the minority party in have to do to get covered on Fox News? Self-immolate in the parking lot of the Capitol?

Back to the Washington Post: On Wednesday, the paper's editorial page <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401383.html">argued:</a>

Bloggers have demanded to know why "the mainstream media" have not paid more attention to them [British memos]. Though we can't speak for The Post's news department, the answer appears obvious: The memos add not a single fact to what was previously known about the administration's prewar deliberations. Not only that: They add nothing to what was publicly known in July 2002.

The Post is lying. Yes, lying.

Reasonable people can have honest disagreements about the significance of the British memos that have recently come to light; reasonable people can have honest disagreements about what, if anything, they "prove." But it is simply not honest, and not reasonable, to say they "add not a single fact to what was previously known." Perhaps the Post editorial board would like to direct us to previous reporting of the fact that the head of British intelligence thought in July 2002 that the Bush administration was "fix[ing] intelligence" to fit its decision to go to war? Presumably, the Post can also direct us to previous public disclosure of the fact that British intelligence officials were suggesting in July 2002 that the Bush administration was pegging the timing of military action to that year's congressional elections? We remember fondly a time when the Post tried to overcome cover-ups rather than taking a lead role in them.

But the Post hasn't done it alone: A new Media Matters study <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200506160002">demonstrates</a> that major print and broadcast media "largely ignored the Downing Street memo," rarely covering it and even more rarely conducting original reporting into the matter.

Salon.com's Joe Conason took "the nation's most prominent journalists" <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2005/06/17/dsm_press/index_np.html">to task</a> for downplaying new information about Bush's use of pre-war intelligence:

Deciding what constitutes news is a subjective exercise, of course, with all the uncertainty that implies. Yet there are several obvious guidelines to keep in mind while listening to the excuses proffered in the New York Times and the Washington Post by reporters who must know better.

A classified document recording deliberations by the highest officials of our most important ally over the decision to wage war is always news. A document that shows those officials believed the justification for war was "thin" and that the intelligence was being "fixed" is always news. A document that indicates the president was misleading the world about his determination to wage war only as a last resort is always news.

And when such a document is leaked, whatever editors, reporters and producers may think "everyone" already knows or believes about its contents emphatically does not affect whether that piece of paper is news. The journalists' job is to determine whether it is authentic and then to probe into its circumstances and meaning. There are many questions still to be answered about the Downing Street memo, but the nation's most prominent journalists still aren't asking them.

Media Matters laid out <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200506150005">some of those questions</a> this week:

The Downing Street Memo raises important questions that are most decidedly not "old news" and need to be asked. Among these questions reporters might consider asking are the following:

1.

The Downing Street Memo relates discussions about Iraq between Richard Dearlove, chief of British intelligence agency MI6, and Bush administration officials. Presumably, the head of British intelligence would have met with senior administration officials. With whom did Dearlove meet? Who told him that military action was inevitable? Were these officials also making public statements indicating that the administration had not decided whether to invade?
2.

Exactly what did American officials tell Dearlove that led him to conclude that the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy?
3.

The memo states that in early 2002 the administration had begun "spikes of activity" -- i.e., increased bombings of Iraq -- to pressure Saddam Hussein. Documents recently released in Britain showed that the Royal Air Force dramatically increased bombings of Iraq during 2002, presumably in concert with the United States. Was the intent to goad Saddam into a military response that could be used as a pretext for invading Iraq?
4.

The memo states, "No decisions had been taken, but [the British Defense Secretary] thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections." The Bush administration began to make the case for war in September 2002 because, according to White House chief of staff Andrew Card, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." Were the November 2002 elections part of the calculation on the timing of the invasion?
5.

According to the memo, "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD [weapons of mass destruction] capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." How does the administration square this with its multiple, unequivocal statements on Saddam's supposedly terrifying arsenal of weapons?
6.

During their recent <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050607-2.html">joint press conference</a>, both Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair denied that the decision to go to war had been made by the summer of 2002. Yet no one has disputed the memo's authenticity. So were U.S. officials lying to Dearlove, telling him that war was a foregone conclusion when it wasn't? Was Dearlove lying to Blair about what he was told? Both possibilities seem absurd, yet someone somewhere was not telling the truth: either Dearlove, the American officials with whom he met, or Bush and Blair. Which is it?

reconmike · 06-18-2005, 05:21 PM

UN resolution 1441, enough reason to go to war with Iraq.

Bill Clinton's spineless action towards Iraq, enough reason to go to war with Iraq.

Do I realy need to paste a crap load of text?

host · 06-18-2005, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

UN resolution 1441, enough reason to go to war with Iraq.

Bill Clinton's spineless action towards Iraq, enough reason to go to war with Iraq.

Do I realy need to paste a crap load of text?

No reconmike, you are not required to post anything to back your opinions.
I am attempting to extend a courtesy to others who read my posts, by referring them to the information that I found relevant to the forming of my opinions in these especially sensitive and controversial matters. If you can offer something that counters what I offer, and is as signifigant as....say.... a direct quote of Powell, posted on the State Department's own website, I would have a reason to consider it, if it served to enhance the credibility of my opinions.

I wish that I possessed your confidence, this is a lot of work.....and I have to keep posting the items below, repeatedly, because a lot of people who evidently "know what they know", post opinions that are similar to yours, but that is all they are.....opinions.....not backed by anything that would strengthen the premise that these opinions have any basis in fact.

Read the dates in the quote boxes, the information that I am presenting shows that Rice and Powell are directly quoted saying that they believed the measures practiced by Bush 41 and Clinton had rendered Saddam unable to even threaten his neighbors, let alone pose a security threat to the U.S.

Time reported on May 5, 2002, that even war hawks Rumsfeld,
"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."

I'm convinced that your Clinton references and your reference to my work here as a "crap load", are not constructive to the dialogue here, or are accurate. Annan's opinion and the Time.com report of March 13, 2003, dampen your undocumented opinion that invasion of Iraq was justified, under the circumstances, especially without a second UN resolution.

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3661134.stm
Thursday, 16 September, 2004, 09:21 GMT 10:21 UK

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally. .................

.........'Valid'

"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added.

He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.

And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.

When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.".............

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...431645,00.html
Why Bush Struggles to Win UN Backing
Inspections have found Iraq in violation of disarmament requirements, but have not confirmed Anglo-American claims of an imminent danger. Can the President still convince the UN?
By TONY KARON

Posted Thursday, Mar. 13, 2003
The Bush administration has always insisted it doesn't need UN permission to invade Iraq. President Bush has never left any doubt that the outcome of Security Council deliberations won't stop him from acting to eliminate what he perceives as an imminent threat to U.S. and allied security. When Bush first raised the issue at the UN Security Council last Fall, he did so in the form of a challenge to the international body — follow us to war, or render yourselves irrelevant. And his administration underlined the point by deploying an invasion armada and planning for a U.S.-administered post-Saddam Iraq. The two-track policy of using the UN process as a means to build diplomatic support for a war already in the making may have helped build domestic backing for an invasion — and chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has affirmed that the military buildup has been the key factor promoting Iraqi cooperation — but the sense of inevitability about the war may have backfired on the international stage.

This week's failure by the U.S. and Britain to win backing for a UN ultimatum to Iraq authorizing force if Baghdad fails to meet a 10-day disarmament deadline underscores the fact that the UN process has, if anything, weakened rather than strengthened international support for a war. Halfway through March, the supposed critical climatic window for military action is closing fast and the UN Security Council looks unlikely to authorize force against Iraq anytime soon. Nobody expected the French and Russians to be brandishing a veto this late in the game, much less the failure of the Bush administration to persuade the likes of Chile, Cameroon, Guinea, Angola and even Pakistan to declare unambiguous support for the U.S. position. And few would have predicted that U.S. vessels would, at this stage, be stuck in Turkish ports awaiting a change in heart of the reluctant Turkish parliament on making their territory available for a northern front.

Suddenly, even Britain, the Bush administration's stalwart ally on Iraq, is looking a little shaky — a fact underlined Tuesday when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested the U.S. may have to consider going to war without the British troops currently deployed alongside the American invasion force. Prime Minister Tony Blair faces a high level of opposition from within his own party to invading Iraq without UN authorization, and he may not survive politically if he goes ahead without UN backing. Failure to pass a compromise ultimatum resolution setting a longer deadline and making specific disarmament demands of Iraq will leave Blair — and possibly other key European supporters of the U.S. position, such as Spain and Italy — deeply mired in domestic political crisis.

The reason for the administration's difficulties may be, in part, the nature of the evidence revealed by the UN process. The Bush case for war against Iraq is premised on the idea that not only has Saddam failed to complete the disarmament required of him by the Gulf War truce, but that he is actively pursuing new chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs; and that these, together with what Washington insists is an alliance between Iraq and al-Qaeda, represent a clear and present danger to U.S. security.

But the inspection process has tested some of these claims, and in the process undermined the Bush administration's case. The inspectors found that Iraq has failed to destroy or account for substantial the stocks of chemical and biological weapons left over from its war with Iran, but they have found nothing to back claims of current, active chemical, biological or nuclear programs. Inspectors have made clear to the Council that they have investigated a number of U.S. and British allegations and intelligence tips, which came to naught. The inspectors are not saying Iraq has disarmed, and they're setting specific disarmament targets such as the destruction of the al-Samoud 2 missiles whose range exceeds UN limits. But the inspections have done little to support the U.S. characterization of Saddam as a growing or imminent threat to Western and Arab security. For many the reluctant Council members, a war becomes permissible only if the threat posed by the regime in Baghdad is greater than the risks attached to an invasion. When they hear President Bush, regardless of the findings of the inspection process, speaking of regime-change and evil, and of a grand design to remake the Middle East, their skepticism is deepened.

The Bush administration's patience for the UN process is almost certainly finite. Polls find that half of America's electorate is ready to go to war without UN backing and a growing number express frustration with the UN. Once the bombs are flying, support for the action will almost certainly increase. And some of the morbid symptoms of the war are already upon America — a plunging stock market, a soaring oil price and continued anxiety over terror attacks. That and the onset of Iraq's sweltering spring months are likely to create pressure for action. But that pressure may be felt more strongly in Washington than at the UN.

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...235395,00.html
............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...............

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..............

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061100723.html
Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Postwar Iraq Plan
Advisers to Blair Predicted Instability

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 12, 2005; Page A01

...........The Bush administration's failure to plan adequately for the postwar period has been well documented. The Pentagon, for example, ignored extensive State Department studies of how to achieve stability after an invasion, administer a postwar government and rebuild the country. And administration officials have acknowledged the mistake of dismantling the Iraqi army and canceling pensions to its veteran officers -- which many say hindered security, enhanced anti-U.S. feeling and aided what would later become a violent insurgency.

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..............

RangerDick · 06-20-2005, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ranger:

moving away from the previous tonal register.
let's see if this works.

Fair enough. I'll attempt to follow suit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

two points/questions:

1. in the strict sense--sadly--you are right. there seems to be no recourse for what i see as an outcome shaped by hysteria (the congressional approval of bushwar).

the question of whether the approval was rooted in false premises is, from ths viewpoint, a political rather than directly legal one.

the argument that i was making above actually converges with yours in a backhanded way: there will be no hearing, no process, no impeachment--not because there are not problems, not because there are not a thousand reasons that the bush squad should be held to account, but simply because there is no possibility that the congress would initiate it (as over against the clinton thing--the point there was that initiating impeachment is a purely political move.)

Well, it appears that we do agree on something. You're correct, there will be no hearing, no process, no impeachment. Unfortunately, we do not agree on the reasons why there won't be. I submit that the reason that there won't be is simply because there is no reason for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

you appear to be fine with that, from your responses.

Let me clarify, I am fine with there being no impeachment process. There is no basis for it. It is as simple as that. We can go round and round on whether or not we agree the war was justified, but impeachment is merely a fringe fantasy at this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i would argue that this possibility--that hysteria can override normal checks and result in launching a war on false pretenses---is a significant political problem that should require a political response. surely you would concede--were you to consider the matter--that if one were to find the case against bushwar compelling, that teh call for some type of serious response, some type of serious censure of the responsable parties within the bush administration--would follow.

The only hysteria I see is coming from those on the left. I am amused by the visions of lefties all in a tizzy running up and down their dormitory hallways waving copies of the Downing Street Memo frantically above their heads yelling "BUSH LIED!!! BUSH IS TEH DEVIL!!!".

I would concede that if one were to find the case against Bushwar compelling, that it would call for a serious response. Go for it. Show us something. If the evidence is there, why would the the New York Times, of all people, be giving the Bush cronies a free pass. Hint....pssst... it's not there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

2. it is hard to tell from your post which claims support which:

does your dismissal of the mountain of proof that the administration cooked intel, bent information, concocted rationales for war condition your argument about legality, or does your position on legality lead you to dismiss everything that contradicts the administration's case for war?

this is the question around which assumptions as to your politics turned.
i confess that i assumed you worked from the first position.
but i could have been wrong and maybe you work from the second in that your initial post was directed primarily at the logic of host's opening (insofar as you saw impeachment to be a type of fantasy).

if you read your post from the first viewpoint, then you work from a more or less standard conserviatve ideological position and it is perfectly reasonable to associate that position with its sources, and to switch from discussing your particular variant of that ideology to the ideology itself.

if it is the second that informs your post, then things are otherwise--in that you could be talking from a variety of positions--and i would apologize for the flourishes in my response.

so which is it?

My viewpoint comes from neither. My statement was that host's opening question used an old debate technique commonly referred to as "begging the question". He assumed that the Iraq war was launched illegally, and premised his question with it. It's like asking, "Host, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" For the question to have merit, one must assume that Host has beat his wife in the past. That is begging the question.

It appears this thread has gone off topic. It's really not about whether or not Bushco launched a war on false premises, but whether or not the New York Times is suppressing information that would support that theory. I doubt it. Bush has never gotten any free passes from the NYT. If there was any damning information there, you can bet your ass the Times would be all over it.

Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that Host is even married, has a wife, beats her, or is even a heterosexual male. This was simply used as an example of the "begging the question" debate technique.

RangerDick · 06-20-2005, 05:46 PM

...............oops

roachboy · 06-21-2005, 10:30 AM

well, it seems to me that if you find no evidence that the premises for bushwar were problematic, then you simply are not looking.
there is an enormous amount. thread after thread here on the matter too. maybe do a search?

because i agree with you that the entire debate hinges on your relation to that information. if you know about it, and find it compelling, then the question of whether something should happen to bushco. because of it becomes important--even if you end up having to conclude that for political reasons--and political reasons alone--nothing will happen. at least not in the short run. i imagine that you will find this whole period being radically criticized once the histories of it start to come out.

but judging from your recycle of the tired rightwing cliche about "bushbashing" above, the sole function of which is to create the grounds for dismissing unpleasant facts that come from a reality that the right cannot comprehend much less shape or control, i doubt that you would read such histories.

you seem to have a strange relation to the ny times--something of a conservative caricature that would have us believe that the nyt is some kind of radical oppositional outlet--which leads to the question of whether you actually read the paper. i cannot see how, if you actually read the times, that you can see it in these terms. like most media outlets, the nyt is necessarily legitimist--its coverage presupposes the legitimacy of the regime, its ability to speak to an audience rests on its ability to get and retain access--you do not see many reporters from the workers world with anything like this type of access, anything like this type of diverse information. i see the ny times as being slightly left of center--but if you view the world from a vantagepoint that would enable you to see a leftist in bill clinton, then i suspect you would also be able to fit the times into that fantasy grid.

as for the call for impeachment being a "fringe argument": if you look at recent polls, your support of the war places you in a minority--about 1/3 of the population supports it.
so it seems that you are not far from being a fringe element yourself, ranger.

RangerDick · 06-21-2005, 11:41 AM

Would those polls be like the ones that claimed Kerry was going to win the election? Liberals just love poll numbers. Unfortunately, they love them too much, to the point of blocking out reality......but but but the POLLS say that ...(latest topic du jour). Point being I don't put a lot of faith into random poll numbers. Depending who is polled, what questions are asked, and other variables, I could take a poll that would result in showing 90% of Americans believe that the Sta-Puff Marshmallow Man masterminded the attacks on 9/11.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

well, it seems to me that if you find no evidence that the premises for bushwar were problematic, then you simply are not looking.
there is an enormous amount. thread after thread here on the matter too. maybe do a search?

because i agree with you that the entire debate hinges on your relation to that information. if you know about it, and find it compelling, then the question of whether something should happen to bushco. because of it becomes important--even if you end up having to conclude that for political reasons--and political reasons alone--nothing will happen. at least not in the short run. i imagine that you will find this whole period being radically criticized once the histories of it start to come out.

Being radically crticized is not the same as impeached. This is the detachment from reality I'm talking about with the fringe element yelling for impeachment. This fringe is screaming of war crimes, and illegal invasions, etc etc ad nauseam. Then, when called on it, they say, "well there are lots and lots of problems! Bush does bad bad things!! Look at this memo!!" That may be, but I have yet to see any evidence of illegalities that would actually warrant impeachment. Neither has anyone else. You might be right, maybe history will not be kind to this Administration, and maybe rightfully so. But flip that around, are willing to concede that perhaps history will view this Administration favorably? Somehow I doubt it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

but judging from your recycle of the tired rightwing cliche about "bushbashing" above, the sole function of which is to create the grounds for dismissing unpleasant facts that come from a reality that the right cannot comprehend much less shape or control, i doubt that you would read such histories.

I'm not dismissing unpleasant information. I see the memos, the articles. But I keep hearing you guys talk about impeachment. I don't see anything in those memos that rises to the level that would call for impeachment. Show me something illegal, then we'll talk about impeachment. I am not recycling tired cliches about "bushbashing", host opened this thread with a question that called the war illegal. I called him out on it and asked for him (or anyone) to prove the war is illegal. You can't prove it, or provide evidence to back up that assertion, yet you and your ilk will continue to talk about the "illegal war". And somehow I'm the one slinging tired cliches?

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

you seem to have a strange relation to the ny times--something of a conservative caricature that would have us believe that the nyt is some kind of radical oppositional outlet--which leads to the question of whether you actually read the paper. i cannot see how, if you actually read the times, that you can see it in these terms. like most media outlets, the nyt is necessarily legitimist--its coverage presupposes the legitimacy of the regime, its ability to speak to an audience rests on its ability to get and retain access--you do not see many reporters from the workers world with anything like this type of access, anything like this type of diverse information. i see the ny times as being slightly left of center--but if you view the world from a vantagepoint that would enable you to see a leftist in bill clinton, then i suspect you would also be able to fit the times into that fantasy grid.

Ok, let's see.......32 consecutive front page stories on Abu Ghraib prison scandal........

April 29: TREATMENT OF PRISONERS; G.I.'s Are Accused of Abusing Iraqi Captives < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AD0894DC404482 >
May 1: CAPTIVES; Bush Voices 'Disgust' at Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 2: DETAINEES; OFFICER SUGGESTS IRAQI JAIL ABUSE WAS ENCOURAGED < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 3: PRISONERS; COMMAND ERRORS AIDED IRAQ ABUSE, ARMY HAS FOUND < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 4: PUNISHMENT; ARMY PUNISHES 7 WITH REPRIMANDS FOR PRISON ABUSE < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 5: INMATE; Iraqi Recounts Hours of Abuse By U.S. Troops < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 6: THE PRISON GUARDS; Abuse Charges Bring Anguish In Unit's Home < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 7: THE SOLDIER; From Picture of Pride to Symbol of Abuse < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 8: COMBAT; G.I.'S KILL SCORES OF MILITIA FORCES IN 3 IRAQI CITIES < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
[NOTE: Abu Ghraib mentioned in first paragraph ]
May 9: THE MILITARY; In Abuse, a Portrayal of Ill-Prepared, Overwhelmed G.I.'s < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 10: PROSECUTION; FIRST TRIAL SET TO BEGIN MAY 19 IN ABUSE IN IRAQ < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 11: THE REPORT; Head of Inquiry On Iraq Abuses Now in Spotlight < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 12: Afghan Gives Own Account Of U.S. Abuse < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 13: PRISON POLICIES; General Took Guantánamo Rules To Iraq for Handling of Prisoners < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 14: THE WHISTLE-BLOWER; Accused Soldier Paints Scene of Eager Mayhem < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 15: MISTREATMENT; Earlier Jail Seen as Incubator for Abuses in Iraq < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 16: THE COURTS-MARTIAL; ACCUSED G.I.'S TRY TO SHIFT BLAME IN PRISON ABUSE < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 17: PRISONERS; SOME IRAQIS HELD OUTSIDE CONTROL OF TOP GENERAL < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 18: INTERROGATIONS; M.P.'s Received Orders to Strip Iraqi Detainees < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 19: ABU GHRAIB; Officer Says Army Tried to Curb Red Cross Visits to Prison in Iraq < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 20: THE COURT-MARTIAL; G.I. PLEADS GUILTY IN COURT-MARTIAL FOR IRAQIS' ABUSE < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 21: THE INTERROGATORS; Afghan Policies On Questioning Landed in Iraq < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 22: THE WITNESSES; Only a Few Spoke Up on Abuse As Many Soldiers Stayed Silent < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 23: SUSPECT; Translator Questioned By Army In Iraq Abuse < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >[Page 12]
May 24: ABUSE; Afghan Deaths Linked to Unit At Iraq Prison < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 25: ARMY SHIFTS; No. 2 Army General to Move In As Top U.S. Commander in Iraq < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 26: INVESTIGATION; ABUSE OF CAPTIVES MORE WIDESPREAD, SAYS ARMY SURVEY < http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DC404482 >
May 27: Three Accused Soldiers Had Records of Unruliness That Went Unpunished < http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/politics/27PUNI.html >
May 28: U.S. Releases More Prisoners From Abu Ghraib < http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/28/in...8CND-PRIS.html >
May 29: Cuba Base Sent Its Interrogators to Iraqi Prison < http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/29/in...st/29ABUS.html >
May 30:Scant Evidence Cited in Long Detention of Iraqis < http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/30/in...st/30ABUS.html >
May 31: Army Is Investigating Reports of Assaults and Thefts by G.I.'s Against Iraqi Civilians < http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/31/in...st/31ABUS.html >
[NYT Memorial Day Special]
June 1: Searing Uncertainty for Iraqis Missing Loved Ones < http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/01/in...st/01PRIS.html >
June 2: Afghan Prison Review < http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/02/in...ia/02afgh.html >

Nope, no slanted reporting there.

roachboy · 06-21-2005, 12:30 PM

curious that we actually agree about the likelihood of impeachment.
and keep in mind that i am not making tha same kind of argument as host was. i have heard these arguments from the earliest phase of bushwar and was never really convinced by them. almost entirely on pragmatic grounds--that i think bushco. should be held accountable is a different matter. it seemed a waste of time to float an argument for this when it was obvious from day one that it wasnt going to happen.

as for the ny times: you act as though the front page has only one article on it, that the paper operates with a single ideological perspective that you can summarize by lists.
i do not anything like support for a claim of political agenda in that list: information about abu ghraib was surfacing through the period: what would have have had the times do, bury the story? downplay its importance? on what basis?

it seems a kind of absurd claim you are advancing, ranger: that you can use that list of stories as evidence of a political disposition for the paper as a whole. you could counter with a list of happyface stories about the "progress" being made in iraq.
and that list would not prove anything either.

are you relying on the bolzell school of "media analysis" for this?
is there any more comprehensive analytic material behind it?
if there is, could you post links please?
i am curious to see what possible analytic position could be used to arrive at your conclusion....thanks.

RangerDick · 06-21-2005, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

it seems a kind of absurd claim you are advancing, ranger: that you can use that list of stories as evidence of a political disposition for the paper as a whole. you could counter with a list of happyface stories about the "progress" being made in iraq.

No you couldn't. I double-dog-dare ya. Show me a list of front page New York Times happyface stories comparable to the streak of Abu Ghraib front page stories.

Which brings us full circle to the topic at hand. If the liberal NYT isn't after Bush for these supposed improprieties, there isn't much of a case for the claim (that is what this thread was about, wasn't it?).

roachboy · 06-21-2005, 03:31 PM

ranger: it'd be easiest if you just read the newspaper.
i still find the argument that the ny times--or any other american newspaper--is "out to get" cowboy george to be laughable.
following that logic, you would also argue that the rest of the world is too.

Quote:

The Guantanamo Debate Comes Home

By Jefferson Morley
washingtonpost.com Staff writer
Monday, June 20, 2005; 7:36 PM

The U.S.-run detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, needs "to be closed down or cleaned up," former president Bill Clinton told the Financial Times. It may be surprising that the former American president is quoted in a British newspaper. But then again the international online media has long been ahead of U.S. news outlets in airing debate about the detention facility.

The first full Senate hearings on Guantanamo, held last week, brought home to Capitol Hill an issue that has percolated in the foreign press for two years.

The "edifice of silence and acquiescence [around Guantanamo] is beginning to crack," said Gulf News, based in the United Arab Emirates. Sen. Joseph Biden's recent call for the closing of the facility known as Camp X-Ray was described as "a sign that the damage the lawless place does to the image of America was finally being recognised by politicians in the corridors of power."

"Debate on Guantanamo Heats Up Ahead of Senate Hearings," declared Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, based in Prague. RFE/RL noted high in its story that only four of the 500 Guantanamo prisoners have been formally charged with a crime.

"Even the solid support of majority Republicans in Congress, who have consistently viewed Guantanamo as necessary in the post-Sept 11 battle against terrorism, is eroding," said Dawn, the leading English language newspaper in Pakistan.

Still, there are distinct differences between the American and international debate.

In the U.S. media, the debate about Guantanamo often focuses on the propriety of the language used to describe the treatment of prisoners. The White House, conservative columnists and his Senate colleagues criticized Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) for saying U.S. interrogation techniques were reminiscent of Nazi Germany. The Post's Anne Applebaum, a Guantanamo critic, rebuked Amnesty International for likening the prison camp to the Soviet gulag.

In the foreign media, the debate is more likely to focus on the propriety of the treatment itself.

The Sydney Morning Herald picked up on Time magazine's report about the man now believed to be the so-called 20th hijacker in the September 11 attacks. Mohammad al-Kahtani was "forcibly injected with fluids, not allowed to go to the toilet until he gave information, threatened with military dogs and kept awake by Christina Aguilera pop songs.

"The revelations have left some congressmen aghast," the SMH said. "A Republican senator, Chuck Hagel, suggested there was 'a vacuum of leadership' at the Pentagon."

The Mail & Guardian in South Africa highlighted the testimony of a U.S. military lawyer who told a Senate hearing that the military tribunals at Guantanamo were a "tremendous failure." Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift said that his client, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver, had been left mentally disturbed after being held in solitary confinement for seven months.

"Swift said that Hamdan was offered the opportunity to see a defence lawyer only if he pleaded guilty to the charges made against him," the M&G reported.

The foreign press also devotes more coverage to the Guantanamo prisoners themselves.

Last month, the Daily Times in Pakistan reported that three men released from Guantanamo had told a team of Pakistani intelligence officers that their interrogators had desecrated the Koran. "They would stand on the Quran and throw it away, saying the book teaches you terrorism," the men said, according to documents cited by the Lahore-based news site.

Prisoners also reported that "women interrogators were particularly indecent with prisoners." Such allegations match those first reported by The Washington Post back in February that female interrogators "used sexually suggestive tactics" such as touching Muslim detainees provocatively and, using dye, pretended to smear menstrual blood on the men. "They would press their sensitive parts against prisoners' bodies and when a woman interrogator threw menstrual blood on the face of a prisoner, we resorted to a hunger strike," the former detainees said in the Daily Times article.

In Bahrain, the Gulf Daily News reports that members of parliament are pressing the government for more information about six Bahraini men held at Guantanamo.

The Yemen Times reports that an Amnesty International lawyer told families of prisoners about "legal measures they said were designed to pressure the U.S. administration to give detainees fair trials and release those who prove to be innocent of the charges of terrorism."

A columnist for the news site adds that the response of Bush administration officials to criticism about Guantanamo suggests those officials think they have a "God given hold on infallibility and their rights are only governed by the evil interests they serve rather than the desire to enhance and uphold the rights and welfare of people all over the world."

In his interview with the FT, Clinton struck a pragmatic note about the abuses, citing two huge problems that have nothing to do with morality.

Practical problem number one. "If we get the reputation for abusing people," Clinton said, "it puts our own soldiers much more at risk" when they are serving overseas.

The second problem is, "if you rough up somebody bad enough they'll eventually tell you whatever you want to hear to get you to stop doing it."

If only for practical reasons, Washington has now joined the global debate about Guantanamo.

must be tough for supporters of bushwar, being the only correct people on earth.

anyway, i suspect at this point the thread really is veering away from its original point--up to now, i could see the drift as logical because, in the end, your position on this question hinges on prior position(s) on the war itself.

now it is about the absurd contention that the ny times is somehow a left newspaper.
granted, it is not as blinkered and intellectually bankrupt as the washington times--but then again, few papers are. without the reverend moon's backing it, i doubt seriously that paper would still exist.

RangerDick · 06-21-2005, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ranger: it'd be easiest if you just read the newspaper.
.

Check. And mate.

Mantus · 06-22-2005, 11:56 AM

Ranger I am really hoping that you will justify your opinion that the President didn't do anything wrong by misleading the country into this war. We get your opinion, you don't have to keep repeating it, but some justification of it might be nice.

Quote:

I submit that the reason that there won't be is simply because there is no reason for it.

Quote:

The "Bush lied" meme is quite old and worn out. Repeating it over and over does not make it any truer.

Now you make the clever little statement that there is nothing "illegal" about lying to the world, the country and congress but I would say that we should let the political lawyers decide on that matter. I am sure if impeachment was supported by enough people then some charges would be dug up.

So in the mean time we can discus whether the administration did anything wrong (generally) by misleading us into the conflict.

RangerDick · 06-22-2005, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus

Ranger I am really hoping that you will justify your opinion that the President didn't do anything wrong by misleading the country into this war. We get your opinion, you don't have to keep repeating it, but some justification of it might be nice.

Quote:
I submit that the reason that there won't be is simply because there is no reason for it.

What is it with you guys and the assumptions you make in phrasing your questions? Before I can answer that question, it is up to you (or the person making the accusations) to establish that "Bush misled the country into war." In other words, any attempt I make at addressing the question implicitly admits that I agree on the basis of the question (Bush lying). The onus of proof isn't on me. Further to the point, this thread isn't about the whether or not the President misled us into war, it's about the New York Times suppressing information that would support Bush's impeachment. I believe there are already several threads on the justification for war, and whether or not Bush misled the country and the world. Seriously, try the search function if that's the debate you're looking for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus

Quote:
The "Bush lied" meme is quite old and worn out. Repeating it over and over does not make it any truer.

Mantus:
Now you make the clever little statement that there is nothing "illegal" about lying to the world, the country and congress but I would say that we should let the political lawyers decide on that matter. I am sure if impeachment was supported by enough people then some charges would be dug up.

There you go again. See above Mantus. This is getting old. You must establish that Bush lied/misled, whatever. And your summation of my quote is seriously off base. Stop reading what you want my words to be, and read the words that are actually there (don't add your own).
Charges would be dug up? And finally the true agenda shines through....if only enough people just wished real hard that Bush would be impeached, charges could somehow someway be brought against him. Fortunately Mantus, clicking your heals together 3 times and wishing real hard does not solid grounds for impeachment make.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus

So in the mean time we can discus whether the administration did anything wrong (generally) by misleading us into the conflict.

3 times in one post you did it. That must be like, a TFP record or something.

roachboy · 06-22-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

I'm not dismissing unpleasant information. I see the memos, the articles. But I keep hearing you guys talk about impeachment.

gee, when i read this, i assumed that you were in fact reading this information as you came across it. and the various findings about the wmd charade. and the demolition of the connection to "terrorism." in fact, i went so far as to assume that your argument was that there would be no impeachment because, knowing the information that was and is readily available about bushco's marketing of this farce of a war, you did not see the legal basis for impeachment.

now, in response to mantus, you seem to be claiming either that there is no evidence that the public was...um...mislead (to put it mildly)--whcih is absurd---or that you have not in fact seen any of it, which woudl contradict what you said earlier.

do you really believe that there were no problems with the bushcase for war?
on what basis? that the wmd systems were in fact found? why is that a secret known only to yourself then? that there was a link to al qaeada? on what basis? what are you actually arguing for here, apart from the narrow legal claim that you made many posts ago and seem to be content with recycling, over and over, with various minor inflections?

if you do not see any problems with the bushcase (leaving the impeachment issue asiude for the moment because i do not see anywhere for that to go), in your mind is it possible that there could be problems? what would constitute a problem? beyond the president in question being a democrat--i assume that would be one in your mind. but maybe i'm wrong, so enlighten me please.

Mantus · 06-22-2005, 08:51 PM

Ranger,

Well roachboy covered the bases.

I somehow doubt that you need me to submit proof that Bush misled the country into this war. As you stated yourself there are plenty of arguments out there.

I am aware that there are many discusions out there on whether the President misled this country or not, but the topic was mentioned by you.

Quote:

The "Bush lied" meme is quite old and worn out. Repeating it over and over does not make it any truer.

Infact from your very first post the issue of

Quote:

New York Times suppressing information that would support Bush's impeachment.

...was never confronted.
So far all you posted your personal opinion on the matter, which is fine, but I would like to hear the basis for that opinion.

Also, I am sorry for the rather demeaning tone in my previous post. I was just a little vexed by your "check mate" remark.

Lebell · 06-22-2005, 09:16 PM

You guys....

So far from what I've read, most sources agree that the facts are:

1) Had current WMD's: False.
2) Republicans AND Democrats believed he had current WMD's: True.
3) Planned to resume production of WMD's when heat was off: True.
4) Tied to 9/11 Terrorists: False.
5) Tied to Palestinian Terrorists: True.
6) US supported him during Iran/Iraq war: True.
7) US sold him pathogen samples prior to this war: True.
8) Bush wanted Saddam out regardless and may have fudged WMD intelligence: Undetermined
9) Nigerian Uranium: False
10) Iraq in violation of original UN resolution: True
11) Saddam was secretly selling oil with the collusion of top level French and UN authorities: True
12) Saddam was a mass murderer: True
13) The US knew about 12 and did nothing about it: Depends on what you mean by "nothing". US tried using diplomacy at first.
14) The US has supported other dictators who've committed atrocities against their own people: True.
15) The US has, in the past, fabricated excuses to go to war against soverign nations: True.
16) US troops have committed certain atrocities such as the Abu Gharab prison scandal.:True
17) Many of the current "freedom" fighters in Iran are foreign nationals who are trying to ignite a civil war between Shiite and Sunni Iraqis: True

Mea culpa if I have a few details wrong, but I believe that this list is correct on the whole. I also am confident that others on both sides will add to it

Any discussion of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of this current war occurs in a vacuum if one does not consider all of the factors, current and historical.

As is well known here, my own opinion is that, on the whole, this war is just.

Locobot · 06-23-2005, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

1) Had current WMD's: False.
2) Republicans AND Democrats believed he had current WMD's: True.

yeah I wouldn't call myself either of the above but I did think Iraq had a stockpile chemical weapons much larger than we've discovered. I had no illusions that Iraq posessed any nuclear capability however.

Quote:

3) Planned to resume production of WMD's when heat was off: True.

problematic, this was a chalabi-sourced story. Also he could have changed his mind...

Quote:

4) Tied to 9/11 Terrorists: False.

There was a shrill, constant, and highly successful campaign on the part of the Bush admin. to convince Americans that there was such a connection:true

Quote:

5) Tied to Palestinian Terrorists: True.

This is just gilding and you know it. Or are you advocating the preemptive invasion of Libya, Saudi, Eqypt, much of Eastern Europe, Turkey, Iran, Syria, etc.?

Quote:

6) US supported him during Iran/Iraq war: True.
7) US sold him pathogen samples prior to this war: True.
8) Bush wanted Saddam out regardless and may have fudged WMD intelligence: Undetermined

delete 8. It's two different things and as you say: undetermined.

Quote:

9) Nigerian Uranium: False
10) Iraq in violation of original UN resolution: True
11) Saddam was secretly selling oil with the collusion of top level French and UN authorities: True

partial truth. This was also with full U.S. collusion.

Quote:

12) Saddam was a mass murderer: True
13) The US knew about 12 and did nothing about it: Depends on what you mean by "nothing". US tried using diplomacy at first.
14) The US has supported other dictators who've committed atrocities against their own people: True.
15) The US has, in the past, fabricated excuses to go to war against soverign nations: True.

Well we were doing pretty well with this for the last 100 years with the notable exception of Vietnam but that turned out great, right?

Quote:

16) US troops have committed certain atrocities such as the Abu Gharab prison scandal.:True
17) Many of the current "freedom" fighters in Iran are foreign nationals who are trying to ignite a civil war between Shiite and Sunni Iraqis: True

I highly doubt motivations among the resistance in Iraq are so pure as to include the above but also exclude a deep hatred of the U.S.

Quote:

As is well known here, my own opinion is that, on the whole, this war is just.

It was just, but was it the right thing to do? Any leftist reality that holds the possibility of Bush actually being impeached is only as dillusional as the idea, which most Americans (left & right) hold, of a quick exit strategy from Iraq. We're already at 5000+ American dead (including civilians), almost makes you wish we went for the oil eh?

host · 06-23-2005, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

You guys....

So far from what I've read, most sources agree that the facts are:

1) Had current WMD's: False.
2) Republicans AND Democrats believed he had current WMD's: True.

No....Lebell, as I've already documented, multiple times, Feb., 2001, Powell stated publicly that Saddam was contained and not a threat to his neighbors, and Rice said the same thing in a July 29, 2001 CNN interview. (The links are in my posts on this thread.) On May 5, 2005, Time reported that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perle, <a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,235395,00.html">"strongly believe that after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe."</a>

What you now cite about what "Republicans AND Democrats believed", is the foundation of your justification for the invasion of Iraq. You cannot or will not examine when and why the propaganda coming from the Bush admin. changed from what I provide compelling documentation of, above. How do you counter the documented fact that, 44 days before 9/11, the NSA director, Rice, was publicly declaring ? <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html">
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.</a>

Rice's comments were consistant with what Powell had stated five months before, <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm">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.</a>

Lebell, the consensus about the threat of WMD from Iraq was what officials like Powell and Rice, and news reports like the above cited. May 5, 2002 Time report, was what those sources told us it was. The premise that there was some independent "consensus" on the part of "Republicans AND Democrats", is the result of a disinformation campaign, not unlike the Bush/Cheny 2004 and the SSI "blitzes" conducted by these same strategists, more recently.

9/11 softened up the sheeple, and just five hours after the attack on the Pentagon, this "op" kicked in: <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml</a>
(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.

These thugs "took you in", Lebell...they did it so seamlessly that you are now in the positioin of basing your whole argument of "a just war", on the false premise, that "everybody Knew" that Saddam had WMD, so Bush and Cheney are no more to blame than anyone else who was misled and "let down" by the fiction of an intelligence failure. These folks destroyed the analytical assets in the CIA and in our other intelligence infrastucture to get this done, Lebell.

What you defend, I believe is treason and an executed conspiracy to commit our troops to an illegal invasion and occupation. The Downing Street Memo reinforces what I have cited. How can anyone square the award of the "Medal of Freedom" by Bush, to the director of Central Intelligence, a man left holding the "bag", who is allegedly a central figure in the "intelligence failure" excuse, with the magnitude of the failure that he is painted with presiding over? How do you justify the promotion of NSA director Rice?

It's not a "just war" Lebell, and 9/11 was used as an excuse for a turnaboout in the 12 year policy of containment of Saddam's Iraq that was so lacking in justification, easily seen by the now historical record, that the "facts" has to be "shaped" around the policy.

Bush knows his job, <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524-3.html">I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)</a>
is he really good enough at it to make voters forget to do theirs?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

3) Planned to resume production of WMD's when heat was off: True.
4) Tied to 9/11 Terrorists: False.
5) Tied to Palestinian Terrorists: True.
6) US supported him during Iran/Iraq war: True.
7) US sold him pathogen samples prior to this war: True.
8) Bush wanted Saddam out regardless and may have fudged WMD intelligence: Undetermined
9) Nigerian Uranium: False
10) Iraq in violation of original UN resolution: True
11) Saddam was secretly selling oil with the collusion of top level French and UN authorities: True
12) Saddam was a mass murderer: True
13) The US knew about 12 and did nothing about it: Depends on what you mean by "nothing". US tried using diplomacy at first.
14) The US has supported other dictators who've committed atrocities against their own people: True.
15) The US has, in the past, fabricated excuses to go to war against soverign nations: True.
16) US troops have committed certain atrocities such as the Abu Gharab prison scandal.:True
17) Many of the current "freedom" fighters in Iran are foreign nationals who are trying to ignite a civil war between Shiite and Sunni Iraqis:

UNDETERMINED, at best. There have been no direct admissions that I can find, from the U.S. DOD, that counter the idea that this internal Iraqi resistance is anything other than the result of the U.S. occupation's own making. The idea that Bush's claim, that we fight them over there, so we won't have to fight them here.....is the same line of crap that results from a desperate hunt to find a new justification for this mess. There ain't one!

<a href="http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2005/tr20050505-2683.html"> Q Going -- going back to that end, is there any sense of -- you were over in Fallujah for a while. Is there any sense what -- what's coming across the Syrian border? Is there -- is there an influx of foreign fighters coming in now, or is there just a pool of foreign fighters that have been in Iraq for a while, sleepers or whatever, that we're seeing?

GEN. CONWAY: I don't think we know the answer to that for sure. We have tried to gauge the percent of the insurgency that is represented by foreign fighters. We do know that some of the insurgent websites have called this the jihad superbowl, if you will, and now is the time to come fight and try to kick the Americans out of the region. How much people are responding to that we're just not certain at this point, but we continue to seek that answer.</a>

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Mea culpa if I have a few details wrong, but I believe that this list is correct on the whole. I also am confident that others on both sides will add to it

Any discussion of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of this current war occurs in a vacuum if one does not consider all of the factors, current and historical.

As is well known here, my own opinion is that, on the whole, this war is just.

The trend about the amount of information that must be "overlooked", "ignored", or not fully faced, in order to preserve the "Just War" argument, IMO, seems to grow in volume and persuasiveness, and the polls show it.

As far as the "polls" being used exclusively by members of one party, rangerrick, I recall Ukraine exit poll results being the excuse that was heavily utilized by the Bush admin., late last fall, to publicly challenge the legitimacy of Ukraine election results, just weeks after the same officials downplayed a similar exit poll result disparity, versus the U.S. election results.

Lebell · 06-23-2005, 07:12 AM

Host,

I refer to numerous postings of direct quotes from politicians that state that Saddam had WMD's.

Again, this is not in dispute.

powerclown · 06-23-2005, 09:53 AM

3 + 5 = 8

Lebell, you're a genius!

RangerDick · 06-23-2005, 09:19 PM

.......still holding my breath waiting for that list of front page New York Times "happyface" stories. I'll just take your failure to back up your claim that you could provide said list as a tacit concession that the Times is not, in fact, as balanced as you'd like to think. Fair? For all the articles you guys like to link, you seem to have come up short on this one. For you to claim that the Times does not have an anti-Bush agenda is ridiculous. And if the times isn't going after Bush on this issue, there's probably a pretty good reason for it. Granted, it's early....they could always change their mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

Quote:
I'm not dismissing unpleasant information. I see the memos, the articles. But I keep hearing you guys talk about impeachment.

gee, when i read this, i assumed that you were in fact reading this information as you came across it. and the various findings about the wmd charade. and the demolition of the connection to "terrorism." in fact, i went so far as to assume that your argument was that there would be no impeachment because, knowing the information that was and is readily available about bushco's marketing of this farce of a war, you did not see the legal basis for impeachment.

I did read the information as I came across it. You are only half correct in your assumption though, I see no legal basis for impeachment, I also do not agree that Bush misled by creating a "wmd charade". For you to claim that he did is intellectually dishonest, unless you somehow think that Bush is evil genius enough to mislead the international intelligence community (British, French, Russian, etc)as well as pre-Bush Administration intelligence. Just for shits, here are a few quotes for you to peruse at your leisure....there are plenty more where these came from. The charade game is being played by the left, pretending now to have never believed that Iraq possessed WMD's, and playing their second favorite game of rewriting history......

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert '"Sheets" Byrd, October 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

...and the demolition of the connection to "terrorism."

Huh? You tried to sneak that one in there and thought I wouldn't notice? Sneaky roach, sneaky. So your contention is that Iraq had no ties to terrorism, or that any such ties have been "demolished"? Wow.

There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, that's not even considering the "donations' Saddam made to the family members of Palestinian suicide bombers (sorry for not posting text from the articles, I didn't want this post to get out of hand long....links are legit).

Saddam's Philanthropy or Terror
Evidence of Cooperation Between Saddam and Osama
Saddam and Osama Part 2
Ansar al-Islam, Iraqi intelligence, and al qaeda
Iraqi Intelligence Chief met with bin laden in Khartoum
Saddam Killed Abu Nidal over Al Qaeda Training
Sabah Khodada: Iraqi Intelligence trained al Qaeda
Second Hijacker tied to Abu Nidal, Iraq

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

now, in response to mantus, you seem to be claiming either that there is no evidence that the public was...um...mislead (to put it mildly)--whcih is absurd---or that you have not in fact seen any of it, which woudl contradict what you said earlier.

do you really believe that there were no problems with the bushcase for war?
on what basis? that the wmd systems were in fact found? why is that a secret known only to yourself then?

There is no perfect scenario for the buildup to war. Bush (and Congress and the Coalition) acted on internationally accepted intelligence within the confines of UN resolutions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

that there was a link to al qaeada? on what basis?

Not on links to Al Qaeda specifically, but links to supporting terror through several organizations. And there is much evidence to suggest that Iraq was in bed with Al Qaeda (see above).

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

what are you actually arguing for here, apart from the narrow legal claim that you made many posts ago and seem to be content with recycling, over and over, with various minor inflections?

My argument hasn't changed. Bush did not mislead us into war, he did nothing illegal, hence there will be no impeachment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

if you do not see any problems with the bushcase (leaving the impeachment issue asiude for the moment because i do not see anywhere for that to go), in your mind is it possible that there could be problems? what would constitute a problem? beyond the president in question being a democrat--i assume that would be one in your mind. but maybe i'm wrong, so enlighten me please.

Yes, having a democrat as president right now would be problem #1. Thank God we don't have to worry about that one for a while, we would be trying to tickle the terrorists to death right now. : )

Of course I see problems, it is impossible for a war to be planned, and executed absolutely perfectly.

Let me ask you this, who do you blame more for this war, Saddam or Bush?

chickentribs · 06-23-2005, 11:29 PM

Quote:

My argument hasn't changed. Bush did not mislead us into war, he did nothing illegal, hence there will be no impeachment.

RangerDick, Mr. Clown, et al... The accepted talking point that "Well, we didn't know, they lied to us too so we can't be responsible" is ludicrous. It seems that nobody remembers only two years a huge rift developed between the White House and the CIA because the CIA wouldn't confirm information being shuffled by Wolfowitcz out of the Pentagon's DIA and the crack intelligence gathering team of the Iraqi National Council and Ahmed Chalabi. Remember how the CIA quit getting invited to the briefings?

Since anyone who worked at the CIA 2 years ago is either pumping gas now or working on a 10th rewrite of a book that Rumsfeld keeps drawing a black pen through, I thought it might be fun to see what was being admitted to when they still believed in WMD's.

I went back just over two years ago to when the White House was nervous, but still convinced enough they were right that they didn't shy away from the press like today. If you give the article a read, I think you will be surprised how fair the New Yorker was being to the White House, especially given what we know now. It was the White House's choice to trust exiled Shiites (who are all in power today) over our own intelligence.

I was worried about Chalabi when he was cut off from the $120k/month (yeah, a month) consulting fees. Thought it might be tough for him to find work once it came out that he had lied for almost 2 years to us about underground "Dr. Evil" lairs and factories in Iraq. At least Powell had to be pissed that all of his documentation he put in front of the UN was simply blueprints from the 1980's that UN security inspectors had possessed since after the first Gulf War in 1991. Eh, I am sure Ahmed was as surprised as any of us that we loaded up the tanks and called him on it. He's fine - they call him Mr. Deputy Prime Minister nowadays.

I know nobody will change their mind, we all believe what we believe. But, too many people have died over this - 40 more this week. We owe them accountability at the very least.

We think Iraqis want to be our friends - that the people who we are putting in power are fair and good. Remember that we killed a lot fathers and sons only 10 years ago... blew up the roads, mosques, power plants and left Saddam and Uday in the castles. The chance to be heroes over there may be gone in this lifetime.

Anyhow, dated May 5, 2003...

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content?030512fa_fact

Locobot · 06-24-2005, 12:43 AM

thanks for stepping up and calling bullshit on much of what has been expounded in this thread chickentribs. If only the CIA's complete loss of credibility were the only damage done by the negligent neocon push for war with Iraq. I'm afraid the wound for America will be much more grave.

RangerDick · 06-24-2005, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus

Ranger,

Well roachboy covered the bases.

I somehow doubt that you need me to submit proof that Bush misled the country into this war. As you stated yourself there are plenty of arguments out there.

I am aware that there are many discusions out there on whether the President misled this country or not, but the topic was mentioned by you.

I'm confused by what you mean here. There are arguments out there on both sides. I think that the difference in considering these arguments is that the left's frothing-at-mouth hatred for Bush seriously impedes their ability to analyze the information presented in an unbiased fashion. In other words, it appears that this group starts out with the conclusion that "Bush is guilty and should be impeached" and works backward, or reverse-engineers, twists facts, grasps at straws to back up the conclusion that they've already formulated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus

Quote:
The "Bush lied" meme is quite old and worn out. Repeating it over and over does not make it any truer.

Infact from your very first post the issue of
Quote:
New York Times suppressing information that would support Bush's impeachment.

...was never confronted.
So far all you posted your personal opinion on the matter, which is fine, but I would like to hear the basis for that opinion.

In part I base my opinion on the premise that the NYT is an extremely left-biased newspaper (as an example- the Abu Ghraib front page streak) and would love to put the screws to Bush on this issue just as much as you and roachboy would. Whether or not we all agree on the Times having a left leaning bias, I think at the very least it's fair to say they are extremely critical of the Bush administration. Now, Why aren't they publishing these "stories"? This was the topic of host's OP. Unless any of us has a direct line to the editing room at the NYT, all any of us can do is offer our opinion on this. I'd submit that if there was any meat behind these cries for impeachment, the Times would publish them. Or am I not understanding your question?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus

Also, I am sorry for the rather demeaning tone in my previous post. I was just a little vexed by your "check mate" remark.

No offense taken at all, I've got a strong chin. I can a take a jab every now and then, it helps keeps things interesting. I can see how the "check mate" thing might have spawned it, but just so you guys know, I only meant it in good clean verbal-jousting fun.

06-16-2005, 05:16 PM	#4 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I was just going to post and see what people thought of the Downing Street Memos... interesting that so far the response is to just ignore it and give Bush yet another pass... My prediction is that this will just infuriate those of us that see this war as unjustified and give those who believe in this war just another excuse to accuse the left as out to get Bush... It really is gaulling. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-16-2005, 10:05 PM	#9 (permalink)
spectre Junkie	Let's watch the tone guys. You all know better than to bait or troll. And remember to report posts for baiting or trolling rather than calling people out on it. __________________ "Fuck these chains No goddamn slave I will be different" ~ Machine Head

06-17-2005, 06:09 AM	#10 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ranger: moving away from the previous tonal register. let's see if this works. two points/questions: 1. in the strict sense--sadly--you are right. there seems to be no recourse for what i see as an outcome shaped by hysteria (the congressional approval of bushwar). the question of whether the approval was rooted in false premises is, from ths viewpoint, a political rather than directly legal one. the argument that i was making above actually converges with yours in a backhanded way: there will be no hearing, no process, no impeachment--not because there are not problems, not because there are not a thousand reasons that the bush squad should be held to account, but simply because there is no possibility that the congress would initiate it (as over against the clinton thing--the point there was that initiating impeachment is a purely political move.) you appear to be fine with that, from your responses. i would argue that this possibility--that hysteria can override normal checks and result in launching a war on false pretenses---is a significant political problem that should require a political response. surely you would concede--were you to consider the matter--that if one were to find the case against bushwar compelling, that teh call for some type of serious response, some type of serious censure of the responsable parties within the bush administration--would follow. 2. it is hard to tell from your post which claims support which: does your dismissal of the mountain of proof that the administration cooked intel, bent information, concocted rationales for war condition your argument about legality, or does your position on legality lead you to dismiss everything that contradicts the administration's case for war? this is the question around which assumptions as to your politics turned. i confess that i assumed you worked from the first position. but i could have been wrong and maybe you work from the second in that your initial post was directed primarily at the logic of host's opening (insofar as you saw impeachment to be a type of fantasy). if you read your post from the first viewpoint, then you work from a more or less standard conserviatve ideological position and it is perfectly reasonable to associate that position with its sources, and to switch from discussing your particular variant of that ideology to the ideology itself. if it is the second that informs your post, then things are otherwise--in that you could be talking from a variety of positions--and i would apologize for the flourishes in my response. so which is it? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-17-2005, 05:31 PM	#15 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I am closely watching this thread for tone. That being said, my own comment is that if the liberal NYT says that there isn't enough evidence or reason to impeach Bush, there probably isn't. Host, your spin on the news is...interesting. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

06-18-2005, 05:21 PM	#18 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	UN resolution 1441, enough reason to go to war with Iraq. Bill Clinton's spineless action towards Iraq, enough reason to go to war with Iraq. Do I realy need to paste a crap load of text? __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

06-16-2005, 08:31 PM	#6 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Bush quote: "I've won the trifecta." Made shortly after 9/11 to the "haves."

06-17-2005, 03:01 PM	#13 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	Ranger and now J8ear offer some odd counterpoints. Both flat out deny that the administration misled us into accepting a war in the face of allot of evidence. I don't really understand how such views are justified.

06-20-2005, 05:46 PM	#21 (permalink)
RangerDick Loser Location: manhattan	...............oops Last edited by RangerDick; 06-21-2005 at 08:41 AM..

06-21-2005, 10:30 AM	#22 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, it seems to me that if you find no evidence that the premises for bushwar were problematic, then you simply are not looking. there is an enormous amount. thread after thread here on the matter too. maybe do a search? because i agree with you that the entire debate hinges on your relation to that information. if you know about it, and find it compelling, then the question of whether something should happen to bushco. because of it becomes important--even if you end up having to conclude that for political reasons--and political reasons alone--nothing will happen. at least not in the short run. i imagine that you will find this whole period being radically criticized once the histories of it start to come out. but judging from your recycle of the tired rightwing cliche about "bushbashing" above, the sole function of which is to create the grounds for dismissing unpleasant facts that come from a reality that the right cannot comprehend much less shape or control, i doubt that you would read such histories. you seem to have a strange relation to the ny times--something of a conservative caricature that would have us believe that the nyt is some kind of radical oppositional outlet--which leads to the question of whether you actually read the paper. i cannot see how, if you actually read the times, that you can see it in these terms. like most media outlets, the nyt is necessarily legitimist--its coverage presupposes the legitimacy of the regime, its ability to speak to an audience rests on its ability to get and retain access--you do not see many reporters from the workers world with anything like this type of access, anything like this type of diverse information. i see the ny times as being slightly left of center--but if you view the world from a vantagepoint that would enable you to see a leftist in bill clinton, then i suspect you would also be able to fit the times into that fantasy grid. as for the call for impeachment being a "fringe argument": if you look at recent polls, your support of the war places you in a minority--about 1/3 of the population supports it. so it seems that you are not far from being a fringe element yourself, ranger. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 06-21-2005 at 10:36 AM..

06-21-2005, 12:30 PM	#24 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	curious that we actually agree about the likelihood of impeachment. and keep in mind that i am not making tha same kind of argument as host was. i have heard these arguments from the earliest phase of bushwar and was never really convinced by them. almost entirely on pragmatic grounds--that i think bushco. should be held accountable is a different matter. it seemed a waste of time to float an argument for this when it was obvious from day one that it wasnt going to happen. as for the ny times: you act as though the front page has only one article on it, that the paper operates with a single ideological perspective that you can summarize by lists. i do not anything like support for a claim of political agenda in that list: information about abu ghraib was surfacing through the period: what would have have had the times do, bury the story? downplay its importance? on what basis? it seems a kind of absurd claim you are advancing, ranger: that you can use that list of stories as evidence of a political disposition for the paper as a whole. you could counter with a list of happyface stories about the "progress" being made in iraq. and that list would not prove anything either. are you relying on the bolzell school of "media analysis" for this? is there any more comprehensive analytic material behind it? if there is, could you post links please? i am curious to see what possible analytic position could be used to arrive at your conclusion....thanks. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-22-2005, 09:16 PM	#32 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	You guys.... So far from what I've read, most sources agree that the facts are: 1) Had current WMD's: False. 2) Republicans AND Democrats believed he had current WMD's: True. 3) Planned to resume production of WMD's when heat was off: True. 4) Tied to 9/11 Terrorists: False. 5) Tied to Palestinian Terrorists: True. 6) US supported him during Iran/Iraq war: True. 7) US sold him pathogen samples prior to this war: True. 8) Bush wanted Saddam out regardless and may have fudged WMD intelligence: Undetermined 9) Nigerian Uranium: False 10) Iraq in violation of original UN resolution: True 11) Saddam was secretly selling oil with the collusion of top level French and UN authorities: True 12) Saddam was a mass murderer: True 13) The US knew about 12 and did nothing about it: Depends on what you mean by "nothing". US tried using diplomacy at first. 14) The US has supported other dictators who've committed atrocities against their own people: True. 15) The US has, in the past, fabricated excuses to go to war against soverign nations: True. 16) US troops have committed certain atrocities such as the Abu Gharab prison scandal.:True 17) Many of the current "freedom" fighters in Iran are foreign nationals who are trying to ignite a civil war between Shiite and Sunni Iraqis: True Mea culpa if I have a few details wrong, but I believe that this list is correct on the whole. I also am confident that others on both sides will add to it Any discussion of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of this current war occurs in a vacuum if one does not consider all of the factors, current and historical. As is well known here, my own opinion is that, on the whole, this war is just. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

06-23-2005, 07:12 AM	#35 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Host, I refer to numerous postings of direct quotes from politicians that state that Saddam had WMD's. Again, this is not in dispute. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

06-23-2005, 09:53 AM	#36 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	3 + 5 = 8 Lebell, you're a genius! Last edited by powerclown; 06-23-2005 at 09:56 AM..

06-24-2005, 12:43 AM	#39 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	thanks for stepping up and calling bullshit on much of what has been expounded in this thread chickentribs. If only the CIA's complete loss of credibility were the only damage done by the negligent neocon push for war with Iraq. I'm afraid the wound for America will be much more grave.