Classified Session of Congress Called - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 11-03-2005, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

.....I do find it interesting the GOP is allowing this investigation. They either believe this will blow up in the Dems faces or they know the truth will come out and they want to be able to save face and say they knew something was wrong. I believe the latter.

I don't think the Dems would chase this if they didn't think they would win.

And I truly believe there are enough truly honest GOP, who in their hearts know Bush f'd up and lied and is tearing the country apart, and are willing to see what the truth truly is.

uhhh....pan....no one appears to be "allowing this investigation". There are not even signs that there are honest democrats, let alone "truly honest GOP".

Quote:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006875.php
<h3 class="date">(October 28, 2005 -- 11:37 AM EDT)</h3>
Now, about that FBI investigation into the origins of the Niger forgeries, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/politics/28niger.html">discussed</a> by Doug Jehl in his piece in today's Times.

(Apologies to longtime readers of the site who will be familiar with much of what follows.)

Jehl reports that a "counterespionage official said Wednesday that the inquiry into the documents ... had yielded some intriguing but unproved theories."

That's not a lot for an investigation that <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_07_04.php#003144">began</a> two and a half years ago.
And, remember, the existence of the supposed FBI investigation was the basis on which Sen. Roberts' Senate intel committee <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_07_04.php#003144">agreed not to examine</a> anything about the origins of the documents or how they came into American hands.

So how serious has that investigation been? And what is known by the two senators -- Roberts and Rockefeller -- who've been regularly briefed on it? 

Consider this: As is now all over the papers in the US and Italy, the 'security consultant' who tried to peddle the forgeries to a reporter for the Italian magazine Panorama in October 2002 is a man named Rocco Martino. FBI sources continue to tell reporters that they have not been able to question Martino because they have not been able to secure the permission of the Italian government to speak with him.

Given the gravity of the case, it seems difficult to believe that the United States would tolerate Italy's non-cooperation. But what about when Martino came to the United States?

Martino travelled to the United States twice last year. He travelled under his own name and stayed in New York City where he provided interviews to me and two other journalists. By the time Martino made his second visit to the United States his name and his central role in the case had been reported in several Italian and two major British papers. Yet no effort was made to contact him or question him when he was in the US for several days.

Surely US law enforcement wouldn't need the permission of the Italian government to speak to Martino when he was on US soil.

How serious can an investigation be when there is no attempt to speak to the central person in the case?

Another indication.

Elisabetta Burba is the Italian journalist, who works for the Berlusconi-owned magazine Panorama, to whom Martino tried to sell the forgeries. She was interviewed by the FBI not long after Sen. Roberts agreed to co-sign Sen. Rockefeller's request for an FBI investigation in the spring of 2003. But she <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_09_19.php#003490">describes</a> the interviews and follow-ups as cursory at best.
There are various other reasons to doubt that the Justice Department has made a serious effort to solve the mystery of the Niger forgeries. But the apparent lack of interest in even speaking to the man at the center of the scheme is a decent place to start.
As Chairman of the senate intel committee, Sen. Roberts is in a position to receive detailed briefings on the status of the investigation. And his spokespersons say he's received them. So what does he know? More reporting needed.

-- Josh Marshall

And of course....there is this....

Quote:

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php?...&printable=yes
"Phase two" of the investigation
At the time of the report's release (July 9, 2004), Democratic members of the committee expressed the hope (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jul9.html) that "phase two" of the investigation, which was to include an assessment of how the Iraqi WMD intelligence was used by senior policymakers, would be completed quickly. Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) said of phase two, "It is a priority. I made my commitment and it will get done."

On March 10, 2005, during a question-and-answer session (http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-b...0505-9514r.htm) after a speech he had given at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Senator Roberts said of the failure to complete phase two, "[T]hat is basically on the back burner." Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WV), vice chairman of the Committee, made a statement later that day in which he said, "The Chairman agreed to this investigation and I fully expect him to fulfill his commitment... While the completion of phase two is long overdue, the committee has continued this important work, and I expect that we will finish the review in the very near future."

In a statement regarding the release of the report of the presidential WMD commission on March 31, 2005, Senator Roberts wrote (http://intelligence.senate.gov/050331.htm), "I don’t think there should be any doubt that we have now heard it all regarding prewar intelligence. I think that it would be a monumental waste of time to replow this ground any further."

On April 10, 2005, Senators Roberts and Rockefeller appeared together on NBC's Meet the Press (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7452510/) program. In response to a question about the completion of phase two of the investigation, Roberts said, "I'm perfectly willing to do it, and that's what we agreed to do, and that door is still open. And I don't want to quarrel with Jay, because we both agreed that we would get it done. But we do have--we have Ambassador Negroponte next week, we have General Mike Hayden next week. We have other hot-spot hearings or other things going on that are very important."

Moderator Tim Russert then asked Senator Rockefeller if he believed phase two would be completed, and he replied, "I hope so. Pat and I have agreed to do it. We've shaken hands on it, and we agreed to do it after the elections so it wouldn't be any sort of sense of a political attack. I mean that was my view; it shouldn't be viewed that way."

As of July, 2005, phase two of the Committee's investigation had not yet been completed.

November 2, 2005.....Jay awakens....

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/....ap/index.html
......"Any line of questioning that has brought us too close to the White House has been thwarted," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the intelligence committee. "We have been undermined, avoided, put off and vilified by the other side."

Roberts has been able to jerk off Rockefeller over this "delay" in producing the "Phase II" committee report for 15 months and three weeks. The MSM and Rockefeller have produced hardly a peep in that time span...until Reid pulled his stunt in the senate on Nov. 1.

In the interim, as prosecutor Fitzgerald so aptly put it, "fact fixer" Cheney's "enforcer" was able to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102802234.html">"throw sand in the umpire's eyes"</a>, to obscure "the play", delaying the indictment for a full year, while Roberts delayed the predicatbly damning "Phase II" report, thereby facilitating the theft of a second term in the white house for Bush-Cheney, while Rockefeller and the MSM dozed quietly.........

powerclown · 11-04-2005, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Dems smell blood, and now are working every angle as much as possible to try to get votes in the '06 elections. This is nothing more than grandstanding.

Grandstanding. That's it.
PlameGate? Grandstanding.
End of Story.

Why?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Why

What the Democrats had to say about Iraq (pre-election):

Quote:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

Quote:

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies ."
--Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

Quote:

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

Quote:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
--Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

Quote:

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
--Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

Quote:

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
--Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

Quote:

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
--Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

Quote:

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
--Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

Quote:

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
--Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

Quote:

"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."
--Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

Quote:

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
--Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

Quote:

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
--Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

Quote:

"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. 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."
--Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Quote:

"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. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Pre-Election Gore

Quote:

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
--Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
--Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Post-Election Gore

Quote:

Gore Attacks Bush Over Iraq War

Gore accused Bush of a fabrication over Iraq

Former US Vice-President Al Gore has accused the Bush administration of deliberately misleading the people about its reasons for invading Iraq.
He said Mr Bush tried to link Saddam Hussein with the 11 September attacks.

The BBC's Jannat Jalil in Washington says it was Mr Gore's most scathing attack on the Bush administration yet.

'Untold damage'

Mr Gore accused President Bush of "intentionally misleading the American people by continuing to aggressively and brazenly assert the linkage between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein".

Speaking at Georgetown University in Washington, Mr Gore said that if the administration had not lied about there being a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, then it must have been very gullible to believe what he called the flimsy scraps of evidence that had been used to justify invading Iraq.

"Right from the start, beginning very soon after the attacks of 9/11, President Bush made a decision to start mentioning Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in the same breath, in a cynical mantra designed to fuse them together as one in the public's mind," he said.

Our correspondent says President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney have continued to insist that there is a link, despite the fact that the respected independent commission investigating 9/11 reported this month that it found no evidence of a relationship.

Mr Gore also said the war in Iraq had caused untold damage, not just in terms of lives lost or financial or military terms, but to democracy itself.

--

So the pablum that "Bush Lied, People Died" (C) *must* be wrong.
Either EVERYONE was wrong about Iraq, or EVERYONE was right about Iraq.

It's dishonest to put this soley on Bush.

stevo · 11-04-2005, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Grandstanding. That's it.
PlameGate? Grandstanding.
End of Story.

Why?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Why

What the Democrats had to say about Iraq (pre-election):

Pre-Election Gore

Post-Election Gore

--

So the pablum that "Bush Lied, People Died" (C) *must* be wrong.
Either EVERYONE was wrong about Iraq, or EVERYONE was right about Iraq.

It's dishonest to put this soley on Bush.

no it isn't. bush lied. people died. no blood for oil

powerclown · 11-04-2005, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

no it isn't. bush lied. people died. no blood for oil

Hey stevo, do you ever wonder what would happen if the New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, Wall Street Journal, dailykos.com, democraticunderground.org, truthout.org, workingforchange.com, et al.......ran the above quotes on their front pages for the next year? Do you think some people's heads might even burst open, possibly?

I do wonder.

host · 11-04-2005, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Grandstanding. That's it.
PlameGate? Grandstanding.
End of Story.

Why?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Why

What the Democrats had to say about Iraq (pre-election):

Pre-Election Gore

Post-Election Gore

--

So the pablum that "Bush Lied, People Died" (C) *must* be wrong.
Either EVERYONE was wrong about Iraq, or EVERYONE was right about Iraq.

It's dishonest to put this soley on Bush.

powerclown,

Mr. Pitt speaks for me in the excerpt from his recent commentary. Please direct me to a comparable example of even handed examination of mistakes that republican political leaders have made, or where demands were made to admit and apologize for mistakes?

Someone posted the question of whether it is worse to follow the leaders who deliberately deceived or the ones who were foolish enough to let themselves be deceived. I'll vote for the ones (if any emerge) who admit that they were wrong, offer apologies, and accept whatever consequences that their earlier, flawed decisions, subject them to, in the interests of justice, fairness, and resititution. I'll vote for the ones who voted against the authorization for war and actively voiced opposition to it. Who sir, will you vote for?

Quote:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110305I.shtml
It's Still There
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Thursday 03 November 2005

....... How did we get here? The answer to this comes in three parts. Of course, we got here because the Bush administration lied with its bare face hanging out about the threat posed by Iraq. Recall, if you will, these gems:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention, 8/26/2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." - George W. Bush, Radio Address, 10/5/2002

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." - George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, 10/7/2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there." - Ari Fleischer, Press Briefing, 1/9/2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." - Colin Powell, Remarks to UN Security Council, 2/5/2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - George W. Bush, Address to the Nation, 3/17/2003

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." - Donald Rumsfeld, ABC Interview, 3/30/2003

"But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." - George W. Bush, Interview with TVP Poland, 5/30/2003

There are, literally, dozens more comments and declarations exactly like this. The best one, after that magically deranged comment from Bush claiming we actually found the stuff, came from Ari Fleischer on July 9, 2003, as he attempted to fend off questions about why no WMD had been located. "I think the burden," said Fleischer while channeling Orwell, "is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are."

Here's the funny part: Senator Kit Bond, Republican of Missouri, apparently spent a portion of Tuesday assuring people that the weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq, and that we would find them. Yes, this was Tuesday. Not last year or two years ago. Tuesday. Methinks someone missed a memo somewhere.

Right. So that's the easy part. They lied, repeatedly and with deliberate intent. They used the fears created by September 11 against the American people to get the war they wanted, to get the payday they wanted for their friends, to make sure they had a dead-bang winner of an issue to run on in the 2002 midterms. This administration has admitted no fault, made no steps to rectify the mess they have created, and appears willing to slog on indefinitely. This is, in the end, not at all surprising. Getting them to admit fault is almost certainly impossible.

There are others in this, however, who must also admit fault and come completely clean. Bush and his folks were not alone in this.

Senator Reid's strong stand on Tuesday cannot obscure the fact that he, along with Democratic Senators Lincoln, Feinstein, Dodd, Lieberman, Biden, Carper, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Cleland, Miller, Bayh, Harkin, Breaux, Landrieu, Kerry, Carnahan, Baucus, Torricelli, Clinton, Schumer, Edwards, Dorgan, Hollings, Daschle, Johnson, Cantwell, Rockefeller and Kohl all voted to support the Iraq War Resolution in October of 2002. 21 Democrats, led by Senator Byrd and joined by Independent Senator Jeffords, voted no on the IWR. The only Republican to join them in voting "No" was Lincoln Chafee.

Reid gave the Republican Congress a good tongue-lashing on Tuesday, one that was richly deserved. Yet the Democrats who got behind this thing in the first place have not come close to absolving themselves of their responsibility for what has taken place. "We were misled," goes the Democratic refrain these days. "We were tricked. We were duped." Perhaps this is true. Those who believe it argue the point well enough, and add this bit: these Senators trusted Bush; they refused to believe he would send young men and women to die based on lies.

This may be true, but I struggle with that explanation. I wrote a book in August of 2002, two full months before the Iraq War Resolution vote and seven months before the invasion, called "War on Iraq." The book stated unequivocally that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, no ties to Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda or 9/11, and thus no reason to go to war there. This book was subsequently translated into twelve languages and read all over the world. A copy was delivered to each and every member of the Senate.

If I knew this - me, wee little me - then how is it possible that all these Senators allowed themselves to be "tricked?" The answer to this is difficult. Did these Senators fall victim to a Pollyanna belief that Bush wouldn't deceive the country? Or were their actions motivated by political ugliness of the purest ray serene: the midterms were around the corner, a Presidential election was coming, a bunch of these Senators wanted to run for that office, and voting to approve the war was the most politically expedient option at the time.

Were they duped, or did they vote to protect their jobs and their positions and their aspirations? At least one Senator - Barbara Boxer - voted no because she read the National Intelligence Estimate, heard the dissenting opinions from the State Department, and decided the information coming from the White House did not jibe with the facts. If she got it right, how did the others fail to do so?

Whichever explanation may be true, these Senators allowed Bush to throw thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians to the wolves. Reid's actions on Tuesday, strong as they were, are not sufficient. The Democrats who empowered the White House to undertake this invasion must apologize to the country and to the world. Either they were duped, or else they went along for the ride. Neither is acceptable. If they are going to fix the mess, the first step they must take is to admit their own complicity. Until they do, the stain of their failure will remain........

powerclown · 11-04-2005, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

powerclown,

Mr. Pitt speaks for me in the excerpt from his recent commentary.

Based upon your sociopathic vilification and criticism of the Bush Administration here on this board, you make Mr. Pitt look like Noam Chomsky on a bad acid trip. Pitt appears to be several light years to your right, politically speaking.

Quote:

...I'll vote for the ones who voted against the authorization for war and actively voiced opposition to it. Who sir, will you vote for?

I believe my own personal stance on the Iraq War has been well enough documented here.

host · 11-04-2005, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Based upon your sociopathic vilification and criticism of the Bush Administration here on this board, you make Mr. Pitt look like Noam Chomsky on a bad acid trip. Pitt appears to be several light years to your right, politically speaking.

I believe my own personal stance on the Iraq War has been well enough documented here.

Describe what I have posted as you see fit. My avatar is symbolic of my protest regarding to how far the Bush administration has "led" the U.S. away from Nuremberg Chief prosecutor Robert H. Jackson's description of the gravest crime that those who he prosecuted were charged with committing. The U.S. has engaged in war of aggression, and Bush himself has embraced a policy of "pre-emptive" war. Here are excerpts of an interview with a Jackson fellow prosecutor:

Quote:

http://www.courttv.com/archive/casef.../sprecher.html
Interview with Nuremberg Trial Prosecutor Drexel Sprecher
..........QUESTION: Why did Justice Jackson concentrate on the notion of aggressive war?

SPRECHER: Well, I think that Justice Jackson concentrated on aggressive war because it encompassed the whole. The atrocities, the war crimes, would not have been possible if there hadn't been aggressive war.

So I think he wanted to point out and to emphasize that the worst crime of all is the initial one, which is aggressive war. And that following it come the atrocities and the war crimes.........

...........QUESTION: What is Nuremberg's legacy?

SPRECHER: Well, I think it's a multiple legacy. I think the legacy of Nuremberg is partly to make people think at an earlier point about potential dictators and how they themselves get tied into a regime which begins to take shortcuts, and which sooner or later starts to kill its opposition. First some of its own people. [Achtung, powerclown !]

The German -- the -- as Justice Jackson said, the first victims of the Nazi regime were the German people. And then he went, went out and spread to other folks.

I think one of the legacies of Nuremberg was to make us look more at potential dictators and to try to nip them in the bud at a sooner rate................

These are not circumstances that can be met with a reaction that is any less forceful in it's tone of outrage and condemnation than Mr. Jackson relegated similar circumstances to, 60 years ago. I have had no choice other than to put you, (and anyone else who share your views and acts similarly) too, on notice that you are reprehensible because you condone the crimes of this administration against humanity.

Note that I post my objections, you actually act much more gravely. in the inverse, by voting for, and then encouraging these criminals to continue their illegal policies. You possibly support their endeavors with political contributions, and by spreading a message that encourages others to support
these war criminals and their anti-constitutional agenda.

I proudly embrace your label of "sociopathic vilification" because it signifies that you believe, that I am against everything politcally and militarily that you are in favor of.

You should have included the rest of the paragraph form my last post here, that you chose to quote....and afford me the courtsey of an answer to my question:

Quote:

Mr. Pitt speaks for me in the excerpt from his recent commentary. Please direct me to a comparable example of even handed examination of mistakes that republican political leaders have made, or where demands were made to admit and apologize for mistakes?

powerclown · 11-04-2005, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Note that I post my objections, you actually act much more gravely. in the inverse, by voting for, and then encouraging these criminals to continue their illegal policies. You possibly support their endeavors with political contributions, and by spreading a message that encourages others to support these war criminals and their anti-constitutional agenda.

What criminals?

I never called Teddy Kennedy, Harry Reid, Carl Levin or John Kerry a criminal, nor would I. I would call them "Politicians."

Quote:

I proudly embrace your label of "sociopathic vilification" because it signifies that you believe, that I am against everything politcally and militarily that you are in favor of.

Fair enough. Feel free to Fight the Man anytime the impulse strikes. It doesn't even have to have any basis in fact. First Amendment, Free Will, Freedom to Dissent, etc.

Quote:

Please direct me to a comparable example of even handed examination of mistakes that republican political leaders have made, or where demands were made to admit and apologize for mistakes?

I provide sources and simply give my opinion. With all due respect, if this isn't good enough for you, 1) Don't read it, 2) Don't respond to it, 3) Google the info yourself. But you won't find what you don't want to know about.

host · 11-05-2005, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

What criminals?

I never called Teddy Kennedy, Harry Reid, Carl Levin or John Kerry a criminal, nor would I. I would call them "Politicians."
Fair enough. Feel free to Fight the Man anytime the impulse strikes. It doesn't even have to have any basis in fact. First Amendment, Free Will, Freedom to Dissent, etc.

I provide sources and simply give my opinion. With all due respect, if this isn't good enough for you, 1) Don't read it, 2) Don't respond to it, 3) Google the info yourself. But you won't find what you don't want to know about.

Quote:

What criminals?

Lemme see....what day is it? Here are today's accusations of war crimes that "would not have been possible if there hadn't been aggressive war"...

Quote:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1001434514
More Fodder for Press: Wilkerson Charges Cheney Responsible for Prisoner Abuse

By E&P Staff

Published: November 04, 2005 2:30 PM ET

NEW YORK His initial blast, on Oct. 19, at a luncheon in Washington, D.C. drew wide press attention. Now Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, is at it again. In an interview for National Public Radio he charged that Vice President Cheney's office--and new chief aide David Addingtoon--was responsible for directives which led to U.S soldiers abusing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wilkerson said he had some hard evidence: a trail of memos and directives authorizing questionable detention practices up through Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's office directly to Cheney's staff. The directives, he said, contradicted a 2002 order by President Bush for the military to abide by the Geneva Convention rules against torture.

The former Powell aide, in his October statements, declared that Cheney and Rumsfeld operated a "cabal" that had hijacked U.S. foreign and military policy.

Now, talking to NPR, he said, "There was a visible audit trail from the Vice President's office through the Secretary of Defense, down to the commanders in the field," authorizing practices that led to the abuse of detainees.”

He said that Powell had assigned him to investigate this after stories emerged about U.S troops abusing detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he was “privy to the paperwork, both classified and unclassified, that the secretary of State asked me to assemble on how this all got started.”

Wilkerson called Addington "a staunch advocate of allowing the president in his capacity as commander-in-chief to deviate from the Geneva Conventions."

The former Powell aide is 31-year military veteran and former director of the Marine Corps War College. Some have noted that he often expresses what Colin Powell believes, but can't or won't say.

Cheney cannot be indicted until he is impeached. He cannot be impeached unless congress authorizes an investigation to determine if there is evidence to justify an impeachment investigation. You have to avoid voting for candidates for congressional office who are uninterested in checking the power of the executive branch.

powerclown, for the third time, I am requesting that you answer this question:

Quote:

Please direct me to a comparable example of even handed examination of mistakes that republican political leaders have made, or where demands were made to admit and apologize for mistakes?

The question above has to do with Mr. Pitt's frank and unapologetic discussion and opinion of democrats who voted for the resolution to permit Mr. Bush to go to war with Iraq if he deemed it a necessity to do so.

powerclown · 11-10-2005, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Please direct me to a comparable example of even handed examination of mistakes that republican political leaders have made, or where demands were made to admit and apologize for mistakes?

Missed this.

I can't answer this question because 1) The Repubs aren't apologizing for the war, 2) I don't believe Republican (or Democratic) leaders made a mistake when they removed Hussein. Now that this is being politicized by the Dems, and they've suddenly become anti-war, part of the political healing process naturally involves apologizing.

I'm wondering what part of the intelligence reports you consider to be bogus? It seems to me that most of the senators and represenatives were concerned about the existence/non-existence of WMD, and are now saying that they were duped because very little has been found. Do you share this position -- that Iraq never had large stores of WMD? Or are there other parts of the intelligence reports you consider bogus, and if so, which parts? Thanks.

dksuddeth · 11-11-2005, 06:58 AM

whats sad, so very sad, about all the bickering and blame laying to both sides is that NOBODY is willing to point out the very obvious. That both parties, dems and repubs, care more about protecting their own party than they do about accepting their OWN blame that they were both wrong. What is even worse is the partisan supporters who side with them instead of taking a stand and fixing the issue by holding those politicians accountable, ALL OF THEM, and voting them out and putting in new blood.

doesn't bode well for the future of our nation.

powerclown · 11-11-2005, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

whats sad, so very sad, about all the bickering and blame laying to both sides is that NOBODY is willing to point out the very obvious. That both parties, dems and repubs, care more about protecting their own party than they do about accepting their OWN blame that they were both wrong.

I'm still unconvinced that intelligence reports were bogus. I will be the first one to admit when I do see compelling evidence of bogus intelligence - intelligence that Congress signed off on going back to before Bush was ever in office. The current focus on supposed bogus, misleading intelligence that was delivered just before Iraq War 2 by the Bush Administration completely ignores the public statements on Iraq and Hussein that came from the Clinton Administration. Clinton himself, and the Democrats of his Administration, say the same things about removing Hussein, etc., that the Democrats who authorized Iraq War 2 said. Do we not see the irony here?

Quote:

Democrats Seek Report on Prewar Iraq Intel

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL
Associated Press Writer
November 6, 2005

WASHINGTON — A government document raises doubts about claims al-Qaida members received training for biological and chemical weapons in Iraq, as Senate Democrats on Sunday defended their push for a report on how the Bush administration handled prewar intelligence.

Democrats forced the Senate into an unusual closed session last week as they sought assurances the Intelligence Committee would complete an investigation of intelligence about Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

Republicans said the session was a stunt and that the report, after nearly two years, was nearly complete. They did agree to appoint a bipartisan task force to review the committee's progress and report by Nov. 14.

"We cannot have a government which is going to manipulate intelligence information. We've got to get to the bottom of it," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Newly declassified portions of a document from the Defense Intelligence Agency showed that the administration was alerted that an al-Qaida member in U.S. custody probably was lying about links between the terrorist organization and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

The document from February 2002 showed that the agency questioned the reliability of al-Qaida senior military trainer Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. He could not name any Iraqis involved in the effort or identify any chemical or biological materials or cite where the training was taking place, the report said.

The DIA concluded that al-Libi probably was deliberately misleading the interrogators, and he recanted the statements in January 2004, according to the document made public by Sen. Carl Levin, top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"In other words, he's an entirely unreliable individual upon whom the White House was placing substantial intelligence trust," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a member of the Intelligence Committee.

"And that is a classic example of a lack of accountability to the American people," Rockefeller, D-W.Va., told CNN's "Late Edition."

Levin said in a statement that the declassified DIA material _ which he had requested from the agency _ indicates that the administration's use of prewar intelligence was misleading and deceptive.

Levin said President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell and intelligence and diplomatic officials cited, months after the information from the defense agency in February 2002, chemical and biological training by Iraq as they gathered support for the war.

"This newly declassified information provides additional, dramatic evidence that the administrations prewar statements were deceptive," Levin said. "More than a year before Secretary Powell included that charge in his presentation to the United Nations, the DIA had said it believed the detainee's claims were bogus."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters with Bush on his South American trip that he had not seen a report about the documents. McClellan said issues about postwar intelligence have been explored in the past and that steps have been taken to ensure the administration has the best intelligence possible.

"If Democrats want to talk about how intelligence was used, all they need to do is start by looking at their own comments that they made. Because many of their comments said we cannot wait to address this threat," McClellan said.

On the Sunday news shows, Republicans accused Democrats of trying to use faulty intelligence for partisan political purposes and pointed to Democratic support for the resolution giving Bush the authority to go to war.

"Whether it is from defense intelligence, whether it's from the CIA, whether it's from other sources around the world, and we need to get that right to make the right decisions," said Sen. George Allen, R-Va. "But what we don't need is a bunch of partisanship.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, D-Utah, said a previous Senate report showed nothing improper in the handling of the intelligence, and he called the closed session "a political stunt."

"We all know that the intelligence with regard to these matters was flawed. We found that out since that it was flawed," Hatch said on "Face the Nation" on CBS. "I think everybody on the intelligence committee, everybody in the administration relied on flawed intelligence."

In fact, Rockfeller, reminded that he voted to give Bush the authority to go to war and made statements suggesting Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, said Sunday, "I mean, I was dead flat wrong."

Quote:

Levin Says Newly Declassified Information Indicates Bush Administration’s Use of Pre-War Intelligence Was Misleading

November 6, 2005 Contact: Press Office
Phone: 202.228.3685

DIA Letter
Administration Statements on Iraq Training al Qaeda in Chemical and Biological Weapons
Administration Statements About Iraqi – al Qaeda Links

WASHINGTON – Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) said today that newly declassified information indicates the Bush Administration’s use of pre-war intelligence was misleading.

Specifically, newly declassified information from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) from February 2002 shows that, at the same time the Administration was making its case for attacking Iraq, the DIA did not trust or believe the source of the Administration’s repeated assertions that Iraq had provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. Additional newly declassified information from the DIA also undermines the Administration’s broader claim that there were strong links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

No Chemical and Biological Weapons Training
The Administration made repeated assertions that Iraq had provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. For example, President Bush said in a speech in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002, “We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.” In February 2003, the President said, “Iraq has provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.”

Those assertions were based on the claims of a detainee, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a long-time jihadist and senior military trainer for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. However, as revealed by this newly declassified information, the DIA did not believe al-Libi’s claims at the time the Administration was making its assertions. Specifically, the DIA concluded the following in February 2002, which has never previously been publicly disclosed:

“This is the first report from Ibn al-Shaykh in which he claims Iraq assisted al-Qaida’s CBRN [Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear] efforts.

However, he lacks specific details on the Iraqis involved, the CBRN materials associated with the assistance, and the location where training occurred. It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers (emphasis added). Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.”

“This newly declassified information provides additional, dramatic evidence that the Administration’s pre-war statements were deceptive,” Levin said.

“The underlying DIA intelligence simply did not support the Administration’s repeated assertions that Iraq had provided chemical and biological weapons training to al-Qaeda. More than a year before Secretary Powell included that charge in his presentation to the United Nations, the DIA had said it believed the detainee’s claims were bogus. The Administration’s use of this intelligence was disingenuous and misleading.”

The CIA also had reservations about the source. The CIA’s unclassified statement at the time was that the reporting was “credible,” a statement the Administration used repeatedly. However, what was selectively omitted was the CIA’s view at the time that the source was not in a position to know whether any training had taken place.

According to press reporting, al-Libi recanted his claims in January 2004.
The recent DIA declassification demonstrates a critical fact: at the very time the Administration was making these unqualified assertions, the DIA believed it was “more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers” and the CIA believed he was not in a position to know.

No Close Relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda
The Administration’s claim that Iraq had provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training was part of its larger effort to assert a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. For example, President Bush said on September 25, 2002, “You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.”

The DIA, however, had concluded otherwise. The Administration omitted in its public statements the DIA’s pre-war conclusion about the likelihood of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. In February 2002, the DIA stated the following, which has remained classified until now:
“Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.”

“That DIA finding is stunningly different from repeated Administration claims of a close relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda,” Levin said.

“Just imagine the impact if that DIA conclusion had been disclosed at the time. It surely could have made a difference in the congressional vote authorizing the war.”
http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom....cfm?id=248339

President Bush said this, President Bush said that....

What about what President Clinton said:

Quote:

Democrats for Regime Change
From the September 16, 2002 issue: The president has some surprising allies.
by Stephen F. Hayes
09/16/2002, Volume 008, Issue 01

THE PRESIDENT mulls a strike against Iraq, which he calls an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." The talk among world leaders, however, focuses on diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab nations oppose military action. The Saudis balk at giving us overflight rights. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan prepares a last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the U.N. resolutions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.

Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein "fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

These are the words not of President George W. Bush in September 2002 but of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998. Clinton was speaking at the Pentagon, after the Joint Chiefs and other top national security advisers had briefed him on U.S. military readiness. The televised speech followed a month-long build-up of U.S. troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf. And it won applause from leading Democrats on Capitol Hill.

But just five days later, Kofi Annan struck yet another "deal" with the Iraqi dictator--which once more gave U.N. inspectors permission to inspect--and Saddam won again.

OF COURSE, much has changed since President Clinton gave that speech. The situation has gotten worse. Ten months after Saddam accepted Annan's offer, he kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq for good. We complained. Then we bombed a little. Then we stopped bombing. Later, we stepped up our enforcement of the no-fly zones. A year after the inspectors were banished, the U.N. created a new, toothless inspection regime. The new inspectors inspected nothing. If Saddam Hussein was a major threat in February 1998, when President Clinton prepared this country for war and U.N. inspectors were still inside Iraq, it stands to reason that in the absence of those inspectors monitoring his weapons build-up, Saddam is an even greater threat today.

But not, apparently, if you're Tom Daschle. The Senate majority leader and his fellow congressional Democrats have spent months criticizing the Bush administration for its failure to make the "public case" for military intervention in Iraq. Now that the Bush administration has begun to do so, many of these same Democrats are rushing to erect additional obstacles.

"What has changed in recent months or years" to justify confronting Saddam, Daschle asked last Wednesday after meeting with President Bush. Dick Gephardt wants to know what a democratic Iraq would look like. Dianne Feinstein wants the Israeli-Palestinian conflict settled first. Bob Graham says the administration hasn't presented anything new. John Kerry complains about, well, everything.

Matters looked different in 1998, when Democrats were working with a president of their own party. Daschle not only supported military action against Iraq, he campaigned vigorously for a congressional resolution to formalize his support. Other current critics of President Bush--including Kerry, Graham, Patrick Leahy, Christopher Dodd, and Republican Chuck Hagel--co-sponsored the broad 1998 resolution: Congress "urges the president to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Daschle said the 1998 resolution would "send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law." And he vigorously defended President Clinton's inclination to use military force in Iraq.

Summing up the Clinton administration's argument, Daschle said, "'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

John Kerry was equally hawkish: "If there is not unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access per the U.N. resolution for inspections, and UNSCOM cannot in our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the rights to press that case internationally and to do what we need to do as a nation in order to be able to enforce those rights," Kerry said back on February 23, 1998. "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

Considering the views these Democrats expressed four years ago, why the current reluctance to support President Bush?

Who knows? But if the president continues to run into stronger-than-expected resistance from Democrats on Capitol Hill, he can always just recycle the arguments so many Democrats accepted in 1998:

"Just consider the facts," Bill Clinton urged.

"Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM. In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and chief organizer of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth."

Clinton was on a roll:

"Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability--notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. "

More Clinton: "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century," he argued. "They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

What more needs to be said?

dksuddeth · 11-11-2005, 10:55 AM

how convenient of you to completely ignore the basis of my post which was that BOTH parties were wrong. If you feel the need to throw the blame all the way back to the clinton administration and go with the story that bush was just following the patterns of the previous administration, what does that say about bush?

Willravel · 11-11-2005, 11:04 AM

The blame goes as far (or farther) back as the Regan adminstration, if you really want to break this down. Who is in charge right now? Is it Clinton? Is it Regan? Is it Lincoln? No, I'm afraid not. Right now we are under the rule of the W. Bush administration
(with a few democrats for flavor), and they are responsible for their actions.

powerclown · 11-11-2005, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

what does that say about bush?

The question is, what does that say about former pro-war Democrats who enabled Bush to carry out the war and now are trying to discredit him? Remember, without them, no war in Iraq.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The blame goes as far (or farther) back as the Regan adminstration, if you really want to break this down. Who is in charge right now? Is it Clinton? Is it Regan? Is it Lincoln? No, I'm afraid not. Right now we are under the rule of the W. Bush administration
(with a few democrats for flavor), and they are responsible for their actions.

I wonder if you realize how contradictory that entire statement is. If the blame goes back to before Bush, then how is Bush to blame? Was Bush also to blame for Slavery? Are you saying this is Reagan's fault?

For any consistency whatsoever, one either blames America for the Iraq War, or they don't blame America. The record shows that both major political parties supported taking out Saddam Hussein militarily. Everything else is partisan rhetoric.

Willravel · 11-11-2005, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I wonder if you realize how contradictory that entire statement is. If the blame goes back to before Bush, then how is Bush to blame? Was Bush also to blame for Slavery? Are you saying this is Reagan's fault?

I didn't say the Bush administration is the only one to blame, I am saying it ALSO is to blame. The blame inclused a whole host of people, including Bush Jr. The repeated attempts to deflect the blame elsewhere prompted my response.

Was Bush to blame for slavery? No. Are you to be heald responsible for trying to take credit from my post by exagerating? Yes.

powerclown · 11-11-2005, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I didn't say the Bush administration is the only one to blame, I am saying it ALSO is to blame. The blame inclused a whole host of people, including Bush Jr. The repeated attempts to deflect the blame elsewhere prompted my response.

Was Bush to blame for slavery? No. Are you to be heald responsible for trying to take credit from my post by exagerating? Yes.

OK, I was maybe exaggerating a bit, but the point stands I believe.

It still is somewhat bizarre to see the irrational level of hatred sent W's way, given the facts. I also blame the mass media for not spelling out the situation more clearly to the American people. They certainly have no problem waging a finely-tuned campaign of criticism before the public eye.

Rekna · 11-11-2005, 12:38 PM

powerclown please don't use the "they voted for the war" arguement. Bush politicized the war and used propaganda on the nation such that no politition could vote against the war. He bound their hands and forced them to vote for it. If the dems would have opposed it they would have been labeled (even more so than they were) as traitor who hate America and a large number of people would have believed it.

If the GOP wouldn't have politicized the war i bet we would have seen a lot more dems opposing it but when a large majority of the american people believed (based on faulty evidence) that saddam had WMD, supported AQ, and helped plan 9/11 how could they possibly oppose it?

The administration asserted that they knew for a fact that saddam has WMD. I'm sorry but if someone says they know something for a fact and later it turns out that it was false then they lied even faulty intelligence was to blame. To say you know something as a fact means you have looked at the intellegence and the validity of it and there is no way that it is false.

Elphaba · 11-11-2005, 12:46 PM

The resolution by both parties to give the President authorization to begin a war with Iraq was meant to signal our unified stand to both Hussien and the UN. If you recall, Bush pledged to exhaust all other options, before resorting to war.

I don't understand this pissing contest about which party in congress is most responsible. The president LIED to congress about his intentions and the buck stops there.

Willravel · 11-11-2005, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

OK, I was maybe exaggerating a bit, but the point stands I believe.

If you mean the point that my post was contradictory, then I have to disagree. I was not saying that any one party was to blame, I was simply stressing that if we continue to look to the past for the guilty party, we may forget those who are guilty and are continuing to be guilty today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

It still is somewhat bizarre to see the irrational level of hatred sent W's way, given the facts. I also blame the mass media for not spelling out the situation more clearly to the American people. They certainly have no problem waging a finely-tuned campaign of criticism before the public eye.

I don't hate W., I just disagree with him. Strongly. If you're mad at the media, you might start at those who accepted bribes from members of the (ta dah!) Bush administration.

powerclown · 11-13-2005, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Bush politicized the war and used propaganda on the nation such that no politition could vote against the war.

133 members of Congress voted against authorizing Bush to use military force in Iraq. 126 were Democrats.

Rekna · 11-13-2005, 08:43 PM

but powerclown they were unable to fight it with their full might. If dems would have fully opposed it there would have been a huge storm for them to deal with. And that stat itself shows that your argument that the dems voted for the war is false. Over half of the dems voted against it.

pan6467 · 11-13-2005, 09:14 PM

I can be proud and hold my head up because EVERY SINGLE OHIO DEM. REPRESENTATIVE voted no for the resolution.

Quote:

OHIO
Democrats - Brown, N; Jones, N; Kaptur, N; Kucinich, N; Sawyer, N; Strickland, N.

But it still holds true that their patriotism was thrown into question and if if you come from a weak district as a Rep. you're going to vote the way to reelection.

One cannot condemn someone for listening to their constuents and voting the way the majority of their public wanted them to. And at the time Bush had everyone convinced.

As far as going to Clinton, I find it amazing the Right who are so vocal about their hatred and dislike for everything he did, will point to him as an example for Bush's right to go to war.

I guess your hatred for Clinton subsides when you can use him and his public statements for your own purposes.

Ultimately though, the burden of proof lies on Bush and he hasn't shown any, just attacks on patriotism and individuals that dare to disagree with him.

pan6467 · 11-13-2005, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

whats sad, so very sad, about all the bickering and blame laying to both sides is that NOBODY is willing to point out the very obvious. That both parties, dems and repubs, care more about protecting their own party than they do about accepting their OWN blame that they were both wrong. What is even worse is the partisan supporters who side with them instead of taking a stand and fixing the issue by holding those politicians accountable, ALL OF THEM, and voting them out and putting in new blood.

doesn't bode well for the future of our nation.

DK excellent post, we as the people need to hold accountable those who voted for the war and their reasoning as to why, regardless of party.

We also need to open our eyes and see that BOTH parties are far more interested in protecting themselves and their power than fixing the problem and admitting they were duped, bullied and wrong.

But we need to praise those that did vote against the war, not vote them out. For the ones that voted against the war, at that time took great chances and were attacked mercilessly.

powerclown · 11-13-2005, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

but powerclown they were unable to fight it with their full might. If dems would have fully opposed it there would have been a huge storm for them to deal with. And that stat itself shows that your argument that the dems voted for the war is false. Over half of the dems voted against it.

OK, if we go your route for the moment: YES, they sold their souls to the devil and voted for war. They backed down and did the politically expedient thing. Why does this magically absolve them from blame? If you consider this a crime, they were co-conspirators plain and simple.

The 81 Dems (who comprise the top leadership of the Democratic Party, btw)who voted 'yes' did so knowing that their vote was contributing to Congressional Approval for war.

Is politically motivated aquiescence a legitimate excuse to authorize war?

powerclown · 11-13-2005, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

As far as going to Clinton, I find it amazing the Right who are so vocal about their hatred and dislike for everything he did, will point to him as an example for Bush's right to go to war.

I guess your hatred for Clinton subsides when you can use him and his public statements for your own purposes.

Whose hatred?

I liked Clinton, for the record. I also liked the fact that he and his fellow Dems were in power were for taking out Hussein militarily, which I am confident he would have done if he were President on September 12, 2001.

Rekna · 11-14-2005, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

OK, if we go your route for the moment: YES, they sold their souls to the devil and voted for war. They backed down and did the politically expedient thing. Why does this magically absolve them from blame? If you consider this a crime, they were co-conspirators plain and simple.

The 81 Dems (who comprise the top leadership of the Democratic Party, btw)who voted 'yes' did so knowing that their vote was contributing to Congressional Approval for war.

Is politically motivated aquiescence a legitimate excuse to authorize war?

And much of the top leadership were from Red states (like Tom Daschell)

11-11-2005, 06:58 AM	#51 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	whats sad, so very sad, about all the bickering and blame laying to both sides is that NOBODY is willing to point out the very obvious. That both parties, dems and repubs, care more about protecting their own party than they do about accepting their OWN blame that they were both wrong. What is even worse is the partisan supporters who side with them instead of taking a stand and fixing the issue by holding those politicians accountable, ALL OF THEM, and voting them out and putting in new blood. doesn't bode well for the future of our nation. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

11-11-2005, 10:55 AM	#53 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	how convenient of you to completely ignore the basis of my post which was that BOTH parties were wrong. If you feel the need to throw the blame all the way back to the clinton administration and go with the story that bush was just following the patterns of the previous administration, what does that say about bush? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

11-11-2005, 11:04 AM	#54 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The blame goes as far (or farther) back as the Regan adminstration, if you really want to break this down. Who is in charge right now? Is it Clinton? Is it Regan? Is it Lincoln? No, I'm afraid not. Right now we are under the rule of the W. Bush administration (with a few democrats for flavor), and they are responsible for their actions.

11-11-2005, 12:38 PM	#58 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	powerclown please don't use the "they voted for the war" arguement. Bush politicized the war and used propaganda on the nation such that no politition could vote against the war. He bound their hands and forced them to vote for it. If the dems would have opposed it they would have been labeled (even more so than they were) as traitor who hate America and a large number of people would have believed it. If the GOP wouldn't have politicized the war i bet we would have seen a lot more dems opposing it but when a large majority of the american people believed (based on faulty evidence) that saddam had WMD, supported AQ, and helped plan 9/11 how could they possibly oppose it? The administration asserted that they knew for a fact that saddam has WMD. I'm sorry but if someone says they know something for a fact and later it turns out that it was false then they lied even faulty intelligence was to blame. To say you know something as a fact means you have looked at the intellegence and the validity of it and there is no way that it is false.

11-11-2005, 12:46 PM	#59 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	The resolution by both parties to give the President authorization to begin a war with Iraq was meant to signal our unified stand to both Hussien and the UN. If you recall, Bush pledged to exhaust all other options, before resorting to war. I don't understand this pissing contest about which party in congress is most responsible. The president LIED to congress about his intentions and the buck stops there.

11-13-2005, 08:43 PM	#62 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	but powerclown they were unable to fight it with their full might. If dems would have fully opposed it there would have been a huge storm for them to deal with. And that stat itself shows that your argument that the dems voted for the war is false. Over half of the dems voted against it.