Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Classified Session of Congress Called (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/96897-classified-session-congress-called.html)

Rekna 11-01-2005 12:38 PM
Classified Session of Congress Called
 
The dems forced a classified session where they discussed prewar intelligence and missinformation. Apparently the dems called for a new stage 2 investigation. All I can say is about time. We have a duty to investigate this and find out if we were lied to and missled anyone not wanting this is obstructing justice.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174187,00.html
Quote:
Senate Goes Into Rare Closed Session

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate prepared to go into closed session Tuesday after Democrats enacted a rare parliamentary rule forcing the shutdown of the chamber so senators could speak in a classified session about the lead-up to the war in Iraq.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (search) demanded the chamber be closed so they could hold a secret session that they say was prompted by "misinformation and disinformation" given by President Bush and his administration prior to entry into the war in Iraq.

In calling for the closed session, Reid of Nevada added that the decision was also prompted by the recent indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby (search), Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements in the investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: How the administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions," Reid said. "As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this administration."

Libby was not indicted for revealing operative Valerie Plame Wilson's (search) name, but for not being forthcoming about where he learned her name and whom he told. The investigation is ongoing, however, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald told reporters last week.

(Story continues below)

ADVERTISEMENTS
Advertise Here

Republicans, who were clearly caught off-guard by the maneuver, called the move "gutter" politics. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (search) of Tennessee said the chamber was "hijacked" by Democrats.

"Once again, it shows the Democrats use scare tactics. They have no conviction. They have no principles. They have no ideas," Frist said. "But this is the ultimate. Since I've been majority leader, I'll have to say, not with the previous Democratic leader or the current Democratic leader have ever I been slapped in the face with such an affront to the leadership of this grand institution."

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Democrat Jay Rockefeller said Democrats were promised by committee chairman Pat Roberts that oversight would be conducted on the war, but nothing has been done yet.

Durbin said Democrats want to discuss launching "phase two" of a committee investigation into whether Bush and the administration misused data to justify war in Iraq.

"The purpose of this closed session in the Senate chamber is to finally give the truth to at least the members of the Senate, to finally call to task the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee," said House Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois.

A closed session is called when any senator demands one and a second motion is made. No vote is taken on whether to close the session. The last time a closed session was held was 25 years ago, Rockefeller said.

Republican Sen. Trent Lott, the former majority leader, said that the rule had been invoked two or three times under his tenure as majority leader, but only after a pre-arranged, negotiated discussion.

"This is not the way it has been done," Lott said. "We would never surprise each other ... This is very unfortunate for the Senate. It's not to say there isn't important information to be discussed ... but I'm astounded by this."

During the closed session, the chamber was shut to cameras, a security sweep was performed, and then Reid introduced a resolution calling for the launch of "phase two" of the intelligence committee's investigation.

"It is within the power of the majority to close down the closed session. They can do it by majority vote to return to the legislative calendar," Durbin said. "We're serving notice on them at this moment: be prepared for this motion every day until you face the reality. The Senate Intelligence Committee has a responsibility."

samcol 11-01-2005 12:54 PM
Yes, I agree it's about time. The only thing I'm wondering is why they are doing it behind closed doors? Are the senators that afraid of the administration and/or american people?

asaris 11-01-2005 01:31 PM
I'm guessing that there might be some discussion of classified materials that can't be made public.

Willravel 11-01-2005 01:38 PM
Oh man I wish it wasn't closed! I want to hear this so bad. I really hope it's not just some fake crap to keep the democrats happy.

Elphaba 11-01-2005 06:56 PM
A closed door session may be positive given that there would be no need for public "posturing" by either party. I found the following article some days ago which I think is related to the Phase II investigation mentioned in the OP. The public's trust in congress and the administration needs repairing with some definitive action, and both parties must realize it. If a closed session can produce some unified movement in moving the country forward, I'm all for it.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/102805I.shtml

Quote:
Cheney, Libby Blocked Papers to Senate Intelligence Panel
By Murray Waas
The National Journal

Thursday 27 October 2005

Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, overruling advice from some White House political staffers and lawyers, decided to withhold crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to Bush administration and congressional sources.

Among the White House materials withheld from the committee were Libby-authored passages in drafts of a speech that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell delivered to the United Nations in February 2003 to argue the Bush administration's case for war with Iraq, according to congressional and administration sources. The withheld documents also included intelligence data that Cheney's office - and Libby in particular - pushed to be included in Powell's speech, the sources said.

The new information that Cheney and Libby blocked information to the Senate Intelligence Committee further underscores the central role played by the vice president's office in trying to blunt criticism that the Bush administration exaggerated intelligence data to make the case to go to war.

The disclosures also come as Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wraps up the nearly two-year-old CIA leak investigation that has focused heavily on Libby's role in discussing covert intelligence operative Valerie Plame with reporters. Fitzgerald could announce as soon as tomorrow whether a federal grand jury is handing up indictments in the case.

Central to Fitzgerald's investigation is whether administration officials disclosed Plame's identity and CIA status in an effort to discredit her husband, former ambassador and vocal Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, who wrote newspaper op-ed columns and made other public charges beginning in 2003 that the administration misused intelligence on Iraq that he gathered on a CIA-sponsored trip to Africa.

In recent weeks Fitzgerald's investigation has zeroed in on the activities of Libby, who is Cheney's top national security and foreign policy advisor, as well as the conflict between the vice president's office on one side and the CIA and State Department on the other over the use of intelligence on Iraq. The New York Times reported this week, for example, that Libby first learned about Plame and her covert CIA status from Cheney in a conversation with the vice president weeks before Plame's cover was blown in a July 2003 newspaper column by Robert Novak.

The Intelligence Committee at the time was trying to determine whether the CIA and other intelligence agencies provided faulty or erroneous intelligence on Iraq to President Bush and other government officials. But the committee deferred the much more politically sensitive issue as to whether the president and the vice president themselves, or other administration officials, misrepresented intelligence information to bolster the case to go to war. An Intelligence Committee spokesperson says the panel is still working on this second phase of the investigation.

Had the withheld information been turned over, according to administration and congressional sources, it likely would have shifted a portion of the blame away from the intelligence agencies to the Bush administration as to who was responsible for the erroneous information being presented to the American public, Congress, and the international community.

In April 2004, the Intelligence Committee released a report that concluded that "much of the information provided or cleared by the Central Intelligence Agency for inclusion in Secretary Powell's [United Nation's] speech was overstated, misleading, or incorrect."

Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee say that their investigation was hampered by the refusal of the White House to turn over key documents, although Republicans said the documents were not as central to the investigation.

In addition to withholding drafts of Powell's speech - which included passages written by Libby - the administration also refused to turn over to the committee contents of the president's morning intelligence briefings on Iraq, sources say. These documents, known as the Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB, are a written summary of intelligence information and analysis provided by the CIA to the president.

One congressional source said, for example, that senators wanted to review the PDBs to determine whether dissenting views from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the Department of Energy, and other agencies that often disagreed with the CIA on the question of Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction were being presented to the president.

An administration spokesperson said that the White House was justified in turning down the document demand from the Senate, saying that the papers reflected "deliberative discussions" among "executive branch principals" and were thus covered under longstanding precedent and executive privilege rules. Throughout the president's five years in office, the Bush administration has been consistently adamant about not turning internal documents over to Congress and other outside bodies.

At the same time, however, administration officials said in interviews that they cannot recall another instance in which Cheney and Libby played such direct personal roles in denying foreign policy papers to a congressional committee, and that in doing so they overruled White House staff and lawyers who advised that the materials should be turned over to the Senate panel.

Administration sources also said that Cheney's general counsel, David Addington, played a central role in the White House decision not to turn over the documents. Addington did not return phone calls seeking comment. Cheney's office declined to comment after requesting that any questions for this article be submitted in writing.

A former senior administration official familiar with the discussions on whether to turn over the materials said there was a "political element" in the matter. This official said the White House did not want to turn over records during an election year that could used by critics to argue that the administration used incomplete or faulty intelligence to go to war with Iraq. "Nobody wants something like this dissected or coming out in an election year," the former official said.

But the same former official also said that Libby felt passionate that the CIA and other agencies were not doing a good job at intelligence gathering, that the Iraqi war was a noble cause, and that he and the vice president were only making their case in good faith. According to the former official, Libby cited those reasons in fighting for the inclusion in Powell's U.N. speech of intelligence information that others mistrusted, in opposing the release of documents to the Intelligence Committee, and in moving aggressively to counter Wilson's allegations that the Bush administration distorted intelligence findings.

Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee backed the document request to the White House regarding Libby's drafts of the Powell speech, communications between Libby and other administration officials on intelligence information that might be included in the speech, and Libby's contacts with officials in the intelligence community relating to Iraq.

In his address to the United Nations on February 5, 2003, Powell argued that intelligence information showed that Saddam Hussein's regime was aggressively pursuing programs to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons

Only after the war did U.N. inspectors and the public at large learn that the intelligence data had been incorrect and that Iraq had been so crippled by international sanctions that it could not sustain such a program.

The April 2004 Senate report blasted what it referred to as an insular and risk- averse culture of bureaucratic "group think" in which officials were reluctant to challenge their own longstanding notions about Iraq and its weapons programs. All nine Republicans and eight Democrats signed onto this document without a single dissent, a rarity for any such report in Washington, especially during an election year.

After the release of the report, Intelligence Committee, Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Vice Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said they doubted that the Senate would have authorized the president to go to war if senators had been given accurate information regarding Iraq's programs on weapons of mass destruction.

"I doubt if the votes would have been there," Roberts said. Rockefeller asserted, "We in Congress would not have authorized that war, in 75 votes, if we knew what we know now."

Roberts' spokeswoman, Sarah Little, said the second phase of the committee's investigation would also examine how pre-war intelligence focused on the fact that intelligence analysts - while sounding alarms that a humanitarian crisis that might follow the war - failed to predict the insurgency that would arise after the war.

Little says that it was undecided whether the committee would produce a classified report, a declassified one that could ultimately be made public, or hold hearings.

When the 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee was made public, Bush, Cheney, and other administration officials cited it as proof that the administration acted in good faith on Iraq and relied on intelligence from the CIA and others that it did not know was flawed.

But some congressional sources say that had the committee received all the documents it requested from the White House the spotlight could have shifted to the heavy advocacy by Cheney's office to go to war. Cheney had been the foremost administration advocate for war with Iraq, and Libby played a central staff role in coordinating the sale of the war to both the public and Congress.

In advocating war with Iraq, Libby was known for dismissing those within the bureaucracy who opposed him, whether at the CIA, State Department, or other agencies. Supporters say that even if Libby is charged by the grand jury in the CIA leak case, he waged less a personal campaign against Wilson and Plame than one that reflected a personal antipathy toward critics in general.

Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to Powell as Secretary of State, charged in a recent speech that there was a "cabal between Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense [Donald L.] Rumsfeld on critical decisions that the bureaucracy did not know was being made."

In interagency meetings in preparation for Powell's U.N. address, Wilkerson, Powell, and senior CIA officials argued that evidence Libby wanted to include as part of Powell's presentation was exaggerated or unreliable. Cheney, too, became involved in those discussions, sources said, when he believed that Powell and others were not taking Libby's suggestions seriously.

Wilkerson has said that he ordered "whole reams of paper" of intelligence information excluded from Libby's draft of Powell's speech. Another official recalled that Libby was pushing so hard to include certain intelligence information in the speech that Libby lobbied Powell for last minute changes in a phone call to Powell's suite at the Waldorf Astoria hotel the night before the speech. Libby's suggestions were dismissed by Powell and his staff.

John E. McLaughlin, then-deputy director of the CIA, has testified to Congress that "much of our time in the run-up to the speech was spent taking out material... that we and the secretary's staff judged to have been unreliable."

The passion that Libby brought to his cause is perhaps further illustrated by a recent Los Angeles Times report that in April 2004, months after Fitzgerald's leak investigation was underway, Libby ordered "a meticulous catalog of Wilson's claims and public statements going back to early 2003" because Libby was "consumed by passages that he believed were inaccurate or unfair" to him.

The newspaper reported that the "intensity with which Libby reacted to Wilson had many senior White House staffers puzzled, and few agreed with his counterattack plan, or its rationale."

A former administration official said that "this might have been about politics on some level, but it is also personal. [Libby] feels that his honor has been questioned, and his instinct is to strike back."

Now, as Libby battles back against possible charges by a special prosecutor, he might be seeking vindication on an entirely new level.

pan6467 11-01-2005 07:14 PM
I think what will happen depends on the indictments and the charges against Libby (and perhaps Rove and others). And what more comes out of these.

If the polls show the people want heads to roll, then heads will roll and the GOP will deny anything and claim it's the Dems doing it all (to save face and keep the hate alive), and the Dems. will claim they are holding accountable those who are responsible. Both sides will postulate and pose and so on and such.

However, if the polls remain divided and nothing more damaging comes up, Bush made peace with the Conservatives with the Alita nomination. So they'll just keep claiming it's all partisan and laugh it off.

Basically, it all comes down to everything else in Washington, what do the polls say and what do the partisan leaders tell you to do.

And I love polls you can elicit the answer you want simply by the phrasing of the question or the "randomness" of the phone calls. I can say and show I had a poll of 5,000 GOP and 5,000 dems and the vast majority wanted this..... but, did I mention the 5,000 GOP I called were moderates at best and claimed they would vote for who they wanted not down party lines... whereas the 5,000 Dems were strictly Dem and wouldn't vote for an office if they had to vote for anyone but a Dem.

But polls have a purpose...... follow the leader and show what "everyone else thinks so you don't have too". Easily manipulated and easily believed by enough to change an election.

martinguerre 11-01-2005 08:08 PM
the motion itself is a parlimentary tactic...it may or may not have been a classified discussion.

but it takes time, and can't be overturned immediatly. read the procedure. Motion, and second...and it closes down business w/o a vote or cloture. Then, the cameras are shut off, galleries cleared, and security sweep performed.

How long you wanna bet that takes?

It's a fillibuster in a jar.

powerclown 11-01-2005 10:26 PM
Mind-boggling. In what alternate universe can the theory that Congress was duped into authorizing the President of the United States to go to war be feasible? What could have made powerful, intelligent, connected Democratic leaders like Harry Reid and John F. Kerry side with hawkish Republicans like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld? Can one honestly believe that these people, these Democratic leaders, don't make decisions of life and death, war and peace without reading between the lines? Could it be that certain Democrats, such as those who voted in favor of war, sold their souls in hopes of becoming President by siding with the Republicans to appear "unified" in the eyes of the American People, post 9/11?

And now that Bush won the election, and things are difficult in Iraq, and the body count is rising, and the economy is suspect and gas prices are high and people are getting restless and demonstrating in front of Bush's ranch, could it be that these same war-mongering Democrats are living to regret their outpouring of "opportunistic goodwill", and are playing the role of the Scorned to the hilt? An indictment here! An indictment there! We have nothing to show for siding with the Republicans pre-election!! Lash out, strike down, revenge!!!

I say BULLSHIT the Congress didn't know what the score was in Iraq when they authorized Bush to go to war. I could list scores of quotes from Democrats - PRIOR to the 04 election! - saying how Hussein was a threat to National Security, a threat to the entire region, a (past/present/future) safe haven for muslim radicals, a terrorist black market, that he needed to be stopped before doing something drastic, blah blah blah. Now after losing the election, its all sour grapes and politicizing the Politicization of the war. If one thinks its entirely the Republicans' fault for the hardships of the country these days - without any Democratic complicity, duplicity and bald-faced pandering - they are misjudging the situation imho.

host 11-01-2005 10:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
.....I say BULLSHIT the Congress didn't know what the score was in Iraq when they authorized Bush to go to war. I could list scores of quotes from Democrats - PRIOR to the 04 election! - saying how Hussein was a threat to National Security, a threat to the entire region, a (past/present/future) safe haven for muslim radicals, a terrorist black market, that he needed to be stopped before doing something drastic, blah blah blah. Now after losing the election, its all sour grapes and politicizing the Politicization of the war. If one thinks its entirely the Republicans' fault for the hardships of the country these days - without any Democratic complicity, duplicity and bald-faced pandering - they are misjudging the situation imho.
It is entirely the fault of republican elected representatives in the congress, and of the republican politicians in the executive branch, and of their appointees, that an investigation of the Bush administration's decision to go to war, has not been concluded and released (it has apparently....not even been started), more than fifteen months after this report:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jul9.html
Transcript: Senate Intelligence Committee Report Released

FDCH E-Media
Friday, July 9, 2004; 12:07 PM

Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) speak to the media on the release of a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the pre-war intelligence efforts on Iraq. Here is a transcript of their news conference.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...004Jul9_4.html

ROBERTS: So from my standpoint, I do not believe think there was any political pressure.

Now, was the WMD section wrong? You bet. And I think that’s the bottom line.

Read the report, and I think we -- and then we have an honest difference of opinion.

But let me say again, there are those of us in the Congress who made very declarative and aggressive statements based on this same NIE report. Now, were we pressured? I don’t know.

You know, I believed it. You know, I believed it in regards to the mobile labs. I believed it in regards to UAVs. I believed it in regards to the aluminum tubes. All of that. It proved out wrong.

And so part of this effort is it took us a year to get beyond these facts to dig into the assessments, and you see the size of the report. So it took us a whole year of oversight to get to the bottom of this in regards to whether or not it was accurate.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) assessment there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an Al Qaida attack, no evidence since then, no information emerging that Saddam tried to employ Al Qaida in conducting terrorist attacks. And you said that this view was circulating among the highest levels of the administration.

In light of statements like the president saying that Al Qaida is an ally of Saddam, do you think that the administration misled, in both public or private statements to you, the association between Al Qaida...

ROBERTS: No, I think what they were trying to find out is three things. Number one, was Al Qaida -- or was Saddam Hussein providing safe haven for the Al Qaida? Secondly, were there efforts to train or to become involved or to have contact with Al Qaida? And then the last one, of course, was there any operational plans? And then one other that we were very interested in, and that is, if we went to war or if we conducted any military operation, would any message be sent to Al Qaida to start a war in other parts of the world?

The terrorism section I think is very reasonable. I think, obviously, you are reading Senator Levin’s press release there.

QUESTION: I’m reading (OFF-MIKE)

ROBERTS: OK. Fine. One of the ones that’s not redacted. That’s good. All right.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

ROBERTS: I don’t think they were misled, no. It’s very reasonable. It gives some caveats.

ROBERTS: And I think school is still out in regards to -- there’s no question that Mr. Zarqawi was in Baghdad. Now, was there any operational assistance, was there any training specifically? We don’t know.

So I’m not -- I don’t agree with that statement.

QUESTION: Given the 800 American G.I.s who have lost their lives so far, thousands have had serious injuries, lost limbs, all on the basis of false claims, as much as the American taxpayers have had to kick in almost $200 billion, doesn’t the American public and the relatives of people who lost their lives have a right to know before the next election whether this administration handled intelligence matters adequately and made statements that were justified -- before the election, not after the election?

ROBERTS: Well, as Senator Rockefeller has alluded to, this is in phase two of our efforts. We simply couldn’t get that done with the work product that we put out. And he has pointed out that that has a top priority. It is one of my top priorities. It’s his top priority, along with the reform effort.

Now, we have 20 legislative days. We want to have hearings from wise men and women in regards to the reform effort, and we will proceed with staff on phase two of the report. It involves probably three things -- or at least three.

One is the prewar intelligence on Iraq, which is what you’re talking about.

Secondly is the situation with the assistant secretary of defense, Douglas Feith, and his activity in regards to material that he provided with a so-called intelligence planning cell to the Department of Defense and to the CIA.

And then the left one -- what is the last one? What’s the third one? Help me with it.

(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS: Well, that’s prewar intelligence on Iraq.

There is a third one, and I don’t know why I can’t come up with it right now. But, anyway, it is a priority.

And, hey, I have told Jay, I have told everybody on the other side of the aisle, everybody on our side of the aisle, "We’ll proceed with phase two. It is a priority."

<b>ROBERTS: I made my commitment, and it will be done.

ROCKEFELLER: I have one comment I need to make, and that is that if we’re serious about doing intelligence reforms, why do we have to be somehow limited by the fact that the leadership in the Senate and the House are saying that we’re out of here after 20 legislative days?

We could work through August. We can work through September. We can come back after the election. We routinely did that in previous years, often working up until December 22nd.

This is the most dangerous moment in American history, the most devastating event in American history was 9/11. And the thought that somehow we can’t get this done before the end of the year simply escapes me as an adequate rationale to honor the families of those who died and to protect the families and people who are still living, but may be in a lot more danger.

ROBERTS: I’d just say that the focus was on the NIE report of 2002. That’s what that report’s about.

We will continue with our work with phase two. I’ve made that commitment. I don’t know if we can get members back over the various breaks. When I mentioned the 20 legislative days, it was more to the approach that would we consider specific reforms, I think we have to have hearings first to educate the committee and really be careful with that, but we are committed to finishing phase two.........</b>
Okay, powerclown, you had your "say". The exchanges above say it all.....as a counter to your points.
It's been two years and three months since the Roberts Senate Select committee started it's investigation.

It's been one week short of 16 months since Roberts made his "commitment", quoted above, to finish "Phase II" of his investigation. This is the report on what the white house "knew", vs. what it said in the lead up to invading Iraq, and about how it "fixed the facts" to "match the policy.

You had your rant, the progress of the Roberts committee in regard to producing Phase II of it's investigation, speaks for itself. Reid was correct in what he did today to move the focus of the media away from Bush's "catapulting the propaganda" about "Bird Flue", and his distraction attempt yesterday with the smokescreen "Scalito" SCOTUS appointment.

The indignation that you diplayed here is misplaced. 1245 or more American families of our military will have an empty seat at their Thanksgiving dinner table than they would have on July 9, 2004, when Roberts and Rockefeller were quoted, above. For what?????

pan6467 11-01-2005 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
Mind-boggling. In what alternate universe can the theory that Congress was duped into authorizing the President of the United States to go to war be feasible? What could have made powerful, intelligent, connected Democratic leaders like Harry Reid and John F. Kerry side with hawkish Republicans like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld? Can one honestly believe that these people, these Democratic leaders, don't make decisions of life and death, war and peace without reading between the lines? Could it be that certain Democrats, such as those who voted in favor of war, sold their souls in hopes of becoming President by siding with the Republicans to appear "unified" in the eyes of the American People, post 9/11?

And now that Bush won the election, and things are difficult in Iraq, and the body count is rising, and the economy is suspect and gas prices are high and people are getting restless and demonstrating in front of Bush's ranch, could it be that these same war-mongering Democrats are living to regret their outpouring of "opportunistic goodwill", and are playing the role of the Scorned to the hilt? An indictment here! An indictment there! We have nothing to show for siding with the Republicans pre-election!! Lash out, strike down, revenge!!!

I say BULLSHIT the Congress didn't know what the score was in Iraq when they authorized Bush to go to war. I could list scores of quotes from Democrats - PRIOR to the 04 election! - saying how Hussein was a threat to National Security, a threat to the entire region, a (past/present/future) safe haven for muslim radicals, a terrorist black market, that he needed to be stopped before doing something drastic, blah blah blah. Now after losing the election, its all sour grapes and politicizing the Politicization of the war. If one thinks its entirely the Republicans' fault for the hardships of the country these days - without any Democratic complicity, duplicity and bald-faced pandering - they are misjudging the situation imho.

You have to remember Bush and company had even Colin Powell believing we needed to go to war. That's what's at issue how much did Bushco use the CIA and forged documents and misinformation to promote the war?

It wasn't so much the Dems swallowing the Bush Kool Aid as it was all the intelligence information that said Hussein had WMD's and the public in general buying into it and wanting the war and Bush was very popular at the time.

When the truth started coming out the Dems did start to back off, but again polls rule what politicians do and the polls were in favor of the war until recently. There were many that didn't want to go to war but were laughed at, had their patriotism questioned and were bullied. Those that were vocal against the war weren't covered as much by the press and were treated as lepers even by their hometown presses.

Bush's tactics were horrendous and destructive. So, imho, the Dems. didn't have much choice they were boxed into a corner.

The problem now is they are fighting back and have the ammo but the GOP still have both houses and Bush and until the Libby trial starts and the truth of how much manipulation BushCo did of the facts, the Dems. still have to be careful.

If they push too hard it could backfire, making them look foolish as they chase smoke and mirrors making claims they can't back up and if they don't push enough they get blamed for just following the GOP into a needless war.

The Dems. aren't the ones in power right now and there are news agencies and talking heads that get good ratings (those ratings and their power are decreasing though) that are also very influential.

I think the Dems have been sitting back waiting for enough evidence and enough firepower to fight back. They have it now. It'll be interesting to see how Bush and the GOP try to spin all the problems that come out.

I honestly can see the GOP splitting as a party because of Bush and if the Dems play their cards well this can eventually be the breaking point. But again, they play them wrong it could strengthen the GOP's bonds and resolution and have it as a "them vs. us" effect.

I don't really see much coming from any of this until May or June of next year in time for the debates and mid term elections, when it will be fresh in people's minds and be able to affect the election.

host 11-02-2005 12:19 AM
pan6467, your point about,<b>"Bush and company had even Colin Powell believing we needed to go to war"</b>, IMO. makes up for the fact that you "took the bait"; i.e., the attempt by poweclown to hijack the theme of this thread.

powerclown certainly does not want to see an exploration here of what emboldened Harry Reid to take this surprise procedural move in the senate. The catalyst is the observation that the Bush presidency and the republican congressional dominance are damaged beyond repair. House majority leader Tom Delay was indicted, demoted, defanged. Senate majority leader Bill Frist has been exposed as a liar with a serious financial conflict of interest concerning his false assurances that his investment portfolio was held in a "blind trust". He is under investigation by the SEC.

Bush has been forced to abandon his most important priority, SSI "reform", because he did not demonstrate a credible presentation to Americans about the "crisis" or about the "solution". More recently, Bush was forced to retreat on his decision to suspend Davis-Bacon wage regs in NOLA, and the setback of withdrawal of his nominee for the no. 2 spot at DOJ, Timothy Flanigan, tainted by ties to Jack Abramoff, and his SCOTUS nominee, Harriet Miers.

Bush's polling numbers are in the shitter, and 55 percent of Americans now say that his presidency is a failure.

Last friday, the VP of the USA, and president of the US senate, Dick Cheney, was personally compromised in stature and in reputations when his COS was indicted on 5 felony counts and forced to resign, by a clearly, non-partisan, special prosecutor after a careful, two years long investigation.

Republicans all over the country who are running for high state or national office are reported by the press to be refusing offers of endorsement by or personal appearances with president Bush on the campaing trail.

The much touted Iraqi constitution was passed with little fanfare and is not talked about anymore by Bushco because it seems too slanted toward endorsement of Islam as a state religion and as a criteria for influencing and controlling legislation, and because it is potentially easy to amend and does not strongly bind the political factions or the geographic regions of Iraq together.

Sentate Select Intelligence committee chairman, Pat Roberts, was humiliated by Harry Reid's sudden senate action; he now suffers the indignity of Frist approved oversight by a six senator monitoring group. Roberts stonewalled the Phase II portion of his investigation at the behest of Cheney. Frist lost control of the senate today, and reacted by writing off his relationship with Harry Reid.

The things that are probably most distrubing to powerclown are that republican senators will be increasingly forced to publicly distance themselves from Bush/Cheney if they want to survive politically, and the ones who don't will be more noticed when they carry water for this administration. Cheney himself may be manipulated into presiding in the senate of the oft threatened, "nuclear option", a discredited, lame duck, politcally weakened VP, possible casting the tie breaking senate vote to do away with the filibuster, shortly before his party loses control of the senate majority.

powerclown attempted to put those who disagree with him on the defensive. That tactic won't work, anymore!

host 11-02-2005 03:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
....And now that Bush won the election,....

............Now after losing the election, its all sour grapes and politicizing the Politicization of the war. If one thinks its entirely the Republicans' fault for the hardships of the country these days - without any Democratic complicity, duplicity and bald-faced pandering - they are misjudging the situation imho.
Stole the election, is a more accurate term, with the complicity of the MSM:
Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...ck=1&cset=true
November 1, 2005 latimes.com :
Robert Scheer:
<b>What Judy forgot: Your right to know</b>
THE MOST intriguing revelation of Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's news conference last week was his assertion that he would have presented his indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby a year ago if not for the intransigence of reporters who refused to testify before the grand jury. He said that without that delay, "we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005."

Had that been the case, John Kerry probably would be president of the United States today.

Surely a sufficient number of swing voters in the very tight race would have been outraged to learn weeks before the 2004 election that, according to this indictment, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff — a key member of the White House team that made the fraudulent case for invading Iraq — "did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice."

It is deeply disturbing that the public was left uninformed about such key information because of the posturing of news organizations that claimed to be upholding the free-press guarantee of the 1st Amendment. As Fitzgerald rightly pointed out, "I was not looking for a 1st Amendment showdown." Nor was one necessary, if reporters had fulfilled their obligation to inform the public, as well as the grand jury, as to what they knew of a possible crime by a government official.

How odd for the press to invoke the Constitution's prohibition against governmental abridgement of the rights of a free press in a situation in which a top White House official exploited reporters in an attempt to abridge an individual's right to free speech...........
Quote:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...overup_worked/
<b>The coverup worked</b>

By Thomas Oliphant, Globe Columnist | November 1, 2005

WASHINGTON
NO ONE really noticed, but Patrick Fitzgerald made an unassailable point last week about the timing of the indictment that his CIA leak investigation has produced so far.

''I would have wanted nothing better," he said, ''that when the subpoenas were issued in August of 2004, witnesses testified then, and we would have been here in October of 2004 instead of October of 2005."

Give or take a nuance and some garbled syntax, the prosecutor was in effect showing that the quixotic pursuit of a nonexistent right or privilege by some news organizations is one reason President Bush was reelected last year.

John Kerry is still easy to lampoon, as if his narrow loss were in fact a 20-point landslide. But imagine last week's astonishing developments unfolding in the fall of 2004. Imagine not only the large book of perjury that Fitzgerald threw at I. Lewis Libby, but also the still-tangled web of the infamous Official A in the grand jury's indictment and imagine President Bush trying to explain in the midst of a presidential campaign what that official is still doing on the public payroll.

Karl Rove's management of a campaign based on government-inspired fears of imminent terrorist attacks and of a cartoon portrait of Kerry as Osama bin Laden's soul brother, Rove's friends' assaults on a distinguished military record during the Vietnam War, and his allies' efforts to make the entire nation fearful that gay people who love each other might get married, not to mention Kerry's own mistakes as a candidate, might have been seen in a very different context...

......I would add that <b>the obstruction of justice alleged in this case kept us from knowing material things about our leaders at the moment we were deciding whether to keep them in office.</b> In more common speech, obstruction of justice is a coverup, and the coverup worked -- just as the Watergate coverup in 1972 kept facts from the public that would have guaranteed Richard Nixon's defeat.
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...103101386.html
What the 'Shield' Covered Up

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, November 1, 2005; A25

Has anyone noticed that the coverup worked?

In his impressive presentation of the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby last week, Patrick Fitzgerald expressed the wish that witnesses had testified when subpoenas were issued in August 2004, and "we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005."

Note the significance of the two dates: October 2004, before President Bush was reelected, and October 2005, after the president was reelected. Those dates make clear why Libby threw sand in the eyes of prosecutors, in the special counsel's apt metaphor, and helped drag out the investigation.

As long as Bush still faced the voters, the White House wanted Americans to think that officials such as Libby, Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney had nothing to do with the leak campaign to discredit its arch-critic on Iraq, former ambassador Joseph Wilson.

And Libby, the good soldier, pursued a brilliant strategy to slow the inquiry down. As long as he was claiming that journalists were responsible for spreading around the name and past CIA employment of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, Libby knew that at least some news organizations would resist having reporters testify. The journalistic "shield" was converted into a shield for the Bush administration's coverup.

Bush and his disciples would like everyone to assume that Libby was some kind of lone operator who, for this one time in his life, abandoned his usual caution. They pray that Libby will be the only official facing legal charges and that political interest in the case will dissipate.

You can tell the president worries that this won't work, because yesterday he did what he usually does when he's in trouble: He sought to divide the country and set up a bruising ideological fight. He did so by nominating a staunchly conservative judge to the Supreme Court..........
You're on the losing, already discredited, and soon to be prosecuted in numbers that you can't imagine yet, <b>side</b> of this fight, powerclown. The American sheeple are slow to "get it", but quick to anger when they finally do "get it". They are starting to figure this Rove "Op" out, and the MSM is starting to come around to help them see what really happened in "Election 2004". The traitorous thugs that you defend....folks who smeared a war hero in 2000, and another in 2004, simply because they ran for election against Bush, will be held accountable.

Patrick Fitzgerald is unmarried, annoyed, brilliant, full of integrity and extremely good at his job.(he's described what these fucks did: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102802234.html">He likened Libby's actions to throwing sand in an umpire's eyes.</a>) and he is aware (he said so) of what the folks who you stand up for, really did. Offenses against all of America. This prosecutor is your worst nightmare....Count on it !
Quote:
http://www.sentienttimes.com/05/june...formation.html
The Disinformation Society

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

George Bush’s re-election has been explained as a red-state-versus-blue-state “values” gap. But research shows a majority of Bush voters were misinformed about White House policies on the environment, Iraq, and terrorism. Instead of news, they got propaganda disseminated by the right-wing machine, corporate broadcasters, and journalists who think balance is reporting one side. In a new epilogue to his recent book, Crimes Against Nature, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. shows how, almost two decades after Reagan’s FCC eliminated the Fairness Doctrine, the media have hidden the real gap—between America’s values and those of its government.............

alansmithee 11-02-2005 04:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
Mind-boggling. In what alternate universe can the theory that Congress was duped into authorizing the President of the United States to go to war be feasible? What could have made powerful, intelligent, connected Democratic leaders like Harry Reid and John F. Kerry side with hawkish Republicans like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld? Can one honestly believe that these people, these Democratic leaders, don't make decisions of life and death, war and peace without reading between the lines? Could it be that certain Democrats, such as those who voted in favor of war, sold their souls in hopes of becoming President by siding with the Republicans to appear "unified" in the eyes of the American People, post 9/11?

And now that Bush won the election, and things are difficult in Iraq, and the body count is rising, and the economy is suspect and gas prices are high and people are getting restless and demonstrating in front of Bush's ranch, could it be that these same war-mongering Democrats are living to regret their outpouring of "opportunistic goodwill", and are playing the role of the Scorned to the hilt? An indictment here! An indictment there! We have nothing to show for siding with the Republicans pre-election!! Lash out, strike down, revenge!!!

I say BULLSHIT the Congress didn't know what the score was in Iraq when they authorized Bush to go to war. I could list scores of quotes from Democrats - PRIOR to the 04 election! - saying how Hussein was a threat to National Security, a threat to the entire region, a (past/present/future) safe haven for muslim radicals, a terrorist black market, that he needed to be stopped before doing something drastic, blah blah blah. Now after losing the election, its all sour grapes and politicizing the Politicization of the war. If one thinks its entirely the Republicans' fault for the hardships of the country these days - without any Democratic complicity, duplicity and bald-faced pandering - they are misjudging the situation imho.
Couldn't have said it better myself. 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.

Also, when did the entire Democratic platform officially become "Republicans are evil"? Maybe instead of focusing so hard on trying to grab votes by making Republicans look bad, they should have the novel idea of, ohh, coming up with their own platform and direction? Bush won't be around forever, and the Dems still haven't made any sort of identity outside of "Bush is Evil".

host 11-02-2005 04:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
Couldn't have said it better myself. 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.

Also, when did the entire Democratic platform officially become "Republicans are evil"? Maybe instead of focusing so hard on trying to grab votes by making Republicans look bad, they should have the novel idea of, ohh, coming up with their own platform and direction? Bush won't be around forever, and the Dems still haven't made any sort of identity outside of "Bush is Evil".
You can't be serious. Why not go all the way and use this set of distortions as a template?
Quote:
http://www.commonvoice.com/article.asp?colid=3304
Libby Indictment: News Media Should Be Careful What They Wish For
Jim Kouri
October 29, 2005

..........When Libby unleashes his attorneys on Fitzgerald's investigation including his witnesses, reports and notes, the mainstream news media may end up with more than they bargained for.

In the Saturday Washington Post, on page 23 -- far from the page one headlines -- two Washington attorneys, David Rivkin and Lee Casey, analyzed the Plame Game. They wrote:

"It is clear that, at least by sometime in January 2004 -- and probably much earlier -- Fitzgerald knew this law [against divulging the identity of a covert CIA agent] had not been violated. Plame was not a "covert" agent but a bureaucrat working at CIA headquarters. Instead of closing shop, however, Fitzgerald sought an expansion of his mandate and has now charged offenses that grew entirely out of the investigation itself. In other words, there was no crime when the investigation started, only, allegedly, after it finished. Unfortunately, for special counsels, as under the code of the samurai, once the sword is drawn it must taste blood."

In fact, during the prosecutor's press conference, he chose to use the term "classified" rather than "covert" during his performance. He is allowed to say whatever he wishes to say, but the fact of the matter is that this was not an espionage case dealing with classified material.....

...........The mainstream media want Americans to forget, for instance, that Wilson served as presidential hopeful John Kerry's foreign policy adviser. Wilson's photograph and biography were placed on Kerry's campaign website and they mysteriously disappeared from the website when it was revealed that Joe Wilson is a liar. The mainstream media in turn backed off, at least until after the 2004 election. Then they resurrected Wilson.

If you read anything in the news about Wilson and Plame, you will not be told:

* Wilson was recommended by his CIA wife for the job of going to Africa to investigate the allegation that Saddam Hussein tried to obtain yellow-cake uranium for his nuclear program. Wilson denied his wife had anything to do with his mission until a memorandum written by Plame recommending her husband surfaced.

* Wilson has absolutely no experience in intelligence gathering or investigation. His experience consists of glad-handing other elites who know nothing about intelligence gathering and analysis or investigation.

* Wilson never had to go through the usual CIA procedure of signing a nondisclosure agreement to prevent his blabbing to the press about his so-called fact finding mission. If he did, he wouldn't be blabbing like a lonely housewife to the mainstream media.

* Wilson is very cozy with members of the elite media. They share the same friends in Washington and party at the same parties.

* Wilson and Plame have visions of themselves as Mr. Steed and Mrs. Peel, the cartoonish spooks in the 1960s show "The Avengers." This may seem irrelevant, but it goes to the issue of their credibility as serious government employees.

There is so much more, but the reader gets my drift. The two-year grand jury investigation was a vehicle for discrediting the Bush Administration and its war against terrorists, especially actions against Iraq. It's purpose was not to protect a CIA agent, as is being touted by the liberal news people, because the CIA agent was not harmed. Her husband used the investigation to resurrect himself so he could be placed on a pedestal by the Democrats and their media stooges. He knows the media hate Bush as much as he does, so they won't reveal his lies, half-truths and left-wing politics.

It falls on the new media <b>(and forget Fox News Channel, they've veered to the left)</b> to expose Wilson, Plame and the news media in this public lynching of a career public servant...
alansmithee, I doubt that most of our membership will receive the contents of your post (and that of powerclown's) with anymore enthusiasm than they will the "material" that I quoted above.

What you are attempting here will be much more effective if you can successfully discredit Patrick Fitzgerald, the findings in his indictment of Libby, and his comments in his Oct. 28 press conference, than if you ignore what he has placed in the public record, or if you act as if his investigation and prosecution do not matter, as you appear to be doing here.

stevo 11-02-2005 07:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
Stole the election, is a more accurate term, with the complicity of the MSM:
This is where it all comes from...and they still believe this shite.

Rekna 11-02-2005 07:26 AM
what I want out of this is the truth. I want to know what the administration knew before the invasion in Iraq. Did they know he probably didn't have WMD but said he did? Did they know the Niger documents were fake? (i'd hope so) Did they know there were no credible Al Queda links? If it turns out the administration was more informed than congress and the public and they purposefully mislead people so they could go to war then there were some crimes committed. Crimes much worse than lieing under oath. These are crimes much greater than most people in the pen have done. In my opinion if it turns out that the admin knew about all of this then they are guilty of crimes much worse than mass murder as hundreds of thousands of people have been killed as a result of this war. And if those killings were intentional without justification it is no different than genocide. I want this investegated throughly, i want the smoke screen to go away. Those of you who want to burry your head in the sand and ignore the very real possiblity that we were misslead are unamerican and have no respect for the men and women who have lost their lives fighting this war.

filtherton 11-02-2005 08:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
This is where it all comes from...and they still believe this shite.
Actually, i think if you read his post, he isn't referring to the shite you think he is. Do you think bush's reelection campaign would have faired as well if his vp's chief of staff was under indictment at the time, or if it came to light that the vp's office was directly involved in some way with the politically motivated outing of a cia agent?

pan6467 11-02-2005 09:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
This is where it all comes from...and they still believe this shite.
I never claimed he stole the election, and I was willing to give him a chance, but I dislike his policies economically, socially and globally and I feel he is doing more to damage the US as a whole than to advance it.

As for the war, I think there is enough evidence to raise these questions. But in all fairness we should also call on Clinton who bought into the WMD during his term.

There isn't any dispute over Afghanistan and their links and why we are there, is there?

You show no true argument why we should be there, other than to repeat what the Administration says at the time, and when anyone questions you resort to your reply, which is the standard GOP talking head reply of attack on issues that have no bearing, so that you can point to a reason for hatred and dismiss facts that surround a war that in all likelihood we were duped into starting, that has no end in sight and that this very administration has changed the reasons for starting many, many, many times on record.


On a side note, off topic:

There are always going to be people who claim Bush was not elected, and in forums like these where people don't listen and just tend to keep spouting the same tired rhetoric (which I do also in some topics), it is easy to let emotions come into play. It doesn't change the facts, it doesn't change the argument, but when someone slips and says Bush wasn't elected or this or that... it allows the other side to change focus on the true topic and facts being debated. It is a tactic EVERY SINGLE REGULAR (MYSELF INCLUDED) IN THIS FORUM HAS USED AT LEAST ONCE. Some use it more often than others.
It's human nature to use these tactics when a belief is being challenged and you cannot come up with a justification of your belief. Not saying your belief is wrong, or that is any less valuable or important than anyone else's, but sometimes we have our beliefs and we just cannot think of how to explain why we believe a certain way, so we diffuse, redirect and try to shift focus.

host 11-02-2005 09:39 AM
Scotty McClellan just set off my BS detector:
Quote:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...nate_Iraq.html
Wednesday, November 2, 2005 · Last updated 9:11 a.m. PT

White House deflects intel questions

By LIZ SIDOTI
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- The White House sought to deflect politically charged questions Wednesday about President Bush's use of prewar intelligence in Iraq, saying Democrats, too, had concluded Saddam Hussein was a threat.

"If Democrats want to talk about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed and the intelligence, they might want to start with looking at the previous administration and their own statements that they've made," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

He said the Clinton administration and fellow Democrats "used the intelligence to come to the same conclusion that Saddam Hussein and his regime were a threat."...........
How does Scotty's attempt to deflect criticism of the "fixing of the facts to match the policy", square with these quotes and timeline?

The first statment was made by the Clinton administration's CIA director, just three weeks after Clinton's term ended. I infer from this that it represents the final intelligence assessment of the Clinton presidency, with regard to the threat posed by Saddam:

Quote:
<b>Tenet Feb. 7, 2001:

".... and his ability to project power outside of Iraq's borders is severely limited, largely because of the effectiveness and the enforcement of the no-fly zones.His military is roughly half the size it was before the gulf war and remains under a tight embargo.</b>
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_02/alia/a1020708.htm
Seventeen days later, newly appointed Secretary of State, Colin Powell, voiced the same conclusion.
Quote:
Powell Feb. 24, 2001:

"And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any signifigant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors"
http://www.state.gov/secretary/forme...s/2001/933.htm
Seven months after that, NSA Director Condi Rice, concurred:
Quote:
Rice July 29, 2001:

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember, 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."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/le.00.html
Oh....and Scotty, et al...the reason people fell for the crap about Iraqi WMD that the administration that you are shilling for constantly spewed out from Aug. 2002 until early 2004 is because your guys worked at it.....hard:
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...235395,00.html
May 5, 2002
............Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe. Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed. The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack — a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic — was discredited last week...............
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.
Time after time, when confronted by the "record" on these threads, one side consistantly falls silent............
Quote:
You wave your hand and they scatter like crows
-Tom Waits

Rekna 11-02-2005 09:53 AM
You can say clinton came to the same conclusions all you want that doesn't change the fact that Bush went to war not Clinton. Plus it was revealed prior to going to war that much of the intelligence was false but the administration concealed it. That is not how you run a democratic country, that is how you run an imperalist country. I want to know what his true motives for going to war was.

stevo 11-02-2005 10:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
You can say clinton came to the same conclusions all you want that doesn't change the fact that Bush went to war not Clinton. Plus it was revealed prior to going to war that much of the intelligence was false but the administration concealed it. That is not how you run a democratic country, that is how you run an imperalist country. I want to know what his true motives for going to war was.
His true motives was exactly what he tell you. Go look up his last dozen speaches. He's a pretty straight-foward fellow.

host 11-02-2005 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
This is where it all comes from...and they still believe this shite.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=15
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
His true motives was exactly what he tell you. Go look up his last dozen speaches. He's a pretty straight-foward fellow.
So are you, stevo, so are you.......

stevo 11-02-2005 10:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
So are you, stevo, so are you.......
are I what?

Rekna 11-02-2005 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
His true motives was exactly what he tell you. Go look up his last dozen speaches. He's a pretty straight-foward fellow.
Then why did they use forged documents to justify the invasion? If they didn't have evidence to back up their claims that he was dangerous than how can we honestly believe that they thought he was dangerous?

stevo 11-02-2005 10:54 AM
How can bill and hillary and all the other democratic leaders think he was dangerous as well?

pan6467 11-02-2005 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
His true motives was exactly what he tell you. Go look up his last dozen speaches. He's a pretty straight-foward fellow.
Really claiming WMD's and then saying, No wait.... we're there because of the Al Quida link...... No wait...... we're there to end the evil regime and free his people...... No wait..... we're there to spread democracy to the entire Middle East....... No wait...... fuck the Dems all they can do is attack, those non patriotic terrorist supporting treasonous bastards.

Sounds like a straight forward honest guy to me.

host 11-02-2005 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
How can bill and hillary and all the other democratic leaders think he was dangerous as well?
Read my post <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1927778&postcount=19">#19</a>. You folks "own" the charge that the administration you are trying, to deflect criticism of, <b>fixed the "facts" to match the policy.</b>

The policy was <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/timep.saddam.tm/">"F___ Saddam, we're taking him out."</a>

Scotty tried to pass the charge onto Clinton, today, too, stevo. it doesn't work, anymore.

Willravel 11-02-2005 11:09 AM
Quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS...imep.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.
This article, quoted above from Host, is one of the more telling of the news stories about Bush's attitude towards this war. I think we're beyond the 'war for weapons' and 'war for freedom' arguments at this point. The point now is that by f___ing Sadam, we have f___ed ourselves.

flstf 11-02-2005 11:14 AM
I think our polititians both Democrats and Republicans went to war because they honestly believed it was the right thing to do. I agree that our intelligence looks like it was screwed up but their intentions were good. I find it hard to believe that our polititians, as corrupt as they may be, would go to war for the hell of it.

pan6467 11-02-2005 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
How can bill and hillary and all the other democratic leaders think he was dangerous as well?

Good question and perhaps an investigation all the way through would show why.

My guess is that Papa Bush still had friends in the CIA and that it wouldn't be hard to fool a president that is fighting for his life against every personal attack and professional attack possible.

I remeber when he bombed the "aspirin" factory claiming he had Bin Laden in his sights and the GOP (Limbaugh especially) laughed and said he was trying to deflect his problems. So why go after the man if people are going to attack you and your own agencies are feeding you reports that you can't believe.

If you truly believe he was told that it was an Asprin factory and not where Bin Laden truly was by his intelligence people then you are truly 100% partisan blind and will buy into anything your party sells you. And again the only people saying it was an Asprin factory were those nice Taliban people ruling Afghanistan. Those great allies that W had to remove because they weren't so friendly after all and they were hiding Bin Laden.... hmmmmmm.

My feeling is he was either set up by CIA people (who had no love for him anyway) or Bin Laden was truly there and he just missed him.

So personally, I don't think Clinton worried about world affairs enough to question intelligence reports he got. He was too busy fighting off GOP minutia attacks.

politicophile 11-02-2005 11:21 AM
Link

If Host is right about this one, it just goes to show you how little the Democrats care about winning the war in Iraq and how incredibly gullible they were back when the war was still under discussion. Read on...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bull Moose
The Moose weighs in on the re-litigation of the war.

Yesterday's Senate action demonstrated that the Democratic minority can stage creative political theater. It is good for the Republican majority to be hornswaggled once and a while. The Democrats also forced the Republicans to move on the delayed intelligence report. And the dramatic maneuver brightened the spirits of the frustrated Democratic base.

But, alas, the Senate action raises the question - does the Democratic Party really want to re-litigate the arguments to go to war? Maybe so, but keep in mind that many Democrats voted to grant authority to the President to go to war. And most still stand by that vote.

This author argues that while the Bushies went to war with insufficient troop levels and mishandled the post war situation, it was inevitable and just that Saddam was removed. In the post-9/11 environment any American Administration would have erred on the side of vigilance concerning Saddam's threat. That may not have been wise, but it wasn't a case of lying and massive deceit.

The Moose does not have to trust George W. Bush to hold that view. He believes Tony Blair. For that matter, most of the Clinton national security team was convinced that Saddam posed a threat to American interests and security. It was hardly a vast neo-con conspiracy that brought us to war.

Will the American people have faith in and trust a party that claims that it was gullibly duped, or as George Romney claimed about another war - that it was "brainwashed."? Moreover, should the objective be re-fighting the reasons to go to war and making the Democrats the official anti-war party or should the goal be achieving reasonable success in Iraq? If you believe in the former than you would encourage more efforts like the one Senate Democrats undertook yesterday. If you believe in the latter, you want the opposition party to present a better plan for winning this war.

While the war is increasingly unpopular, the Democrats should be careful that they are positioning themselves as a party that is gullible, feckless and indecisive on national security. It may provide immense partisan satisfaction to flummox the Republicans on a procedural maneuver, but beware of the long-term impact on the party which already suffers from a perception of being weak on national security.

During the late 90's the Moose was appalled by the behavior of many of his fellow Republicans who ascribed the worst motives to President Clinton for attacking Saddam and going to war in Kosovo. Clinton drove the Republicans to lose all judgement. Although it involves different different players, the Moose is feeling deja vu all over again.

host 11-02-2005 11:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by politicophile
Link

If Host is right about this one, it just goes to show you how little the Democrats care about winning the war in Iraq and how incredibly gullible they were back when the war was still under discussion. Read on...
Again....one of the arguments in your quote box about the Clinton admin. "consensus" about the threat from Iraq is called into question, just three weeks after Clinton left office:
Quote:
Tenet Feb. 7, 2001:

".... and his ability to project power outside of Iraq's borders is severely limited, largely because of the effectiveness and the enforcement of the no-fly zones.His military is roughly half the size it was before the gulf war and remains under a tight embargo.
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_02/alia/a1020708.htm
As far as the "democrats appearing indecisive on issues of national security if they don't do and say...blah, blah, blah....

A non-partisan special federal prosecutor, brimming with integrity, indicted the "national security" VP's COS/NS advisor, just a few days ago, on five charges related to lying under oath about the outing of the identity of a CIA "operative" who was engaged in the discovery of WMD threats. This is a prosecutor who also said that the president's most important assistant is still under investigation in the same "cover up".

The record won't go away. Putting it on the democrats won't work. We get two tacts, in terms of responses to what I post...over and over....on TFP Politics......

1.)Posts similar to yours...and stevos....and Scotty McClellans...attempting to put it on the democrats...

2.)No response.....

One more time.... Bush-Cheney and their defenders own this issue:
Quote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in520830.shtml

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11

WASHINGTON, Sept. 4, 2002

Quote

"Go massive ... Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
hours after 9/11 attack

(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.

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin......

.....Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
I'm using the same tactics that I used when falsehoods (and deluded fantasies) about the existence of Iraqi WMD were posted on threads here, month after month, even after the Duelfer report had it made it quite clear that there were no WMD, and even after Scott McClellan admitted on Jan. 12, 2005, that no WMD would likely be found....ever.

It took a few more months of posting McClellan's quotes from this Jan. 12, 2005, "gaggle":
Quote:
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 <b>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.</b> 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. <b>You are not trying to hold out to the American people the possibility that there might still be weapons somewhere there, are you?</b>

<b>MR. McCLELLAN: No,</b> 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. ............
but....finally the BS stopped. I am prepared to do the same thing here. The record speaks for itself. The Bush administration <b>owns</b> the issue of starting an illegal, war of aggression. The record demonstrates beyond a doubt that it was a premeditated conspiracy. Finally, there has been an indictment of an architect of this illegal war, on matters related to the enforcement of the coverup of the deception, itself. The Bush administration presented the case for war, in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

"Posters for Bush-Cheney" will reluctantly and finally (It's taking longer than it did with the WMD controversy) cease posting content and opinion similar to what is contained in your post, politicophile, when you all develop a sense of how you appear to others who draw conclusions from the actual record of dccumented reports, and not from unsubstantiated opinion that predominates in a partisan, parallel universe, that most of us have never visited.

Yakk 11-02-2005 12:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by politicophile
Link

If Host is right about this one, it just goes to show you how little the Democrats care about winning the war in Iraq and how incredibly gullible they were back when the war was still under discussion. Read on...
So, suppose the President of the USA says "I have evidence that Iraq has WMD, and is planning on using it, in allegance with the people who backed the attacks on the WTC on Sept 11th".

He's the President. He's speaking on a matter of national security. You don't expect him to be making bald-faced lies.

If the POTUS lied about the evidence he had prior to the war, is it the fault of the minority party in the Senate and Congress to catch his lies?

It is possible for the executive branch in cahoots with the majority party in both houses to hoodwink the minority party in both houses. It isn't ideal.

I suppose it is your position that it is better to follow the liars, than the people the liars fool?

Rekna 11-02-2005 12:51 PM
a big problem with the if it was faulty intelligence the dems should have caught it argument is the strong arm tactics used by the adminstration and republicans. The if you don't support us you are unamerican, unpatriotic, and you hate america campaign they made was a sad part of american politics.

rofgilead 11-02-2005 01:43 PM
Rekna - right on. Couldn't have been said more clearly. Before the war, I would talk with my dad (a repulblican) and I would tell him that the administration was deceiving the country and fearmongering to get us to go to war with Iraq. The UK was also using bad evidence and selling their country too. There were numerous examples from both sides that were, at the time to a skeptic like me, clearly bullshit.
A short list:
1. The speech in which the president told people we had to act before one of our cities went up in a mushroom cloud.
2. The Iraq-Nigerian uranium link
3. That Iraq had bought some aluminum tubes = they are making a nuclear missile
4. The "evidence" of Al-queda bases in Iraq that Colin Powell showed the UN - they were just fuzzy pictures of buildings from a satelite - and nothing ever came of this after the war.
5. When no weapons of mass destruction were found, we claimed some trailers that were not-sterile and had canvas walls were mobile biological weapon labs. Again, made some headlines, weeks later it is completely dropped. Spin, spin spin.
6. When the UK presented evidence, they majority of their report was plagerized from a college thesis some guy wrote in the 90's, and they modified various sentences to make it sound as if things were more dangerous.
7. When there was a much stronger Saudi Arabia link to Al queda and 911, we still went after Iraq, why?
8. Saddam was hardly a threat to the US and had little power to terrorize or attack the United States mainland.

These are just some of the things that if you just used common sense you would see were holes in the logic for going to war.

I want to see the president fall for deceiving the United States people and fearmongering.

stevo 11-02-2005 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yakk
I suppose it is your position that it is better to follow the liars, than the people the liars fool?
No, my position is that he didn't lie.

pan6467 11-02-2005 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
No, my position is that he didn't lie.

Which excuse wasn't a lie? And the other excuses what were they, facts that just can't be proven, he never said them (welllll, technically that's true his white house spokespeople would come out with the month's latest excuse, he very rarely said anything just gave his deer in the headlights smirk, a thumbs up and walk away)?

powerclown 11-02-2005 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
You have to remember Bush and company had even Colin Powell believing we needed to go to war. That's what's at issue how much did Bushco use the CIA and forged documents and misinformation to promote the war?

It wasn't so much the Dems swallowing the Bush Kool Aid as it was all the intelligence information that said Hussein had WMD's and the public in general buying into it and wanting the war and Bush was very popular at the time.

When the truth started coming out the Dems did start to back off, but again polls rule what politicians do and the polls were in favor of the war until recently. There were many that didn't want to go to war but were laughed at, had their patriotism questioned and were bullied. Those that were vocal against the war weren't covered as much by the press and were treated as lepers even by their hometown presses.

Bush's tactics were horrendous and destructive. So, imho, the Dems. didn't have much choice they were boxed into a corner.
But pan, the Democrats DID have a choice...they could have voted NOT to authorize the war, and some in fact did vote against the war. Bush's 'horrendous' and 'destructive' tactics were sanctioned and approved by the Democrats - he won overwhelming support in both the House & Senate. Or are you referring to tactics, post-invasion? (in which case I would agree)

I'm confused as to the CIA's role here as you characterize it: are you saying the CIA was working with Bush, and subsequently ran a campaign to deceive Congress? Or are you saying the CIA was working against Bush vis a vis the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Iraq PreWar Intel, the resignation of CIA Director Tenet, and later, Joe Wilson's CIA-sponsored 'boondoggle' that was meant to discredit the war and led to PlameGate? How could the CIA be both for and against Bush?

I think the distinction needs to be made (and examined further) between exactly what intelligence the Congress received that motivated them to declare war, and what intelligence was made public to sell the war to the American people. Regarding the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the pre-war intelligence efforts on Iraq, there are maddeningly vague passages:
Quote:
Second, in the committee’s view, the intelligence community did not accurately or adequately explain the uncertainties behind the judgments in the October 2002 national intelligence estimate to policy-makers, both in the executive branch and here on Capitol Hill.
Quote:
And then there was this enormous difference between the classified version, where all kinds of doubts and caveats were included, and then the white paper, which was the unclassified version, which all of a sudden everything moved in one direction toward, "They’ve got them, they’re ready to use them, and watch out."
What is this about a "classified version"? Classified AND inacurrate?

Doesn't anyone find it at all bizarre that members of Congress would go forth and authorize a war supported by "inadequacies" or "uncertainties" in pre-war intelligence? Why would Democrats (including Harry Reid) under a Republican President vote YEA, if there was even the slightest shred of doubt about Iraq?

Rekna 11-02-2005 10:08 PM
again i reiterate the big problem leading up to the war was the republican fueled mantra saying "if you don't support the war you are a traitor to america". The dems had their hands tied and could not fight the war.

pan6467 11-02-2005 11:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
But pan, the Democrats DID have a choice...they could have voted NOT to authorize the war, and some in fact did vote against the war. Bush's 'horrendous' and 'destructive' tactics were sanctioned and approved by the Democrats - he won overwhelming support in both the House & Senate. Or are you referring to tactics, post-invasion? (in which case I would agree)

I'm confused as to the CIA's role here as you characterize it: are you saying the CIA was working with Bush, and subsequently ran a campaign to deceive Congress? Or are you saying the CIA was working against Bush vis a vis the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Iraq PreWar Intel, the resignation of CIA Director Tenet, and later, Joe Wilson's CIA-sponsored 'boondoggle' that was meant to discredit the war and led to PlameGate? How could the CIA be both for and against Bush?

I think the distinction needs to be made (and examined further) between exactly what intelligence the Congress received that motivated them to declare war, and what intelligence was made public to sell the war to the American people. Regarding the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the pre-war intelligence efforts on Iraq, there are maddeningly vague passages:


What is this about a "classified version"? Classified AND inacurrate?

Doesn't anyone find it at all bizarre that members of Congress would go forth and authorize a war supported by "inadequacies" or "uncertainties" in pre-war intelligence? Why would Democrats (including Harry Reid) under a Republican President vote YEA, if there was even the slightest shred of doubt about Iraq?
What would you be that 1 senator or Rep farsighted enough to know it was all lies and to go against heavy polls in favor of the war, the president, Colin Powell (quite possibly the most respected and arguably most honest man in Wash. at the time), and all the intelligence that said Saddam had the WMDs?

And the Dems that didn't vote to go to the war got reemed in the last election for not being "patriotic", not "supporting the troops" and a host of other charges.

Plus as stated by another on here, you don't want to believe the president is going to start a war using bad intelligence and then as it did flow out about the lies and tampering of info it took the Dems. time to still get vocal because the polls were still favoring the war (and again I reiterate polls however worthless and manipulated still control what most congressmen that aren't bought by lobbyists do and think).

As the Dems. did gain their voice collectively and the evidence started really pouring out then they had something to use and the polls have shifted, Bush has lost his bite and strength, they aren't as scared to speak against him now. Then even GOP senators and Reps started coming out against the war as well.

As for them refuting their votes, how can they? They were duped, the whole country was. None wanted to believe the president and his administration would lie. Hell, even Colin Powell was duped, because I truly do not believe he would have testified before the UN saying Iraq had WMDs if he didn't believe it was so.

First it was WMD's, the Al Quida link, then freeing the country of an evil tyrant, then spreading democracy to the Middle East, and so on and so forth. And when people questioned they were ridiculed, called names and attacked by a truly vicious, self serving, corrupt WH.

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.

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>
<span class="smallcaps">Now, about that</span> 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 <em>Times</em>.

(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 <u>not</u> to examine</a> <em>anything</em> about the origins of the documents or how they came into American hands.

<b>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? </b>

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 <em>Panorama</em> 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.

<b>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?</b>

Another indication.

Elisabetta Burba is the Italian journalist, who works for the Berlusconi-owned magazine <em>Panorama</em>, to whom Martino tried to sell the forgeries. She <em>was</em> 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.
<b>November 2, 2005.....Jay awakens....</b>
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 :rolleyes:

powerclown 11-04-2005 01:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
no it isn't. bush lied. people died. no blood for oil :rolleyes:
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
<b>Interview with Nuremberg Trial Prosecutor Drexel Sprecher</b>
..........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 <b>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,</B> and which sooner or later starts to kill its opposition. First some of its own people. <b>[Achtung, powerclown !]</b>

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 <b>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................</B>
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. <b>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?</b>

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 <b>"would not have been possible if there hadn't been aggressive war"...</b>
Quote:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1001434514
<b>More Fodder for Press: Wilkerson Charges Cheney Responsible for Prisoner Abuse</b>

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 <b>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.</b>

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?
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

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)


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


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