America needs you to impeach the President

Originally posted by BlackJackal
But no, Kerry can do no wrong, the media is simply blind to Kerry�s inconsistencies.

This is the funniest thing I've heard all day.

You know that great website Cheney likes so much, factcheck.com, er org?

They kind of point out that the media isn't blind to Kerry's inconsistencies, but that Bush supporters are blind to the truth because of Bush's distortions of Kerry's record. I'd love to see you refute FactCheck's brilliant little piece about how Kerry's image as a flip flopper was implanted in your weak little mind by the Bush campaign:

"But aside from the $87 billion matter, this Bush ad is a textbook example of how to mislead voters through selective editing."

www.factcheck.org...@DocID=269.html



Enjoy your ignorance while it lasts.

Ok, lets make this simple. What part of this is lies, distortions, based on false intelligence, or whatever you want to call it?

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region

Well framed arguments Oppodeldoc. Unfortunately audio has been fully indoctrinated into believing the myths, misleading statements and downright untruths.

It amazes me how the UN is used as support of the case, then lambasted for not supporting the war. If the president is going to accept the UN�s decision as to these phantom weapons, then so too it behoved him to accept their decision that a war at that time was not warranted based on what they know. Bush made his claim on January 28 2003, but continued to make them without change despite subsequent UNMOVIC reports as early as February 2003, which critically reduced the credibility of the president's claims.

Audio provided a limited number of claims to suggest Bush was indeed speaking the truth. But there is one very important quote which I would like to provide. Bush on July 14, 2003 continued the outright lies and claimed

We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in.

That is an absolute lie given that UNMOVIC was back in Iraq in November of 2002. In fact, from Nov. 27/02 to Mar. 18/03, 731 inspections had been carried out on 431 sites, 88 of them new sites.

Not only were the inspectors back in, the facts and reports document proof of destruction from years ago. There was supervised destruction of declared leftovers, and in fact, both Bush and Blair would have known about this. I firmly believe that Bush rushed to attack to halt the truth about Iraq�s impotence from coming out.

The three ex-pats sited had no credibility. They were provided by Chalabi who was seriously discounted by the CIA, and who, as we now know, was lining his pockets selling the secrets of the American government to Iran. Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Bush all looked to the side that best supported their objective, and Chalabi was it.

It fascinates me how 21 months later, republican propagandists have managed to blindly inculcate Bush�s fans into propagating these deceptions. They will swallow anything as being truth without seeking to verify same it seems. The February 1998 quotes are laughable in that they have all been lifted without context; not one of those democrats was amenable to invasion, and in fact, in December 1998, after the Iraq Liberation Act was passed in November, clinton ordered three days of bombardment. Yet, all republicans either pretend that didn�t happen, or were in Rip Van Winkle mode.

Originally posted by Simulacra
There were talks of impeachment when Bill Clinton got knob from an intern, but there is absolutely no talk of impeachment for a president invading a country for no reason?


People pay attention

Don't you just love the US?
I blame it on the Republicans. I'm sure they were the majority that wanted Bill Clinton impeached, due to their conservative personalities.

Who invaded a country for no reason? A Republican.

Mostly Democrats want Bush impeached, but not as much as the Republicans wanted Clinton out for getting head in office.

Originally posted by vatar
Ok, lets make this simple. What part of this is lies, distortions, based on false intelligence, or whatever you want to call it?

clipped ironically used U.N. resolution

Right. We had the full support of the U.N. going into Iraq.

Do you remember how Bush pulled the resolution to invade Iraq from the security council because it was going to be vetoed? Then he went ahead and said we would invade under the resolution you just posted, that had already been passed and had nothing to do with THIS WAR.

The silly part is, my thread has nothing to do with the UN. The lies were with the U.S. intelligence and what the White House witheld from congress, as I've said in all my thousands of posts in this thread. What the hell does this pointless post of a UN resolution have to do with anything? Once again you're distorting the argument because you know you're wrong.

Why don't you try to defend your president's witholding of this information instead of ignoring that this is what happened? Why did he lie?

Then answer this: Why aren't you willing to hold him accountable, short of blind, idiotic partisanship?

Who invaded a country for no reason?

Want a reason? Pick one. Here is a list signed by John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and many others:

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region

Originally posted by vatar

The Whitehouse had information THEY DID NOT SHARE with the congress.

The CIA briefs the White House. The CIA briefs congress. The White House does not brief congress. What part of that do you not understand?

Why then did the senate committee threaten to subpoena the Aug. 6th brief to learn what was on it?

oppodeldoc, I've read your links and postings and you're just out to find people who support your views and bash those who don't. You follow the New York Times as if it were the Gospel and you obviously will believe in lies mounted on top of lies.

You say I don't contribute to your debate. I've never given it any thought, just to express my opinion, but now I'm un-American because I don't agree with you. I know that's not what you said, but it seems to me you're biased in the worst way a person can ever dream about being.

In your first posting, you said that Bush should be tried for treason. Do you know what treason actually means? If you don't, then here's the definition:

Legal definition of Treason
Treason. A breach of allegiance to one's government, usually committed through levying war against such government or by giving aid or comfort to the enemy. The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. Treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy, and rendering him aid and comfort. Cramer v. U. S., U.S.N.Y., 325 U.S. l, 65 S.Ct. 918, 9327 89 L.Ed. 1441. See 18 U.S.C.A. � 2381. A person can be convicted of treason only on the testimony of two witnesses, or confession in open court. Art. III, Sec. 3, U.S. Constitution.

Now you tell me, if it's even possible for you to, did Bush at any time give aid to the enemy at any time during his administration? You'll be lying if you say yes.

Did at any time, during Bush administration, he support an enemy that would try to overthrow the government of United States? Again, you'll be lying if you say yes.

This entire thead is baseless, anti-American propaganda, wrapped in false claims.

Here's some facts on your hero, the self-admitted baby slaughterer:

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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

"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

"With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why does Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection team previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM (U.N. Special Commission) identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? Does he do all those things and more because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy the world should trust?

It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it."
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass), Oct. 9, 2002

If Bush lied to the American people and the people of the world, then he had a lot of help from Mr. John Kerry, did he not?

It's the Liberal Democrats and their supporters who are going to set America up for another terrorist attack. Then whose fault will it be?

Why then did the senate committee threaten to subpoena the Aug. 6th brief to learn what was on it?

How would the senate know that the August 6 briefing was anything out of the ordinary unless they were also briefed?

Originally posted by vatar

I'm pretty sure this is way off topic by now (Some mod help, here?). I don't see you lifting a finger to actually address any of my arguments. You're just posting the same thing all you conservatives cut and paste into every thread about what Hillary Clinton and the Democrats said before the war.

I can't blame them for saying these things. They were lied to by the Bush administration.

Now, on topic! Please!

Independent investigation of the Bush Administration: Why isn't there more of a movement for this? Thoughts?

Also, why won't the people on this message board realize that many republicans in congress and elsewhere are now distancing themselves from the president they so blindly support. Trust should never be a partisan issue, and the Bushies failed to remember that.

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Independent investigation of the Bush Administration: Why isn't there more of a movement for this? Thoughts?

Here's my thought on the matter on all of your ridiculous and slanderous accusations! HE didn't do anything wrong!

I know you won't answer this one! But I couldn't care less!

(mock) Yay America! Vote Bush! (mock)

Ha! You need to deny ignorance, oppodeldoc, and quit reading such brainwashing material like the New York Times and other liberal publications!


[edit on 8/10/04 by Intelearthling]

Originally posted by vatar

Why then did the senate committee threaten to subpoena the Aug. 6th brief to learn what was on it?

How would the senate know that the August 6 briefing was anything out of the ordinary unless they were also briefed?

Interesting question. But you did not answer mine. If you must ask it then you must not have been paying attention to the struggle to get it. But I think just about everyone knows the story behind the 06/08 PDB.

You might also want to explain why the national intelligence summary they were given did not have the caveats in the national intelligence summary later provided to the hearing.

If you do not know of any of this, you might try Google to find a quick reference or read the 10 or so reports released by the 9/11 and intelligence committees. It is all there.

Originally posted by Intelearthling
oppodeldoc, I've read your links and postings and you're just out to find people who support your views and bash those who don't. You follow the New York Times as if it were the Gospel and you obviously will believe in lies mounted on top of lies.

Evidently the NYT didn't have all the access to the facts that you did. I'd love to see you try to refute what they said. The only "gospel" I follow is the truth. This makes people like you truly sacreligious.

You say I don't contribute to your debate. I've never given it any thought, just to express my opinion, but now I'm un-American because I don't agree with you. I know that's not what you said, but it seems to me you're biased in the worst way a person can ever dream about being.

I never said you were unamerican. I've never accused anyone of that simply for expressing an opinion. That is the difference between your kind and my kind, plain and simple.

In your first posting, you said that Bush should be tried for treason.

Actually, I didn't. You are proving your ignorance line by line. The whole point of this post is that we need an independent counsel like Ken Starr, except one who hates Bush as much as Starr hated Clinton. Here's what I actually wrote:

Even so, the rock solid ground for impeachment that I see is treason. There is ample reason to believe that this president condoned an act of treason while in office, and we won�t ever know the facts until we get an impartial investigation.

I then went on to say why, and it's pretty clear that if the president was privy to the exposure of Valerie Plame's identity, which it seems likely he was, then he and all who knew about it are guilty of treason. The fact that it's taken this long and we still don't know who leaked the name means they're covering it up. Think about it.

Legal definition of Treason
TTreason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy, and rendering him aid and comfort.

There ya go.

Now you tell me, if it's even possible for you to, did Bush at any time give aid to the enemy at any time during his administration? You'll be lying if you say yes.

We need an independent investigation to find out. Learn to read.

Did at any time, during Bush administration, he support an enemy that would try to overthrow the government of United States? Again, you'll be lying if you say yes.

We need an independent investigation into 9/11, where it appears the higher ups knew that the attacks were coming and did nothing. That's supporting the enemy in the worst way. Again, we need an investigation.

This entire thead is baseless, anti-American propaganda, wrapped in false claims.

Now I'm anti-american, you frigging hypocrite? I can't continue with this.

If Bush lied to the American people and the people of the world, then he had a lot of help from Mr. John Kerry, did he not?

No, he didn't. Read the article. I guess it's all lies if it implicates your president, right? You would have been a great Nixon supporter.

It's the Liberal Democrats and their supporters who are going to set America up for another terrorist attack. Then whose fault will it be?

Clinton's. Like it always is.

Intelearthling, I'm not trying to change your mind. It is too late for you. I just wish you had the intelligence to find some support for your president against my proposal of an independent investigation of his presidency. If you did, you'd probably be voting for Kerry.

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Here's my thought on the matter on all of your ridiculous and slanderous accusations! HE didn't do anything wrong!

So what you're saying is, there shouldn't be an investigation of what he did, because he didn't do anything wrong? My mind is BLOWN.

Ha! You need to deny ignorance, oppodeldoc, and quit reading such brainwashing material like the New York Times and other liberal publications!

Yup. It must be getting to me. All those Pulitzers certainly damage their credibility.

I should point out here that one of the biggest problems I have with the NYT is that they rallied the people to war in Iraq along with the Administration because of their own failure to publish contradictory reports before the war. They actually published a mea culpa to this a couple months ago, but it showed how they published all the bullsh*t from the Bushies that was spoon-fed them at the start of the war. Liberal press, indeed.

[edit on 8-10-2004 by oppodeldoc]

Bush has created a sanctuary for terrorists:

A Taliban-like regime now rules Fallujah. Mr. RUMSFELD acknowledged that it is the base of Abu Musab Zarqawi, . . . The Zarqawi organization, . . . , has made Fallujah the most open and dangerous SANCTUARY for Islamic terrorism since Osama bin Laden was driven from Afghanistan.

www.washingtonpost.com...
Aide to the enemy = TREASON

The REAL and CRITICAL information about aluminum tubes was in the Presidential Daily Briefs, WHICH THE CONGRESS NEVER SEES.
The congress only got the CIA reports which LEFT THAT VITAL INFORMATION OUT.
.

This is your accusation

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
This is why I get so pissed when the president says of John Kerry �He looked at the same intelligence I did.� Actually, he and the rest of congress only looked at what Bush wanted him to see. He didn�t get to look at all the reports that the evidence presented was suspect. So that, in itself, is a lie.

Alright it appears that you either did not read the NYT article in it�s entirety our you have selective reading disease. All the report points out is the failures in the intelligence that both the President and Congress were given. In the article the first article cited was a CIA report compiled from findings of WINPAC. In this report the 7075-T6 aluminum tubes are cited as possible indications that Iraq was restarting its Nuclear weapons program. The report lays out the case for the aluminum tubes to be used in a 1950�s style Zippe centrifuge. In response to this report the Energy department came forward with its own intelligence report that stated

The Energy Department experts did not think that made much sense. They concluded that using the tubes in centrifuges "is credible but unlikely, and a rocket production is the much more likely end use for these tubes."

So to begin with the Energy department only states that the tubes use for a Centrifuge is unlikely but does not rule it out. So while there is a contradiction of intelligence the contradicting report still says the CIA report is credible. So the White House and Congress had two sets of intelligence to go by one that says the tubes can be used in uranium enrichment and one that says its possible but unlikely.

According to the NYT article the CIA reports given to the President and Congress did not include the disputed Energy department findings.

But on March 12, the day Mr. Cheney landed in the Middle East, he and other senior administration officials had been sent two C.I.A. reports about the tubes. Each cited the tubes as evidence that "Iraq currently may be trying to reconstitute its gas centrifuge program."

Neither report, however, mentioned that leading centrifuge experts at the Energy Department strongly disagreed, according to Congressional officials who have read the reports.

The NYT article you cited blatantly says that the White House was not told of the differing opinions. I continue to read trying to find where the article states the President withheld information from Congress, but I don�t find it. However I do find proof Congress was given the information on the Energy Departments National Intelligence Estimate.

But Senator Bob Graham, then chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said he voted against the resolution in part because of doubts about the tubes. ''It reinforced in my mind pre-existing questions I had about the unreliability of the intelligence community, especially the C.I.A.,'' Mr. Graham, a Florida Democrat, said in an interview.

Bob Graham read the report so he must have had access to the report. But the White house withheld that information from Congress right? That is apparently what you think but the article you provided does not support your argument. However interestingly enough it does shed some unwanted light on John Kerry

At the Democratic convention in Boston this summer, Senator John Kerry pledged that should he be elected president, ''I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence.'' But in October 2002, when the Senate voted on Iraq, Mr. Kerry had not read the National Intelligence Estimate, but instead had relied on a briefing from Mr. Tenet, a spokeswoman said. ''According to the C.I.A.'s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons,'' Mr. Kerry said then, explaining his vote. ''There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons.''

The report cited by Mr. Kerry, an unclassified white paper, said nothing about the tubes debate except that ''some'' analysts believed the tubes were ''probably intended'' for conventional arms.

So even though Kerry had access to the report he never read it. So in effect Kerry made his decision on less than partial information. Another interesting point in this article is about John Edwards.

Mr. Kerry's running mate, Senator John Edwards, served on the Intelligence Committee, which gave him ample opportunity to ask hard questions. But in voting to authorize war, Mr. Edwards expressed no uncertainty about the principal evidence of Mr. Hussein's alleged nuclear program.

''We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons,'' Mr. Edwards said then.

Seriously, this post is a joke read your own references before you post some outlandish accusations that you can�t back up.

I read all 15 pages of this NYT article and all they did was back up the poor intelligence claims that both the White House and Congress made concerning the lead up to the Iraqi invasion. This post should be deleted because it is based off your personal opinions only and your references don't even back you up.

[edit on 8-10-2004 by BlackJackal]

Here the whitehouse is informed of the true nature of the aluminum tubes:

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons

Here the information is made available to the Whitehouse and intelligence community:

The tubes now sought by Iraq had precisely the same dimensions - a perfect match [for slim rockets fired from launcher pods].

That finding was published May 9, 2001, in the Daily Intelligence Highlight, a secret Energy Department newsletter published on Intelink, a Web site for the intelligence community and the White House.

www.nytimes.com...
Congress was NEVER informed. The whitehouse knew and told No one.

Selective truth telling = LIE

Misrepresentation of the facts that have led us into war is a breach of trust.
Deriliction of duties. Fraud. Criminal.
20,000 Iraqis, 1000 Americans all Dead, 120 billion and counting spent, all due to lies from a war-hawk administration.

WMDs? NONE
Link to Al-Qaeda? NONE
Iraq stablized? NOT DONE
Money Squandered? 120+ billion
Nuclear materials rounded up to keep from terrorists? NOT DONE

Alienation of allies? Done
Shocking world with Abu Grabe? Done
Killing 20,000 Iraqis and 1000 Americans? Done
Sanctuary for terrorists in Fallujah? Done
Breeding ground for next generation of terrorists? Done

edit: add link


[edit on 8-10-2004 by slank]

I also have to point this out oppledoc, your main quote from the article was taken out of context. This is your favorite quote.

The Senate report provides only a partial picture of the agency's communications with the White House In an arrangement endorsed by both parties, the Intelligence Committee agreed to delay an examination of whether White House descriptions of Iraq's military capabilities were "substantiated by intelligence information." As a result, Senate investigators were not permitted to interview White House officials about what they knew of the tubes debate and when they knew it.

I have put into bold the two key items you have bolded in your previous posts.

Well you failed to quote the paragraph that was printed directly underneath this one. Obviously, you knew that it would derail your position.

But in interviews, C.I.A. and administration officials disclosed that the dissenting views were repeatedly discussed in meetings and telephone calls.

One senior official at the agency said its "fundamental approach" was to tell policy makers about dissenting views. Another senior official acknowledged that some of their agency's reports "weren't as well caveated as, in retrospect, they should have been." But he added, "There was certainly nothing that was hidden."

Four agency officials insisted that Winpac analysts repeatedly explained the contrasting assessments during briefings with senior National Security Council officials who dealt with nuclear proliferation issues. "We think we were reasonably clear about this," a senior C.I.A. official said.

So the NYT sources say that the dissenting views were repeatedly discussed in meetings and telephone calls. Well that puts a huge hole in your theory that only the White House knew of the intelligence. Another official clearly tells the NYT that nothing was hidden. Lastly the four CIA officials the NYT used for references stated WINPAC �repeatedly explained the contrasting assessments�.

Now where in the world do you see the White House hiding intelligence from Congress in that article? Seriously oppledoc you need to lay off the liberal Kool-Aid it has gone to your head.

Originally posted by BlackJackal
This post should be deleted because it is based off your personal opinions only and your references don't even back you up.

I'll bet you'd like that, wouldn't you? Then we couldn't see all the great distortion in your feeble mind.

Let's start with the title of the article. Did you get that far?

"How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence"

Sounds pretty bad, right? Well, read on.

On page 10 of 15: (will bold for you, Jackal)

"At that point, the tubes debate was in its 16th month. Yet Mr. Tenet, of the C.I.A., the man most responsible for briefing President Bush on intelligence, told the committee that he was unaware until that September of the profound disagreement over critical evidence that Mr. Bush was citing to world leaders as justification for war.

Even now, committee members from both parties express baffled anger at this possibility. How could he not know? ''I don't even understand it,'' Olympia Snowe, a Republican senator from Maine, said in an interview. ''I cannot comprehend the failures in judgment or breakdowns in communication.''

Mr. Tenet told Senate investigators that he did not expect to learn of dissenting opinions ''until the issue gets joined'' at the highest levels of the intelligence community. But if Mr. Tenet's lack of knowledge meant the president was given incomplete information about the tubes, there was still plenty of time for the White House to become fully informed."

Wow. That's kind of in line with what I was saying.

What about this:

Yet so far, Senate investigators say, they have found little evidence the White House tried to find out why so many experts disputed the C.I.A. tubes theory. If anything, administration officials minimized the divide.

That sure sounds like they were being misleading, doesn't it?

More:

Soon after Mr. Cheney's appearance on ''Meet the Press,'' Democratic senators began pressing for a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, terrorism and unconventional weapons. A National Intelligence Estimate is a classified document that is supposed to reflect the combined judgment of the entire intelligence community. The last such estimate had been done in 2000.

Most estimates take months to complete. But this one had to be done in days, in time for an October vote on a war resolution. There was little time for review or reflection, and no time for Jaeic, the joint committee, to reconcile deep analytical differences.

This was a potentially thorny obstacle for those writing the nuclear section: What do you do when the nation's nuclear experts strongly doubt the linchpin evidence behind the C.I.A.'s claims that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear weapons program?

The Energy Department helped solve the problem. In meetings on the estimate, senior department intelligence officials said that while they still did not believe the tubes were for centrifuges, they nonetheless could agree that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons capability.

Several senior scientists inside the department said they were stunned by that stance; they saw no compelling evidence of a revived nuclear program.

Some laboratory officials blamed time pressure and inexperience. Thomas S. Ryder, the department's representative at the meetings, had been acting director of the department's intelligence unit for only five months. ''A heck of a nice guy but not savvy on technical issues,'' is the way one senior nuclear official described Mr. Ryder, who declined comment.

I wonder who Mr. Ryder's boss is? Hmmmm...

About Kerry and Edwards, BTW:

The report cited by Mr. Kerry, an unclassified white paper, said nothing about the tubes debate except that ''some'' analysts believed the tubes were ''probably intended'' for conventional arms.

''It is common knowledge that Congress does not have the same access as the executive branch,'' Brooke Anderson, a Kerry spokeswoman, said yesterday.

Mr. Kerry's running mate, Senator John Edwards, served on the Intelligence Committee, which gave him ample opportunity to ask hard questions. But in voting to authorize war, Mr. Edwards expressed no uncertainty about the principal evidence of Mr. Hussein's alleged nuclear program.

''We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons,'' Mr. Edwards said then.

This is pretty crappy. They obviously should have suspected that Bush was witholding evidence and should have asked harder questions. That definitely was a mistake. But, in this case, I have to say that their mistake pales in comparison to the LIE Bush pandered to them.

I'm done cutting and pasting. Everyone should read this article themselves and just try and figure out what it means to them. Without a doubt, no matter how you cut it, if you believe the New York Times (and some don't ) then you can't argue with this simple assertion: The Bush Administration deliberately concealed and attempted to conceal intelligence from the people and congress.

There was an awareness of the dispute on the intelligence committee, but they had no idea how flimsy the evidence was. That is clear. It has nothing to do with who briefed who. The flow of intelligence was stunted and diverted and bastardized by Bush and his administration. He is not to be trusted, and deserves to be investigated, at the very least. That's the whole point of this thread.

www.nytimes.com...

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Well you failed to quote the paragraph that was printed directly underneath this one. Obviously, you knew that it would derail your position.

Nope, just trying to filter out the stuff said by CIA and Bush Administration officials, since they would obviously be a little biased about this story, no?

But in interviews, C.I.A. and administration officials disclosed that the dissenting views were repeatedly discussed in meetings and telephone calls.

One senior official at the agency said its "fundamental approach" was to tell policy makers about dissenting views. Another senior official acknowledged that some of their agency's reports "weren't as well caveated as, in retrospect, they should have been." But he added, "There was certainly nothing that was hidden."

Four agency officials insisted that Winpac analysts repeatedly explained the contrasting assessments during briefings with senior National Security Council officials who dealt with nuclear proliferation issues. "We think we were reasonably clear about this," a senior C.I.A. official said.

So the NYT sources say that the dissenting views were repeatedly discussed in meetings and telephone calls. Well that puts a huge hole in your theory that only the White House knew of the intelligence. Another official clearly tells the NYT that nothing was hidden. Lastly the four CIA officials the NYT used for references stated WINPAC �repeatedly explained the contrasting assessments�.

Right, great little passage there. All these sources are sympathetic to the Bush Administration, because they (and Tenet) were a PART of it. The NYT does a great job showing both sides here, but the most damning evidence is the stuff about what they were pressured to suppress. It's all there, and I'm tired of quoting...

Now where in the world do you see the White House hiding intelligence from Congress in that article? Seriously oppledoc you need to lay off the liberal Kool-Aid it has gone to your head.

Kool-Aid drinker, heal thyself