Richard WarnickSenate Intelligence Committee Phase II Report: Bush and Cheney lied about Iraq intelligence findings
After four years of delays, the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has finally released its Phase II report. In a sweeping review of the administration’s pre-war case for invasion, the Committee found that the American public was being fed information at odds with the truth about Iraq.
The lies came directly from President Bush, Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet.
The report was approved with on a 10-5 vote. Three Republican members of the committee, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Christopher Bond of Missouri and Richard Burr of North Carolina, denounced the report as “inconclusive, misleading and incomplete.” The findings were held up by a lengthy partisan political standoff.
The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:
- Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qaeda had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qaeda with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
- Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
- Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
- Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
- The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
- The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
Here’s a link to the full 172-page report (PDF): Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information. Some parts of the report are redacted.
UPDATE: It’s worth taking a look at the minority section that begins on page 100. Senator Hatch et al. indignantly levy the specious and irony-free charge that this report is “part of a partisan agenda.” The Intelligence Committee, not the Bush administration, “cherry-picked” and “distorted” facts, and “attempted to suppress intelligence information and skew the historical record.” ROFL.
UPDATE: White House Press Secretary Dana Perino explained that President Bush can’t be held responsible for his false statements in the run-up to the Iraq invasion simply because he was kept in the dark about the intelligence.
UPDATE: McClatchey’s John Walcott picks up on an interesting angle from the Senate report. Iranian agents may have fed fake Iraq intelligence to Dick Cheney’s office and Douglas Feith at the Pentagon, according to Defense Department counterintelligence investigators.
UPDATE: Walter Pincus of the Washington Post notes that the Phase II report neglected to investigate the activities of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG). As former White House press secretary Scott McClellan wrote in his recently released book, “What Happened,” the Iraq Group “had been set up in the summer of 2002 to coordinate the marketing of the war to the public.”
June 5th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Dammit! If I were a military person, I’d be rip-shit outraged by this!
June 5th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
But you’re not…why don’t you ask some of the military folks (the door kickers - not the Laundry and Bath Specialists) what they think of this. My bet is that the majority will tell you that they still support the mission.
But WTF do I know? I’m probably male, white, uneducated and a drinker of beer in cans.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
KEN BINGHAM!!!! Please tell us it ain’t so.!!!!
June 6th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Albert, you knew. While Cheney pimped for every conflict, oil money scheme and profit, (as well as his own position on the ballot), and Bush professed his favorite philosopher to be Jesus, it was clear from the beginning that there were some lying scum seeking office.
Ken, like so many others, simply thinks: They shoulda been telling the truth. (perhaps I’m being too generous here).
Sadly, they were not.
Impeachment is clearly in order waitress, no tip if you do not bring it to our table post haste.
June 6th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Cav,
What charges would you bring against Cheney or Bush for impeachment?
Prosecuting a war against Iraq? I believe it was Congress that provided that authorization.
Lying to Congress? Sorry, but Congressional oversight had the same intelligence reports and made the same decision to go to war.
I hear impeachment talk all the time, but I don’t hear what is the impeachable offense.
Maybe people are simply upset that a politician like Bush said something and then proceed to do exactly what he said he was going to do.
If the war is wrong, why isn’t the Democratically controlled Congress stopping it? All they have to do is defund it. Why isn’t that happening? Where is the talk of impeaching Reid or Pelosi?
Just because people don’t agree with a decision, doesnt mean it’s an impeachable offense.
I haven’t read the report yet, I plan on getting to it this weekend.
Bob S.
June 6th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Oh Bob, How pathetic. You really must be a “commie.” Are you trying to subvert the Constitution or do you just have a crush on Chimpy the coke head?
Apparently all the experts, Senate Intelligence, administration insiders and virtually 99% of “credentialed” constitutional scholars out there are wrong, and you are right.
To say congress had the same intelligence as the executive is to claim criminal ignorance of public knowledge and fact.
Is it any wonder no one will engage you seriously?
June 6th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Oh Cliff, how infantile.
You are really showing your intellect aren’t you? Name calling, insults and sexual innuendo….awesome use of those degrees and credentials that you have. I’m so impressed.
Maybe going back and working on your reading comprehension would help. Did I say that Bush or Cheney didn’t lie? No, I didn’t.
Show your public fact and I’ll show the statements made by the Congressional leaders.
As far as no one seriously engaging me, does that mean all your posts and responses have been jokes? Hmm, considering the level of maturity, facts and information provided, it is a strong possibility.
How about seriously engaging on the effectiveness of Australia’s gun control laws?
America has approximately 100 times the number of firearms, but does Australia have 100 times less the crime rate? No raw numbers because America also has nearly 15 times the population.
How about seriously engaging about your desire to abridge the rights of citizens for having positions you disagree with?
How about seriously engaging about the inaccuracy of the Kellermann studies?
How about seriously engaging about your hypocrisy? Repeatedly accusing me and others of “parroting” talking points while you repeatedly lift whole sections from the Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center…sometimes without attribution?
How about seriously engaging in the number of mistakes you’ve made without setting the record straight, establishing a permanent record? Like the fact that in Parker/Heller vs. D.C. a Court of Appeals did overturn a gun control law on the individual rights protected by the 2nd amendment and the wrongfully linking of the NRA and racist roots of gun control.
How about seriously engaging about your mistaken thoughts on the uses of handguns? Hunting and target shooting are acceptable and accepted uses of handguns.
How about seriously engaging about “those other factors” that may be affecting crime? The ones about race, gang, drug culture and use, criminal history of the victims and offenders. You remember, the ones you’ve consistently refused to discuss.
Bob S.
June 6th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Bob,
Sounds like its all about you. Its not my job to educate you. You must CHOOSE to seek objective truth.
Until then, you are simply looking for validation of a pre-determined thesis.
Can you see the difference?
June 6th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Here is a list of others who “lied about Iraq” to get us into a war…
“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.
“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.
“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
“[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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“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.
“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.
“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,
“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.
“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
“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.
Not to mention the UN. Most the worlds intelligence agencies including France and Russia who opposed the war. I guess they were lying too.
source: Snopes.com
June 6th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Ah, Ken. So as to avoid playing the shell game you so fondly enjoy playing, let’s recrystallize the question for you and maybe you can focus on that. Did GWB have intel that went against statements that HE made to the American public? Try focusing on that issue, Ken, and not what was stated by others.
It just fascinates me, Ken, that you appear not the least bit outraged by what the Phase II report concludes (and what the rest of us have known all along). But then again, your kids will be going on church missions, not missions to defend our country, so why should you give a rat’s ass anyhow!
June 6th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Cliff,
You keep writing and proving how wrong you can be. It is not all about me, it’s about where is this great country is going and what paths we will take to get there.
Where have I talked about you educating me, no where but your feeble imagination. You’ve repeatedly posted false, inaccurate, biased propaganda and then do not address the issue when called on it.
To use your own words:
You posted information about the dangers of a firearm in the home; Those numbers are inaccurate. Shouldn’t you be taken to task?
You posted information about the effectiveness of gun control; can you support them? The numbers you’ve shown don’t support it.
It’s not about educating me, it’s about educating the public to the type of lies, falsehood and biased information gun banners like you publish.
Why do you run away and hide behind personal attacks instead of responding to the information showing the other side of the issue? Perhaps, it is because the facts and data do not support your case.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Albert,
Once again your mind reading skills fail greatly.
You don’t know what others are thinking or what we care about. I stated that I haven’t read the full report.
But the impeachment talk started long before any reports, almost from GWB’s first day in office. What exactly impeachable offense do you find in his actions?
Also, as far as missions. I’ll have both happening. I hope my youngest son (15) will be going on a mission trip this summer, while his older brother (18) is in boot camp for the Marines.
Please don’t tell me or others what we care about without a lot more information.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Albert - you seem to think that Intelligence is a science. It’s not. It’s an art. Things are easy to misinterpret. Analysts will often have differing opinions. Like any opinions, these are influenced by background, education, worldview, ambition and a host of other factors.
Ask 5 friends for their opinions on the same fact pattern and you are likely to get 5 (sometimes more) different answers. This is a fact of the intelligence business.
It ain’t all James Bond.
But I’m sure that you know all that…
June 6th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Bob and jd:
You guys are playing the shell game, too. The question remains: Did GWB have intel that went against statements that HE made to the American public?
Just try and focus on that one little question without bringing in the side-show drama.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:18 am
No we’re not, Albert.
Of course Bush had intelligence that contradicted what he told the public. That’s the nature of intelligence.
When you tell someone that you saw a good movie, yet you know that there is a movie critic who hated it, are you lying, Albert?
Though these tow things aren’t on the same scale, they are pretty similar.
A person looks at a set of facts, analyzes them and produces an opinion.
Ever get a crappy stock tip? Same set of factors.
The facts remain, that even though EVERY member of Congress was aware of the existence of Scott Ritter, the VAST MAJORITY discounted him as a paid shill for Saddam.
So, you can armchair quarterback all you like - but it just represents a reprehensible trait of finger-pointing and fault finding.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Albert,
I agree with JD, intel is a game of deception played by both sides. We aren’t ignoring anything or playing a shell game. Just trying to find out what crimes were committed, if any.
The question I’ve asked repeatedly is : What actions did the President do that rise to the level of an impeachable offense?
Did he break the laws (high crimes & misdemeanors), did he commit treason, or bribery?
Those are the requirements for an impeachable offense. Since you apparently know what Bush did wrong, what offenses did he do that rise to that level?
June 6th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Bob & jd:
If you two guys are comfortable belonging to the happy 29% who will go to your graves supporting the chimp, regardless of the evidence that he misled our country into a needless war, fine. Be happy!
As to Bob’s question:
Setting aside the evidence that he led this country into a needless war, resulting in countless needless casualties of Iraqis and Americans, you might focus on offenses against the Geneva Convention. Participation in extraordinary rendition, for example, or torture condoned by the chimp and committed by Americans. These are impeachable offenses under any analysis.
You two are showing your true colors today, that’s for sure! Bushit!!
June 6th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Albert,
Let’s get something straight now, I have and will support the president of the USA. Democrat or Republican. If I feel that person’s actions do not represent the best interests of the USA, I will say so in a fitting manner. I didn’t call Clinton, Carter, Reagan, Bush or any other president names or belittle them. I do talk about their actions and values and how those values are expressed.
About 2 decades ago, I took an oath to defend my country against all enemies; foreign or domestic. Nothing has changed about that oath except my duty status.
A needless war is not an impeachable offense. Needless casualties aren’t an impeachable offense.
If you feel that Bush has committed these offenses, the question becomes what have you done besides bitch about it here? Letters, phone calls to your federal representatives; you know, the ones that can bring Bush up on charges.
As far as the Geneva Convention stands, the people have to qualify for it’s protections first
A murderer should be treated as such, not a lawful combatant.
I am not an expert on international law or have I researched it; so I’ll defer judgment on his actions until I have been able to do that.
The only way I’m showing my true colors is to call BS on vague accusations and assertions.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
The picture is emerging that Iran provided much of the fake intel that VP Cheney, Douglas Feith and ultimately President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and George Tenet used to promote their war of choice (see update above).
The REAL intelligence reports contradicted what we were told. This information was covered up. White House Press Secretary Dana Perino tried to get Bush off the hook by saying even he didn’t know about the real intel (see update above). However, two senior former CIA officers have said that Bush was briefed on the top-secret CIA finding that Iraq had no WMD.
The October 2002 AUMF passed by Congress was irresponsible, because it unconstitutionally delegated the power to declare war to the President. It was worded so that Bush was “encouraged” to seek a UN Security Council resolution but not required to do so. Basically, the AUMF put it all on Bush. Congress ducked the issue.
What did Bush do? He breached the UN Charter and started a war of aggression. Then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Richard Perle have both said on the record that the invasion of Iraq violated international law. Because the UN Charter is a treaty approved by the Senate, it is US law and therefore Bush is guilty of a crime.
At the Nuremberg Trials, waging aggressive war was called a “crime against peace.” It was the principal charge levied against the defendants.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Bob:
As I stated before, your true colors are shining today! Your comments show clearly you belong to the 29%ers. I could raise issue after issue today, backed by evidence, of the impeachable offenses committed by the chimp. In response, you will drag out the same old neocon talking points like you just did above in response to the Geneva Convention. It is really quite pointless to debate the issue with you and I have better things to do.
Thank you for your service and have a “happy” day!
PS Here’s food for thought. The basic right to habeas relief has been around since the Magna Carta (circa 1215) and was followed by all western nations ever since; excepting, however, during the Chimp administration vis-a-vis alleged terrorists, the allegations against many of them being, for the most part, created from wholecloth. If this is the kind of government you support then, as I stated before, “be happy!”
June 6th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Richard,
Thanks for some specific details about the “alleged” crimes. You addressed the issues without resorting to name calling, thanks.
From the article you linked to, supporting JD’s statement about conflicting information:
If you have two sources of conflicting information, you have to decide which to believe. Picking the wrong one isn’t an impeachable offense.
As for as Richard Perle’s view, isn’t that just his personal opinion. It may be true but it is not a legal decision, just an opinion
June 6th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
For Bob S.
Try a Google search on Ed Firmage — High Crimes and Misdemeanors. He wrote a lengthy treatise on that subject on this blog that may help clarify where an impeachable offense may lie regarding Curious George.
I don’t see the point or impeachment now (other than humiliation) but I haven’t felt the urge to read the report either.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I wouldn’t take at face value anything that comes out of the Senate “Intelligence” (Oxymoron, emphasis on moron) Committee right now. They have about as much credibility as the 911 Omission Commission, or the UN High Commission on Human Rights where China has a permanent seat.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I love that “29%er” is a pejorative.
I also enjoy all of the epithets regarding the President. It really elevates the discussion.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I’ll admit that I’m still hurting from the waste of money and attention that brought the bar of impeachment to about waist level during the Clinton years.
So while I characterize myself as ‘anti-administration’, it is for the reasons that Albert stated, plus the abuse of signing statements, arrogance, lies about telecommunication spying, and extreme levels of general nastiness, I can easily posit that there is quite enough reason to support that other constitutional tid-bit: Article 11, section 4. And since it is the assumed duty of the house of reps, to enforce, Pelosi and Reid are, in my opinion, complicit. I do not think they are correct in denying its application. They are simply giving notice that while there are 33 loyal GOP senators, impeachment of Bush and Cheney would be a waste.
Only investigate, and require compliance to information gathering subpeonis. They should have nothing to fear. Right?
Ken, by the way, you made a convert of me. I’m convinced.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
JD,
I enjoy the double standard about talking points. Bush lied isn’t a leftist talking point, it is the TRUTH, but having terrorist not meeting the legal definition of a combatant is.
Lifting passages from the Violence Policy Center isn’t a talking point, but showing crime statistics proving the ineffectiveness of gun control is.
Absolutely amazing mental judo some people go through.
Richard, thanks for the post. My reply was lost in a power spike here. I’ll re-write later tonight.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Ken:
You have never contributed anything toward the discussion re impeachable offenses or lies by the president against the nation, so I am not surprised by your inability to do so now; excepting, however, your tendency to do as Bob and jd do: when backed into a corner by the evidence, play the shell game and move the target! Good for you!
June 6th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Albert,
Please provide evidence that I’ve played the shell game or retract your statement.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
JdBob:
I’d use a fake moniker if I had to defend Bush too, but to make the really big bucks making an ass out of yourself and wasting peoples time, you have to use a real name.
You guys are actually pretty good at this shit (Bob Somebody and his apprentice). When are you going to make the leap? Pull yourselves up by your bootstraps and mix it up with Hannity in the big circles. Someday you can even kiss the feet of George Wills.
Just Do It!
Nike copyright ©
June 6th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
When you make excuses for the Chimp administration, you are playing a shell game!!
June 6th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Hey! I get to be Bob’s apprentice.
Is that because you know the Bob is male, and you don’t know know my gender? So the man gets to be the master?
That’s a little sexist, don’t you think Larry?
June 6th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Albert,
Talk about moving the goal posts !!!
You claim I’m doing something, but can’t define it any better than “making excuses”. How pathetic.
It’s pretty simple why I use the screen name that I do. My name is common enough that even if I used it, you wouldn’t be able to effectively determine anything about me.
Why is it that the philosophy that should believe in equality the most is so hung up on whether or not I’m male or female, or straight or gay or white or black/brown/green.
Those are distractions from the issues. Has my behavior been consistent and appropriate? Has my research, facts, data, etc proven to be true?
Judge a person by their actions, not the color of their skin or sex.
June 6th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Bob:
I could give a rat’s rear end what race, orientation or gender you are, and it never once crossed my mind. No, I evaluate you completely by what you write. Your writings re the gun issue, I thought, were fairly cogent and worthy of consideration. On the other hand, your apologist rhetoric re the Chimp administration is down right discouraging.
June 6th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Albert, you give me hope…..
June 6th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Albert,
We need to get a common dictionary, because I dont agree that I was an apologist for the Bush administration.
In all things, I try to be fair. I see name calling and accusations without proof. I said the same things when Clinton was president. Both people have done enough that can be proven. Baseless accusations of stolen elections are a pet peeve of mine. Neither side is blameless in voter fraud, but I have yet to see proof that the fraud rose to the level of a conspiracy.
You might not evaluate by credentials, skin color, etc; but that is a common post here by Cliff and others.
June 7th, 2008 at 12:22 am
jdberger said:
No. I just think he’s smarter then you are at lying and trying to give the impression that he cares about honestly and integrity. He can teach you a lot.
If I were to prove the Republicans have stolen every election since 2000 in a court of law, Bob would ignore me so I’m not going to waste my time trying. It serves no purpose. Three people went to prison in Ohio for manipulating the election in 2004, but Bob doesn’t care because his side “won.” Lawyers all over the country won’t touch election fraud because it’s a losing battle for them. The courts have been packed with right wing judges and Bob doesn’t care.
It’s disgusting.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:44 am
Larry,
I have not denied voter fraud takes place, but it is a reach from local election officials voting dead people to being a conspiracy. Notice that you don’t mention the rampant voter fraud in Chicago, is that because it favors the democrats?
One of the problems I have with claims of election fraud is that is usually one sided. The republicans are the ones usually stealing elections, but the democrats are just as guilty of shenanigans.
Most of the people who talk about Bush stealing the election talk about the Florida voting & recount.
2 failures in this sentence. First is that the courts have been “packed”. Sorry, winners get to appoint the judges. Clinton and Carter did it, just like Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 do. That’s not packing the courts, it’s the political process. Change it, in Texas judges are elected. Make it nationwide
Second failure is your mind reading skills- you don’t know what I care about or not.
Here is what I don’t care about - the judges political affiliation as long as they follow the rule of law and make decisions from that not their political philosophy.
When judges from either side make law based on their personal philosophy, political, or ideology beliefs, it is wrong.
June 7th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Bob S said:
George Bush didn’t win Bob, and it’s YOU who should be getting over it, not the Democrats. Help us impeach this fraud in office and we can talk. I have no interest in big lies, no matter how many times they are told.
The issue isn’t “voter fraud”, it’s election fraud. “Voter fraud” is the term the liars on the right, purposefully, use to fool fellow Americans into thinking there are thousands of dead people and cartoon characters voting. John Fund is a fraud and it has been proven many times these claims are false. Former US Attorney David Iglesias was removed from office illegally by Alberto Gonzoles for not trying to perpetuate this fraudulent notion. The less honest attorneys, who did pursue it, still have their jobs, but were never able to prove a problem with “voter fraud” except by Ann Colter, who was allowed to run the clock out on her case and go free. Watch, listen to or read this very recent interview. It is stunning!
Or…
Keep spreading the lies.
June 7th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Pretty compelling edition of democracy now, Larry. It still just blows me away the number of folks who fall over themselves apologizing for the Chimp administration. That this entire nation is not as outraged as the rest of the world is truly sad!
June 8th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Albert O:
David Iglesias has been trying to get the word out on this for some time now, but this episode of Democracy now put it all together. That’s why Bob S will refuse to read it or ignore it. Actually, he’ll probably do what the talking shills in the media did when the story first broke and start saying CLINTON FIRED 90 LAWERS WHEN HE TOOK OFFICE! This fact means nothing, because ALL presidents bring in their own staffs and lawyers when they start out their term. This is different, not only because Iglesias was a stalwart Republican, but because he was well into his term and had a perfect record along with the others that were fired at the same time.
Again. All of the lawyers who were willing to go along with the political scam still hold their offices, and the honest ones with integrity are gone. What we know about this is the tip of the iceberg.
Bob?
June 8th, 2008 at 5:43 am
[...] use equivocation to apologize (escape blame) for supporting Bush…no one would believe me. Enter our newbie, Bob S. We need to get a common dictionary, because I dont agree that I was an apologist for the Bush [...]
June 8th, 2008 at 7:28 am
I’ve really had nothing more to do with Bob than a few exchanges here on oneutah, but I see him (and a number of other onetime bush supporters) as no less taken back by some of the policies and blunders of the administration than we are.
I’ve said before that as those intelligent, good people, who for reasons known to them, voted republican, start pulling thier heads out when it comes to this particular strain of GOP users, it will be gracious for us to temper our attacks on them. We feared catastrophy but could not envision the extent. Neither could the Repub voter who might have a Lincoln or even Eisenhower as thier model.
Again, we’re all in this together, and nobody has all the right answers.
Thanks for reading, Cav.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Re Bob. S. I, too, thought he was fairly straight-minded when it came to the chimp and his disastrous administration, but Bob’s tendency as of late to defend the chimp is puzzling. He’s obviously letting his emotions over the potential for gun-control cloud his judgment re everything else that matters.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Folks,
Thanks for the kind words in my defense. They are greatly appreciated.
Problem is I’m not defending Bush, I’m stating that I require the same level of proof or documentation, nothing more nothing less; on the issues.
Stolen elections, fired U.S. Attorneys, sex scandals, claims of false wars, insurance, etc. I’m open minded on all the subjects but that doesn’t mean I’ll take baseless accusations. Provide the evidence or support.
I challenged Larry on the election claim because he had repeatedly stated it was stolen without providing links or documentation.
I have admitted that voter fraud is happening; that election fraud is happening. My question was does it rise to the level of conspiracy. That was and has not been proven.
For my efforts at understanding, I”m called an “apologist”; so be it. Names don’t matter to me.
Larry, I”m not ignoring the link just been really busy this weekend. My son graduated from high school yesterday and we are celebrating it today. I will address the link as soon as practical.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Congratulations on the graduation, Bob. And best luck to your son!
June 8th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Yes, Congradulations Bob and Bob Jr.. My daughter graduated the other nite as well. Grappling with her future is a load, but will do. Best to you.
June 8th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I can’t think of anything more pitiful than asking us for evidence of Bush crimes. Any American with a serious mind and a serious commitment to being an informed voter, would consider the major institutional assessments of the Bush Presidency before playing stupid and asking us.
The fact that Bush is worldwide, the most hated American president ever and BY FAR, should be a clue Bob.
R U sending your son to college or are we going with the Bobster’s plan?
June 8th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Cav,
Congratulation on your daughter’s and your wife and your efforts. I’m sure she will make wise decisions with your guidance.
Cliff,
My son is actually joining the military, he’s made the decision to be a Marine. Already signed the paperwork for delayed enlistment. My daughter is in college and it looks like my youngest, another son, will be college bound.
I’ll address the “major institutional assessments” later.
June 8th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Cliff, though we perceive evidence of bush and cheneys crimes in every issue we involve ourselves with, our perception is not enough. Should court preceedings ever take place, some very strict rules will have to be observed. If ANYONE will get to play the ‘beyond a shadow of DOUBT’ card, it will be this crowd. Why, he may even bank on some of his own signing statements to provide loopholes for someone else who may reciprocate in kind. In any case, clear, concise, actionable EVIDENCE IS absolutely requisite. Not some sperm-splattered dress. How hard would that be? Packaging, presentation, and of course, convincing the Pelosi circle that it would be in the country’s best interest! In other words, there’s much to be done.
It would help some if these ‘most powerful’ would respond truthfully on occasion, or answer to subpoenas, or simply testify to the truth without having to hold each others peckers while so doing. Nonetheless, it is very much about evidence.
A bit windy, but you get my meaning.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
If any sense of law comes to this country, Bush will have to go under oath, and when he does, he won’t have the luxury of saying things like “America doesn’t torture” or I had to order illegal wiretapping to keep America safe, and I’d do it again.
Can anybody here imagine any scenario where all of these guys would go under oath and come out with a clean bill of health. There’s a reason when the Republicans were in power and brought their own in for congressional questioning to retain some sense of oversight, Leahy had to ask “you’re not going to put him under oath?” I’m not saying we don’t have to go through legal channels here, but let’s keep it real.
Bill Clinton had to go under oath for a private matter. Bush doesn’t have to go under oath for any reason whatsoever. As Scalia would say after stopping the election, “So there! Get over it!”
Bush may be a spoiled brat, but he’s also the president of the United States and it’s time congress stops enabling his destruction of our lives and the allies we used to have.
Time is up!
June 8th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Bob S:
It sounds like may be sincere about finding out the truth concerning election fraud. Here is a PBS transcript describing how just one form of election fraud works. This was used in Florida in 2000 and Greg Palast was unable to get even one media outlet to report on it, even though it could have proven Republicans stole the election, not by 500 votes, but by thousands.
As Palast likes to say, the only “voter fraud” occurring here is “voting while black.” But recently he has turned over evidence that soldiers are being disenfranchised by the same method.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:32 am
Just one impeachable crime: Murder of inumerable thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan. Evidence = Hans Blix, Freedom Fries (French said F*ck you to U.S. on desirable war), Downing Street memo, ie ‘fixing’ disinformation to neocon policy. Weak and fearful base (republican electors, less than 50% and hat tip from Scalia).
Dick Cheney. Cherry-picker.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:06 am
An interesting read
June 9th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Senator Rockefeller and the Senate Intelligence Committee are very reluctant to criticize the Bush administration. It was something of a miracle this report was ever issued, even with a four-year delay.
One of the shortcomings of the investigation was it didn’t look into the records of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG). This was the marketing arm of the White House whose purpose was to sell the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the public.
Iraq didn’t have a nuclear weapons program at all, in any form. Yet WHIG invented the slogan, “the smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” Show me where that was substantiated by intelligence.
Biological weapons? The only source for this was “Curveball” (Rafid Ahmed Alwan). Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA’s European division, revealed the fact that everyone concerned knew “Curveball” was lying.
Chemical weapons lacked delivery systems, therefore no threat to the U.S. or our allies. UNSCOM eliminated a large portion of Iraq’s chemical weapon potential by 1998.
Ballistic missiles? Iraq didn’t have any operational ballistic missiles. UAVs? Nope, none.
Support for terrorist groups other than al Qaeda? Yes, Saddam Hussein paid compensation to the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers. That was it.
Safe haven for Zarqawi? Hah. Zarqawi never set foot in the part of Iraq controlled by Saddam’s government– he was in Kurdistan.
Contacts with al Qaeda? Nothing.
On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet personally briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. This was from members of Saddam’s inner circle, including Naji Sabri, Saddam’s foreign minister.
“The president had no interest in the intelligence,” said one CIA officer. Another officer said, “Bush didn’t give a fuck about the intelligence. He had his mind made up.”
June 9th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Time to get over bush progressives and contemplate what you will do if obama gets elected and nothing changes.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Okay,
To take things in reverse order. Richard your link to UNSCOM may not be the bombshell, you thought.
This is untrue, chemical weapons could be used in IEDs, mortars, and many other forms, without long range deliveries. Perfect terror weapons to use to force the population to support the insurgents. And there was probably plenty available at the beginning of the war.
raq at first told UNSCOM that it had only produced 240 kilograms of VX, but in 1996 admitted that it had produced 3.9 tons. Iraq provided documents stating that 2.4 tons of VX were produced in 1988 and the remainder in 1990…Iraq never backed up its claims with verifiable evidence, so the total quantity of VX that Iraq produced is not known.
Care to bet the lives of US soldiers and the Iraqi civilians that every one of those munitions was totally destroyed?
Can you trust the word of the Hussein regime?
Delivery systems cover a wide range; artillery shells comprise the majority of the early IEDs.
As far as the support of terrorist groups, it went further then payment of homicide bombers
Right or Wrong, Bush’s decision wasn’t made solely by himself, sorry but it is true. Congress acted and authorized Bush to make that decision. If it was due to political calculation or public expediency; then Congress failed it’s job.
I’l research further on the nuclear capability but the report you linked to clearly shows there was reasonable suspicion and belief that Saddam still had chemical munitions.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Anonymous coward:
YEAH! Let’s put that son of a bitch OBAMA under oath! Waterboard the bastard!
June 9th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Bob S., I just feel sorry for all our invasion troops who had to wear chemical protective suits 24/7 when it turned out that Iraq had no chemical warfare capability. What they had was some leftover chemicals that are hard to get rid of but could never be described as weapons. Mustard “gas” is just a blister agent, not something that can be spread in aerosol form. Nerve agents like Sarin and VX are highly volatile– they evaporate very quickly in hot climates. Don’t confuse tiny leftover traces with operational weapons– I’m sure the CIA knows the difference.
The Bush administration wants to re-write history so that we believe President Bush was the victim of bad intelligence assessments. Nothing could be further from the truth. We were lied to, by Bush himself and every top government official.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Larry,
In regards to Voter caging, it currently is a legal process however immoral or unethical, correct?
Don’t like it, work to change the laws. Frankly, as a 2nd amendment advocate, I find it ironic as all get out that I have to jump through more hoops to get a “license” to do something protected by the Constitution than someone has to do to vote.
Should we make it harder to challenge the right of people to vote, yes I think we should. But we should also harder for voter fraud to take place.
Why not have to show a photo id at the time of voting, heck I have to show id to cash a check or get money out of my account, why not to vote. As far as the cry it will disadvantage the poor, pish. Free or low cost identification is a basic function that state governments provide currently.
So did people eligible to vote get denied the right to vote; I didn’t see any proof in that article- just accusations.
This is where I go back to what I try to say every time; Prove it in court, not in the public square. If there has been a crime committed; prosecute. Convict the person or organization responsible- whatever party.
Can’t convict somebody? Change the laws! This is a great country, we have mechanisms in place to insure justice, let’s use them.
More to follow (including Cliff’s screeching that I’m an apologist for Bush)
June 9th, 2008 at 11:18 am
If you say so Larry.
You would do well to practice anonymity, unless it is your purpose to appear the clown.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Wow. Busy weekend.
The Scud is a ballistic missile.
Richard, I’m not sure what you know about NBC warfare, but VX and Sarin are persistent agents. Evaporation is only an issue for large area targets - and it’s the carrier that evaporates, not the agent itself. The substance would still remain on structures, vehicles, etc.
These two sentences have no relation to each other - unless you’re claiming that blister agents can’t be be spread as an aerosol. And I’m not sure what you mean by “just” a blister agent. Anyway, your assertion is incorrect.
Chemical weapons are nasty things. I’d much rather be subjected to a nuclear attack than a chemical or biological one.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
jd:
A question for you: Why the effort to apologize for the Chimp administration?
After all, the administration shafted you and your children right along with everyone else.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Albert,
Since I’ve bee accused of the same thing, I would like to address your question.
Quite simply; I don’t apologize for any administration. I simply insist on the basic things; proof, evidence, facts, figures.
America is and should be a nation working under the rule of law; it works both ways though. If the government does something wrong, address it through lawful means. Accusations without proof or basis in reality is slander or libel.
I wouldn’t want to be accused of things without proof, so I set the standard for what I accuse others. Claim the war was unjustified, show it’s more than personal opinion. Stolen election- what are the victims, the disenfranchised, bring them forth into the court of law. Force the government to realize that it is our servant, not the other way around.
Cav said it quite well:
I think the government, both executive and legislative branch has been negligent in their duties and responsibilities, but it is a long way to proving criminal negligence.
I applaud everyone here for having the passion and persistence to take on areas of concern, this one of the things that makes America great. A little corner (electronic wise ) in Utah can debate issues of global importance and make a difference in the world.
I’m just a stubborn guy in Texas, but convince me and I’ll help with making things right. I think it is time that the citizens of America recognize their responsibility for making sure our country stays on track. I’m not concerned about the political or philosophical differences between us; the process will work it out.
I am concerned that we will let the government become a benevolent tyranny running our lives–because it “knows what is best” for us. I am also concerned that we are allowing our nation to become one controlled by innuendo, gossip and sound bites. That is why I ask simply to show me the evidence, not opinion.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Albert -
Because it dilutes the argument. An argument filled with half-truths and false assertions dimishes real claims of malfeasance.
It’s the “Boy Who Cried Wolf” scenario.
When people argue that Obama is a Muslim Mancurian Candidate, Hillary is a secret Communist, Bush is a chimp, NAFTA is part of a secret plot to create a one world government and the Dollar is going to be replaced by the Amero - the wackyness of the initial assertion tends to devalue the rest of the argument.
Case in point, Larry makes so many outrageous claims, it’s hard to take him seriously. The same thing applies to Richard and Cliff.
So, it’s not necessarily “defending anyone” but simply demanding that people speak truthfully.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Bob & jd:
Well put, both of you, and I generally agree that more than a scintilla of evidence should be required to show guilt of crimes. That being said, this administration has shown itself over and again to be so secretive, that the required standard of evidence must be lowered to counter the secretiveness. You demand that “we” speak truthfully; what about demanding the administration do the same?
June 9th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
PS. This looks like a step in the right direction:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/09/mcclellan-to-testify-befo_n_106128.html
June 9th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I’m not arguing/discussing points with the Administration - (yes - that’s kind of a dodge).
But seriously, since I don’t feel the need to find fault with this Administration - I’m not going to go searching for it. I see that there is a need for “Sunshine” in government - but I also can sympathize with a desire for secrecy. There’s a reason that when you vote, there are “dividers” or curtains that keep you from prying eyes. There’s a reason that jury deliberations are conducted in secret. At times, certain discussions and practices benefit from a bit of anonymity. This insulates the decision makers from from the constant dessection and second guessing of a rapacious media and vitriolic blogosphere.
Keep in mind that America is not a direct democracy. We elect our Representatives to speak for us. They aren’t sock-puppets - and I don’t think they should be.
In regard to “speaking truthfully”, well, sometimes “truth” is a relative term.
For instance - I don’t consider “stress positions” torture. Many people do.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Albert - as if he heard my request, here’s a great example of how an “argument filled with half-truths and false assertions dimishes real claims of malfeasance“.
Bullshit and baseless claims just dimish the argument.
June 9th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Albert,
This is where I disagree with you. just because it is difficult is no reason to lower the standard of evidence…if we start down that path where does it end? Gossip and rumor enough to drag me or anyone else into court?
Requiring the administration to speak truthfully isn’t something we should do with this administration but everyone. So how do we require it? Maybe we start with electing people who are going to speak the truth, not change their position just to be elected.
How about kicking out those in office, at all levels, that don’t keep the promises made?
This is not an issue that occurred only during the Bush administration, heck not even during the Clinton admin. It is a nationwide, decades long slide into half truths and secretiveness. This is where “Bush derangement syndrome” looses so many people, we recognize it’s not just this administration.
JD, well said sir.
June 9th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Thanks, Bob. I’m enjoying being your apprentice.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Let me phrase the question slightly differently:
If the administration lied to or misled the public to gain support for the war in Iraq, would you be outraged?
June 9th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
No.
Because all of the things like WMDs, harboring of terrorists, payments to the families of suicide bombers, refusal to abide by UN resolutions, oil for food, Halabja, etc. were symptomatic of a greater disease that could only be cured by excising the cancer as a first step.
It’s convenient to forget that this was the original philosophy behind the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s easier to focus on the errors - Abu Grhaib, poppy fields, “insurgents”… blah blah…
But it’s not and never was a War Against Selected Governments. It’s a War Against Terror, and like the War on Poverty - root causes need to be addressed - and one of those root causes is the despotic tribalism that exists in this seething cauldron of ignorance and hatred.
Until people come to trust and respect their government, believe in the justice of their legal system, respect the adequacy of representation - there won’t be any peace. And the big issue isn’t so much whether they have peace in their country or in their region - but the EXTERNAL ramifications of the lack of peace…
June 9th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
jd:
With all respect, that was a complete dodge of the question - a shell game, if I may!
Virtually everyone agrees that Afghanistan was properly invaded and for good cause. I am speaking about Iraq, not “Iraq and Afghanistan.”
June 9th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I mean both.
Whoops - my response just got eaten by the spam filter (maybe).
I didn’t intend to dodge the question.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Albert, to clarify:
If (as some have suggested) the administration manufactured the events of 9-11, then I’d be outraged. If not, my answer above (regarding Afghanistan AND Iraq) stand.
And yes, I know that Saddam most likely had nothing to do with the arliner attacks in this country.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
JD,
This is definitely the case of the student becoming the teacher….just don’t start calling me Anakin :)
June 9th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Substantiated by intelligence = Dick Cheneys repeated trips to Langly, demanding that the ‘intel’ support the policy.
Peace will not come til people trust thier gov’t. So be it. Dreams of a peaceful world will just have to wait.
The Elected are only human, but they are certainly subjected to corrupting levels of power. When the citizenry show such intense disfavor of any given policy or cluster of policies, any sense of ‘mandate’ a figure feels (due to the award of one or two supreme court judges), should not stand or be stood for by the citizens masters who got stuck with these dopes.
Defend these murdering pricks all you want. I don’t believe it was ‘negligence’. I believe it was the ‘plan’ from early on, it just took some major league massaging (aka LYING) to bring it to pass. Mission accomplished.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
But I am not speaking of the administration manufacturing 9/11. What I am asking is whether you would be outraged if the administration cherry-picked or distorted intel to make the case for war with Iraq.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Manufacturing…Letting it happen…sixes
It looks as though Scott McClellend will be talking with Conyers re: the Plame exposure. Nothing to see there I don’t suppose.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Personally, I expect McClellan to squeal like the GOP pig that he is!!
The testimony should provide the best TV of the year.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
jdberger says the Scud is a ballistic missile. Correcto! But Saddam Hussein didn’t have any Scuds in 2003. None were fired during the invasion or found after the invasion. Read the report of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG).
I’ve never mentioned it here, but while I was in the Army I attended NBC school. That’s Nuclear, Biological and Chemical.
jdberger says VX is a persistent nerve agent, however that’s a relative term. It evaporates. Iraq had no VX weapons in 2003, although they did use VX against Iran in 1988. Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months. This explains why only trace amounts have been found in Iraq.
As for blister agents, they make poor weapons. The effects are delayed (as much as 48 hours), and usually non-fatal.
June 10th, 2008 at 1:25 am
Bob S:
So you don’t like gossip and rumors and demand the facts be brought to trial. I totally agree. Let’s go! We went to war based on gossip, rumors and outright lies. Aren’t you angry about that? You said your son is going into the military. Do you think it’s OK if voter caging is used to prevent him from voting because you say it’s legal? Greg Palast has proof that is happening. He has some of those famous missing E-mails Karl Rove “lost.”
Does it make you mad that Bush publicly admitted to illegal wiretapping? Don’t you count that as evidence that could be used in a court of law? You must realize he and his loyal buddies in the congress want to use a travesty of justice called “retroactive immunity” to get him and his corporate pals out of trouble.
So you really believe in justice for all? Condemn Bush for breaking the law and demand a trial or you have no leg to stand on. Were you and jd demanding Clinton go under oath in the 90’s to answer whether he had “sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski”, but you don’t care whether tens of thousands of Americans were crippled or killed for a lie?
I’m sorry, I just don’t get it!
June 10th, 2008 at 5:45 am
Larry,
I disagree on what we went to war on, decisions were made by both the President and Congress based on what the best intel available had to say. Conflicting information is always a problem in war time and prior, only in history can we say what truly happened. Has no one else every made a decision based on faulty information before?
Again, here is where the standard is different, is it criminal negligence or malfeasance that lead us into war? That is the question, being wrong isn’t a crime.
Voter Caging- under the definition that I read isn’t illegal. Only if the person is legally able to vote and is kept from voting is there an issue. Are you saying that every person on the voting rolls should be there and is legally eligible to vote?
We should make it hard to vote, it should mean something. Again, here is the standard, does it rise to the level of a crime? of a conspiracy? Just because someone was challenged doesn’t mean the rules were broken. Show that evidence that the laws were broken.
An example of the opposite side is Al Gore’s demanding recount of the Florida vote. Did he demand recount in all the counties in Florida? No, why? Because that might have favored Bush more than him. So what did he do, demanded recount in only 4(?) counties that were heavily democratic. Is that legal? Nope. Tactics and Strategies to win elections are fair, IF they don’t break the laws. That is the standard.
Don’t like the strategies and tactics, work to change the law.
How about the fact that I have to do more to exercise a Constitutionally protected right than anybody does to vote? Doesn’t that make you angry?
Frankly, I didn’t care about Clinton’s affair in legal terms. I cared more about what it said about Clinton’s integrity, honesty and values.
I think the wiretapping issue is one that should be investigated and people held accountable for breaking the law. I also think that the government needs freedom and flexibility to fight the war. Do you agree that we are at war? Call it Islmofascism, terrorism, whatever you like but are we at war?
Here is the thing that I see. I don’t have to have the same level of outrage or anger that you have. If you feel the laws have been violated and action needs to be taken. Do it, go for the gusto. Don’t just convince me, but convince thousands, millions. Let the public pressure bring the crimes to light.
I disagree that we went to war for a lie. Did Saddam try to convey that he had WMD’s? Yes, he admitted that. Are we at fault for believing him, no. Did Saddam violate international agreements, UN sanctions, fire hundreds of SAMs at UN & US aircraft? Yes.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Bob S. says:
Yet the Phase II report explains that the intelligence assessments were ignored because they didn’t support the Bush administration’s claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which posed a threat to U.S. national security.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Richard,
What is hard about understanding that most intel is not a hard and fast fact filled report but filled with estimates and varying levels of confidence?
If 16 other nations are saying the same thing that some or most of the intel is saying but there was 1 or 2 reports or sources that disagree; what do you go with?
I would go with the worst case scenario, wouldn’t you?
Dig a little deeper into that report and you’ll find that most of the decisions were supported by the intel available.
On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”
Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.”
Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”
If all the statements were “generally substantiated by intelligence information”; should the few that didn’t agree be given precedence of the many?
The old say “better safe than sorry” has to apply when dealing with people like Saddam.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Bob S,
Has is working ever harder to stay in denial about the criminality of this war and president. He has to because he didn’t stop his son from joining the Marines.
It can’t be easy sending your son into a situation in which soldiers are committing atrocities for their very survival. Where commanders to generals are leaving in desperation. Where the chances of serious injury, PTSD and depression are higher than WWII.
Like I’ve always said; no real backbone. Bob S, is the classic obedient tribal loyalist. He thinks being loyal to your president comes before loyalty to the American traditions of rule of law.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Here come’s Cliff’s authoritarian streak, again.
Soldiering is a pretty honorable profession, Cliff. It takes some serious backbone to thrust yourself into a potentially lethal situation to uphold values that are important to you.
What do you do to further your values, Cliff? Blog?
Or just invent controversies and scream at traffic?
Such bravery….
June 10th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Cliff,
Seriously dude, get a grip, go back to your schools and demand money back..sue your elementary schools even. Show me where I’ve stated anything like this
I have repeatedly said no one is above the law, that if a case can be made do it and I’ll support it. I’m just not going to bad mouth someone or call someone names because I don’t like their politics unlike some.
I took an oath decades ago to “…defend my country from all enemies, foreign or domestic…” that hasn’t changed and I’m proud of my son for showing those same values. Being in the military doesn’t exempt anyone from the rules, on the contrary, it actually imposes additional rules and burdens.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Problem is Bob, THE ENEMY IS DOMESTIC!!!
I wonder if you can name the domestic enemies…or are your misplaced, confused loyalties too strong?
June 10th, 2008 at 10:23 am
So, Richard? You were a 74D or were you a different MOS? Where did you attend the school? Ft. Lewis?
Really, I don’t mean to doubt your “expertise” but from your own link regarding VX:
This seems to completely contradict what you are asserting above about VX evaporating. How does motor oil evaporate?
Regarding Sarin, the Iraqis had binary shells, so shelf life is irrelevant.
And Mustard Gas is a very effective weapon, especially in modern warfare where the object is not so much to kill the enemy, but to wound them (thus forcing another soldier to care for the wounded - in effect, removing 2 soldiers from the fight). Even if it doesn’t immediately effect troops, it requires them to MOPP up, reducing combat effectiveness.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Cliff,
Naming the enemy is simple:
Those that want to interfere with the legal exercise of my rights. Be they politicians at the city, state, or federal level. Be they people that advocate the infringement of my Constitutionally protected rights.
Note: not one word about political party, affiliation or philosophical leanings.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:42 am
jdberger, in answer to your question my MOS was 12A and I attended the NBC school at Fort Hood, Texas.
As you may know, Iraq is one of the hottest countries on Earth. Baghdad experiences summer temperatures up to 120° Fahrenheit, which is the air temp. Surfaces exposed to sunlight are hotter. VX, if there was any, wouldn’t last. As you may know, it consists of small droplets.
I think the time has come for you to tell us what evidence you know of that Iraq was in possession of weaponized nerve and mustard agents in 2003. And then you can explain why the Iraqis decided not to use any of their alleged chemical munitions when their country was being invaded. You seem to think chemical weapons are very effective– why not use them?
June 10th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Richard, I wasn’t aware that Combat Engineers were NBC specialists.
Neither was I aware that NBC specialty courses were given at Ft. Hood. The NBC MOS is based out of Dix.
You still haven’t explained, beyond your assertion, how a substance with low volatility and high viscosity is supposed to evaporate.
There are quite a few reasons that Iraq didn’t use the Chem weapons. Most important is that they didn’t have them (though every commander thought that the other guy had them). Even if commanders did have them, we specifically warned Saddam that use of chemical weapons would provoke a nuclear response.
So, there’s two reasons, right there, Richard.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Bob S:
Thanks for taking the time to try and answer my questions. I think they were good ones that deserved to be answered. You didn’t say whether you cared if your own son was going to be prevented from voting by Karl Rove, but I guess that would be hard to face.
This war wasn’t based on faulty intelligence, it was based on intelligence that was created by Cheney and others to fool your son into thinking we had no other choice but to go to war. You had the right to know what was really happening, before committing your own son to fight for the causes these traitors come up with. You don’t come across as an ignorant man. How could you still be defending these men.
Al Gore called for a statewide recount. I saw it with my own eyes. He left the ball in Bush’s court but Bush declined to agree because in his eyes, he didn’t need to. He had plans to be the imperial president and wanted to get started. He stole it fair and square and apparently you agree. If you go in with the premise that everybody steals elections and you have the right to cheat, I guess that’s where we are. I am more idealistic then that.
As to the wiretapping crime you said you think should be investigated, do you think they should investigate it before or after it has been retroactively made legal?
I can’t believe I just typed a sentence that said that. Can you?
You must know as well as I do, that Bush had all of the authority he needed to wiretap any communication he wanted to under the FISA law that was in effect.
I really hate to even say this because it’s too harsh and vile, but I seems you’ve been Hannitized? Please read the Articles of impeachment that were presented yesterday. You owe it to your son and your country.
June 11th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Larry,
Nothing I’ve read or seen has lead me to believe that intelligence was made up wholesale by Cheney or anyone else. Did they select that which best represented the danger they saw, yes. Question becomes, is that ILLEGAL?
The other aspect is the “we had no other choice but to go to war.” part, we always have a choice. Always. The decision to go to war may not have been the best one to make, but it was not solely Bush’s choice. Congress had the opportunity to see the same intelligence data that the White House did, IF the data Congress was seeing didn’t agree with what the White house was using they had a responsibility to do something about it.
Congress choose to pass the resolution authorizing the war, they made that decision. Congress has continued to fund the war, choice after choice, they have made decisions to continue to fund it. Balance of Power in our system prevents the tyranny of one branch. If Bush is guilty, so is Congress. That is what I’m trying to point out.
Drop the Bush Derangement Syndrome and address the failure of our WHOLE system of government if you feel there was no reason. Bush didn’t act along, the White House didn’t act along; it required the approval of Congress. Indict both if there is a crime.
Wiretapping should be investigated before it’s made retroactively legal.
I’ve downloaded the Articles of Impeachment and am working through them, comments later.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:38 am
One of my favorite scenes in Farenheit 9-11 was where they were discussing the Patriot Act and how awful it was….
Moore asserts that the people who voted for it, didn’t even know the provisions that were within it.
Then he shows John Conyers, who explains (and I’m paraphrasing), “No, I didn’t read it - we don’t have time to read the bills. We usually just get someone to give us a summary of the bill.”
Maybe Congress should exercise a little more “Due Dilligence” before voting?
June 11th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Bob S. — It’s not illegal to invent and cherry-pick raw intelligence for propaganda purposes, although that’s not what we expect from a responsible and honest government. What was illegal was attacking a country that posed no threat. Bush is planning to do the same thing with Iran, because Congress hasn’t impeached him yet.
jdberger — I share your low opinion of John Conyers. He’s the committee chairman who’s stopped the impeachment of Dick Cheney and is about to do the same with the impeachment of Bush.
The USA PATRIOT Act was a wish list of attacks on civil liberties than ran to more than a thousand pages. It should never have been enacted, and Congress should never have renewed it. Not one single terrorist has been convicted as a result of the USA PATRIOT Act.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Maybe they are being “deterred”…. ;-)
June 11th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
By abandoning the individual rights America has always stood for, and embracing the philosophy of a police state, we’re deterring terrorists? IMHO, we’re providing evidence that our talk about freedom and democracy is just talk. That’s what al Qaeda tells the world.
Remember when conservatives were suspicious of big government? Wasn’t that long ago, was it?