USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[XCess 0]

We need a good ol' medieval style rebellion! Grab your pitchforks!

[theavonlady 2]

In reply to Avon

You are relying on a fox news commentator

Oh my goodness!

How terrible!

Doctor! The smelling salts!

For those that couldn't bother clicking on the link, Tom McInerney is a Lt. General and a retired USAF pilot.

Quote[/b] ]who's source is documents that have not been verified and that the US army does not trust and which TBA have forced the the US army to release despite their miss-givings.

Irrelevant. Now that they're out, why aren't you and your buddies clammering to find reliable translators for them to prove that everything that TBA claimed is baseless? So far, a number of the tape have shown just the opposite.

Quote[/b] ]Just like the Niger Yellow Cake Lies that started this whole affair off in the first place and that caused the NeoConMen to out the NOC agent in charge of Counter Proliferation for nothing more than petty personal party political purposes.

And again, whose lie started this? It wasn't Bush.

Quote[/b] ]These would be the same documents to which the US Army Foreign Military Studies Office has said:

Quote[/b] ]"The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available."

To which the same page states that these documents were captured in Iraq and made public within a short time of their capture.

But ignore them, as you wish.

Quote[/b] ]http://70.169.163.24/

And which while they link to them they will not actually put directly on their site; note it is an IP address in the URL not a site address.

And the relevance of this is?

Quote[/b] ]So it appears your source seems to be relying on documents the US army does not trust.

Yes. The neocon Republicans placed them in a bunker before the troops came in.

FYI, a disclaimer of not-verified or non-verifiable material does not mean the documents are invalid.

Quote[/b] ]That they are wary and worried about releasing; as they are would you believe it classified, but that they have been forced to release by TBA Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte who (and being an Israeli you might be interested in this one) released documents being used by the Israeli's as part of a counter terrorist sting operation

Quote[/b] ]US leak of Zarqawi letter riles Israelis

ISRAELI military intelligence officials have accused President George W Bush’s administration of undermining their attempts to infiltrate Al-Qaeda’s operations in Iraq by revealing the contents of a secret letter written by Osama Bin Laden’s second-in-command, writes Uzi Mahnaimi.

I can't rely on anyone who works for Fox but you can rely on this crackpot?!

He's all yours!

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Avon

I did not point out Fox and say it was unreliable source. There was no comma in my post where you attempt to insinuate one.

I was pointing out the man was working as commentator for Fox and not acting in any official role in the US Army having retired from a role in the Air force not the Army many years ago; although you have tried to make out his past job gave him some special access.

If his access was anything other than the access we all have to John Negroponte's website, I would be very surprised and the special prosecutor would have new people to investigate. Considering the date of writing the article and the date of declassification would solve this.

I speculate his source was the office of John Negroponte and not the Army. I suspect a planted story with a well known right wing Fox news commentator.

The fact you are so touchy on the subject is interesting.

The documents with regard to the Yellowcake fogery of links between Niger and Iraq were proven to be faked  and accepted as such by the US intelligence investigation in to the matter else Niger would be under embargo.

Evidence is that the forgeries were created in the US then funneled out through a former Italian agent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery

I speculate that the documents you allude to that the US Army also thinks are fake will be found to be similar in source.

The fact that they are being used by Israeli intelligence in a sting points to their being fakes; as if they were real, both the US and Israel would have released them as proof of reasons to go to war long before now, when they were first found some years back.

I suspect like the fake oil shares for which the telegraph was sued they were planted after the US entered Baghdad.

I repeat

* If NeoConMen will lie and misuse classified national security intelligence data for personal party political gain

* If NeoConMen will out a the NOC agent in charge of the Counter proliferation Division (Thus leaving America crippled on counter proliferation at a time when Iran are most dangerous) just to hide the lies and misuse.

* If NeoConMen will start a war for:

** No WMD in Iraq

** No link with Al Qaeda in Iraq (Until we in the coalition invited them in through a porous border because we removed all the police and Army and did not put enough troops in)

** No Link with 9/11 and Iraq

* If NeoConMen will tap the phones and emails of Americans on the saying of keywords they use in normal conversations without first running it past a judge.

* If NeoConMen will damage intelligence operations risking the lives of agents an assets to stay in power.

Then there is no higher moral or ethical barrier to lies and misuse they have to cross.

What is to stop them lying on everything?

In the light of all this one must ask the very simple and fundamental question you are so afraid to answer Avon; "How can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?"

Kind Regards Walker

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]* If NeoConMen will lie and misuse classified national security intelligence data for personal party political gain

Lets see that proof, good luck on finding out the (notice this) quote classified info unquote

Quote[/b] ]** No WMD in Iraq

I'm sorry lets review where the info came from:

-Iraqi political leaders (unnamed because the specific one is unclear, but one big hint is the Iraqi most wanted cards that is missing "someone")

-Iraqi defectors

-the general CIA

now lets see what happened right before the invasion

-Lack of action from Russia

after...

-frequent meetings with Bush and Putin

one could not miss what happened if you look at it like this

Quote[/b] ]** No link with Al Qaeda in Iraq (Until we in the coalition invited them in through a porous border because we removed all the police and Army and did not put enough troops in)

So is this why al Qaeda is working so hard to keep Iraq (makes you go hmm... doesn't it).

Also lets see the "facts" for that statement about us letting in the terrorist.

Quote[/b] ]** No Link with 9/11 and Iraq

let me see here... lets look at something

IN THE UNITED STATES CODE (Title 50>Chapter 33)

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 (you'll have to scroll down a little bit past -MISC1-,the 2nd one)

notice the part:

Quote[/b] ]"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;

And to think "TBA and Bush are just going off declaring war left and right for no reasons."

It also strikes me as funny to see it under "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002"

obviously the president wasn't the only to see that Iraq had WMD's and harboring Terrorist

Oh and one more thing, that quote that's above... you can say it states that Bush does have the right to wire-tap the phones. its taking "necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations."

one more thing:

Don't call Bush a NeoConMen just because mommy and daddy think he's bad. he has to clean up what CLINTON screwed up. (yes I said it! Congress reqognized iraq was still a problem IN 1998)

Quote[/b] ](Yearly disclaimer: I am not particulalry a fan of George Bush.)

diddo

[scary 0]

one more thing:

Don't call Bush a NeoConMen just because mommy and daddy think he's bad. he has to clean up what CLINTON screwed up. (yes I said it! Congress reqognized iraq was still a problem IN 1998)

Surely you mean what George Bush Senior screwed up when he ended the Gulf War prematurely, despite American commanders and British politicians and commanders wishing to continue.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Sophion-Black

Declassifying national security intelligence for petty personal party political purposes thus damaging existing intelligence operations is an obvious misuse of national security intelligence data.

Quote[/b] ]Specter Says Bush, Cheney Should Explain Leak

By Walter Pincus

Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, April 10, 2006; Page A04

President Bush and Vice President Cheney need to explain what classified information was authorized to be leaked to reporters in July 2003 and why, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said yesterday.

"I think that there has to be a detailed explanation precisely as to what Vice President Cheney did, what the president said to him, and an explanation from the president as to what he said so that it can be evaluated," Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) said. He was referring to last week's revelation in a court document that Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, testified that Cheney told him Bush approved leaking parts of a classified document about intelligence estimates of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Specter said on "Fox News Sunday" that he had heard yesterday morning about a report, first published by the Associated Press, that a lawyer close to the case said Bush "didn't tell the vice president specifically what to do, but just said get it out."

Bush approved providing information from the then-classified October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald said in a memorandum filed in federal court Wednesday. The prosecutor cited Libby's testimony to a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative's name...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....07.html

Follow link for the full article.

Case proven on misuse of Intelligence.

Lying about the content by pretending to release more than that which is declassified is of itself lying about classified national security intelligence:

Quote[/b] ]...Libby, according to the memo, told the grand jury that Cheney "specifically had authorized" him to disclose "certain information" from the classified NIE.

Libby also testified that he was "directed" by the vice president to speak to reporters about the NIE and to provide information from a "cable authored by [retired ambassador Joseph C.] Wilson." The latter apparently referred to a classified March 2002 CIA summary of Wilson's report on his trip to Niger in February 2002 to find out whether Iraq was trying to buy uranium.

Some of Libby's comments about the NIE that he made to reporter Judith Miller, then of the New York Times, on July 8, 2003, were inaccurate. Libby said one "key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium." That was not an NIE key judgment, and the CIA officials who wrote the document disputed that statement...

Ibid

Case proven on lying about said national security intelligence data.

* There has been no WMD found in Iraq.

If you know of any please tell George Bush Junior he is getting desperate. Trying to muddy the waters with maybe it went to Russia don't wash.

* No link with Al Qaeda in Iraq (Until we in the coalition invited them in through a porous border because we removed all the police and Army and did not put enough troops in)

As to why Al Qaeda want Iraq now that TBA and TBA2 let them in to a political vacuum they created. I already described Al Qaeda's long term strategy is that they want Mecca and Pakistans nukes; Iraq to them is just one tactic they can use to gain power.

As to TBA using dodgy intel to secure a war everyone in the US knows they did it; that is why TBA's ratings are so low.

As Scary pointed out the failure to pursue Sadam was George Bush Senior's failure.

What this alll comes back to is the very simple and fundamental question both you Sophion-Black and theavonlady are so afraid to answer; "How can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?"

Kind Regards Walker

[theavonlady 2]

Once again:

Quote[/b] ]Ensor: Lowdown on documents in CIA leak case

Thursday, April 6, 2006; Posted: 3:45 p.m. EDT (19:45 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney told his top adviser in 2003 that President Bush had authorized the leaking of pre-war intelligence on Iraq, according to court papers released this week.

I. Scooter Libby -- who is charged with five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to FBI agents -- is seeking classified papers from prosecutors about his case involving the leak of a CIA agent's name to reporters.

CNN anchor Jim Clancy spoke to national security correspondent David Ensor on Thursday about what is in the legal documents.

CLANCY: What do the court papers actually say?

ENSOR: What is actually going on, Jim, is a struggle between the defendant, who is I. Lewis Libby, Scooter Libby, the former chief of staff of the vice president, and the prosecutor over how much information the defense can get declassified to use in the case.

Mr. Libby wants access to PDBs, presidential intelligence documents that he gets every day. He wants access to quite a few of them in order to show something about Mr. Libby's pace of work and so forth and help defend himself against the charge that he may have concealed information about this case from a grand jury.

What the most recent document and the one that we're talking about here is the government's response to the defendant, Mr. Libby's request for an effort to get these documents out. And in it -- and I'm going to quote here -- the government says that "the vice president thought" -- Vice President Cheney -- "thought that it was very important for the key judgments of the NIE" -- and that's the National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- "to come out."

"The defendant further testified that he had first advised the vice president that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller" -- that would be Judy Miller of The New York Times -- "because of the classified nature of the NIE. The defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized the defendant to discuss the relevant portions of the NIE."

So what's involved here, Jim, is that this document from the government says that the vice president informed Mr. Libby that the president himself had authorized Mr. Libby to leak certain information or give out certain information that came out of this document, this National Intelligence Estimate, on what the intelligence community thought Iraq had in the way of weapons of mass destruction.

So, it had nothing to do with Valerie Plame-Wilson's name. It was simply about this matter of intelligence in the lead-up to the war.

And in that matter, the president, according to this document, authorized Mr. Libby to give out some information to Judy Miller.

And by the way, he is legally entitled to do so.

If the president decides to declassify information, he has that legal right. So, it's not about a law being broken here, and it's not about Valerie Plame-Wilson's name. But it does show us the first evidence that the president himself wanted some of this information put out in the media.

CLANCY: Well, at the time, if you go back to that period in time, there was a clamor from not only the media but from a lot of Americans that wanted more information, more details about what were, up to that point, rather vague statements at times by diplomats trying to assess just what was the threat there. So this was seen -- would this be normal business in Washington, really?

ENSOR: I'm afraid so, yes. And, you know, after all, the -- Ambassador Wilson -- [former] Ambassador [Joseph] Wilson being Valerie Plame-Wilson's husband -- had put out a piece [a July 2003 editorial in The New York Times] in which he said -- in which he attacked the administration for suggesting Iraq was going after uranium in Africa.

The administration wanted to highlight certain parts of this until-then-classified document that suggested that Iraq was aggressively pursuing some aspects of a nuclear weapons program, was looking for ways of getting uranium.

And so, they wanted to have that evidence out there to help their case in the run-up to war. Selective leaking authorized at the highest level, that's -- I'm afraid that is business as usual in Washington. It's been practiced by Republicans and Democrats alike.

So President Bush - in a response to Joseph Wilson's disclosures - simply felt it was necessary to make the National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction public. He is legally entitled to it. No leaking of Valerie Plame-Wilson's name was approved by President Bush, as alleged by numerous people sufferring from BDS.

Yawn.

Next blunder, please...

[walker 0]

Hi all

And in Reply to Avon

Declassifying national security intelligence for petty personal party political purposes thus damaging existing intelligence operations is an obvious misuse of national security intelligence data.

Lying about the content by pretending to release more than that which is declassified is of itself lying about classified national security intelligence.

I wonder why Avon will not answer the question perhaps it scares her or maybe it was not noticed beneath the mass of evidense.

I repeat "How can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?"

Kind Regards Walker

[theavonlady 2]

I wonder why Avon will not answer the question perhaps it scares her or maybe it was not noticed beneath the mass of evidense.

I repeat "How can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?"

I've answered the question already.

So has the last paragraph of the CNN article I posted above.

[theavonlady 2]

* No link with Al Qaeda in Iraq (Until we in the coalition invited them in through a porous border because we removed all the police and Army and did not put enough troops in)

A reminder:

US Dept. of State: Bin Laden, Atef Indicted in U.S. Federal Court for African Bombings

Near the bottom, there's the following paragraph, which is a verbatim quote from the Federal indictment:

"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

This State Dept. announcement was released in November 1998. This specific allegation against Iraq was dropped from a later revised draft of the indictment because the testimony available could not substantiate the claim in court. Nevertheless, the claim originated from and was considered reliable at the time by US intelligence agencies.

As I recall, the US president at the time was not a member of the Bush family.

How can you really trust an OldFashionedConMan democrat?

[walker 0]

Hi all

And in reply to Avon

At no point in your past posts can I find your reply to the question. "How can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?"

Perhaps you can quote the post where you replied.

I will help you to make it more readable by showing you how you might frame an answer.

Question

Quote[/b] ]How can you really trust an OldFashionedConMan democrat?

Answer

Definitions 1

OldFashionedConMan democrat: the question falls on a false premise/assumption.

There is no quasi communist entriest group in the democratic party; as there is in the case of the Neo Conservative group that has untill now had such a hold over the republican party. Thank all our lucky stars that the republicans are starting to realise it and root them out.

So on that point alone the question would be moot but I will humour the question further.

Definitions 2

Trust: the trait of believing in the honesty and reliability of others

You can trust the old fashioned Democratic party because it has a strong ethical and moral compass.

Supporting argument

The old fashioned Democratic party would not tap your phones without running it past a judge first. In fact it created the laws that make it so.

The old fashioned Deomcratic party would not lie and misuse classified national security intelligence data for personal party political gain as have the NeoConMen of TBA and the republican party and as has now been proven and placed on the court record by the special prosecutor.

No Democratic President has ever been found to have lied and misused classified national security intelligence data.

The old fashioned Deomcratic party would not get the USA into a war on false and dodgy intelligence. The only basis we can examin this on is the wars that were engaged in by old fashioned democratic presidents.

Woodrow Wilson WWI (Think we all agree that one needed fighting)

Franklin Roosevelt WWII (Think we all agree that one needed fighting)

Harry Truman Korean War(Think we all agree that one needed fighting)

Lyndon Johnson Vietnam War (This one is arguable however no false intelligence or lies or deciet were used to drag America into this one. It was based on fear of the domino principle and democrats defending America from communism)

The old fashioned Deomcratic party would not pull the USA into chasing after the wrong enemy on 9/11, Sadam, while letting the real enemy Bin Laden out of the trap in Tora Bora. The technical term is taking your eye off the ball.

I guess the real answer to the question "How can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?" is the one most US citizens now make in all the polls of aproval ratings.

The answer is simple America does not trust the NeoConMan republicans of TBA.

Question

The question is still there for you though Avon;"How can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?"

Kind Regards Walker

[shinRaiden 0]

Vote early, vote often, and votes for all

Associated Press - Olympia, Washington

Quote[/b] ]

An online poll asking Washingtonians to pick their favorite design for the state's quarter was suspended Monday, after the balloting was hijacked by robotic computer programs that pushed the tally past 1 million votes over the weekend.

Technicians were busy reworking the online poll's computer code with hopes of restoring the voting by Tuesday, said Mark Gerth, a spokesman for the state Arts Commission.

State officials overseeing the balloting originally decided not to limit the number of votes coming from individual computers so that family members sharing a single machine could each cast a vote, Gerth said.

But that philosophy was being abandoned after the weekend's voting, which showed some computers casting repeated votes for a quarter design faster than humanly possible.

"We hadn't counted on, I guess, the over-enthusiasm of people," Gerth said Monday.

Stefan Sharkansky, a computer software consultant and conservative blogger, noted the online poll's susceptibility to such automatic voting scripts during the weekend after some readers tipped him off.

"Clearly, the votes were going up by 20 a second, which is not a plausible number," Sharkansky said Monday.

...

The orca design was winning in the altered voting before officials pulled the plug, and technical workers were attempting to purge the clearly invalid votes from the totals before restarting the poll, Gerth said.

Further comments from Sharkansky :

Quote[/b] ]

Mrs. Gregoire* is holding an online election where you can vote for your favorite design for the Washington State Quarter. Unfortunately, like all other Washington elections, this one is on the honor system and appears to be hijacked by those who do not follow the rules. Mrs. Gregoire's instructions say "Please only vote one time per person". But the system appears to allow people to vote as many times as they want to, or even run scripts that automatically vote repeatedly.

...

I personally prefer (#1), but #2 is nice too. #3 is neither representative of Washington nor all that attractive. #3 is winning, with an implausible 574,896 votes out of 952,884 cast at this writing. The number of votes appears to be increasing by more than 20 per second, strongly suggesting that one or more robots are stacking the vote.

* The number of people who voted twice in November 2004 greatly exceeds Mrs. Gregoire's so-called margin of "victory".

[EiZei 0]

Lyndon Johnson Vietnam War (This one is arguable however no false intelligence or lies or deciet were used to drag America into this one. It was based on fear of the domino principle and democrats defending America from communism)

Gulf of tonkin?

[Supah 0]

Lyndon Johnson Vietnam War (This one is arguable however no false intelligence or lies or deciet were used to drag America into this one. It was based on fear of the domino principle and democrats defending America from communism)

Gulf of tonkin?

Exactly, the not so real attack on us destroyers that even the navy personell involved is not 100% sure about it happened. A lot of what you say has merit walker but you have lost sight of objectivity as much as the people you are "exposing".

[theavonlady 2]

The old fashioned Deomcratic party would not pull the USA into chasing after the wrong enemy on 9/11, Sadam, while letting the real enemy Bin Laden out of the trap in Tora Bora. The technical term is taking your eye off the ball.

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.

All these Democrats lied. People died.

I love this last one, below. I have no problem quoting the sections that argue against Bush, either. Sometimes, Walker, a little objectivity goes a long way.

The point remains the same: your claim that the "old fashioned Deomcratic party would not pull the USA into chasing after the wrong enemy on 9/11, Sadam" is patently false.

Here we go:

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

   Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), speech at Georgetown University, January 23, 2003

Quote[/b] ]At no point in your past posts can I find your reply to the question. "How can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?"

Last time repeat. Here's what I said:

"That's funny. My question still broadly remains can you really trust a politician?

The answer is you can't.

Both the question and the answer are older than the term of this present administration."

And in reference to the CNN article, yet another media raticle showing that no one has accused Bush or senior admin officials of lying, it stated much the same:

"And so, they wanted to have that evidence out there to help their case in the run-up to war. Selective leaking authorized at the highest level, that's -- I'm afraid that is business as usual in Washington. It's been practiced by Republicans and Democrats alike."

Sadly,

Avon

[ralphwiggum 6]

repeating same old debunked out-of-context collection again?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Quote[/b] ]All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

Perhaps when a Democrat president decides to do something, CONs should follow instead of complaining about it.

Seems like CONs forget that UN resolution 1441 was followed, but TBA decided to go for the war anyway. And now that there is no WMD, and no AQ ties, they are stuck in a mud pit.

Quote[/b] ]"And so, they wanted to have that evidence out there to help their case in the run-up to war. Selective leaking authorized at the highest level, that's -- I'm afraid that is business as usual in Washington. It's been practiced by Republicans and Democrats alike."

I.e. GOP is no better than Dems they berate. How nice.

Perhaps next time a Dem president uses this tactic, those who defend TBA should rise up and do it too.

[theavonlady 2]

repeating same old debunked out-of-context collection again?

But it's not debunked at all, as you shall see.

Quote[/b] ]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Quote[/b] ]All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction.

First and foremost, they are "substantially correct". Next:

Quote[/b] ]However, some of the quotes are truncated,

Some - not all. Next:

Quote[/b] ]and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

True. Now, read the entire Snopes page you linked to. The quotes appear in their full context. And what they are saying and showing is that numerous top brass democrats from Clinton down did NOT consider Saddam "the wrong enemy", using Walker's words.

I never argued that the democrats disagreed with Bush with committing to war. Look at the last Kerry quote I brought down and my comment about it.

But to say that it was the Republican's initiative to pursue Hussein as a major threat to the US and its allies is simply a lie.

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps when a Democrat president decides to do something, CONs should follow instead of complaining about it.

Indeed but that should be a 2 way street.

Quote[/b] ]Seems like CONs forget that UN resolution 1441 was followed, but TBA decided to go for the war anyway.

I'm not arguing this point at present.

I've stated in the past that I believe that Bush and the Pentagon believed that the intelligence reports gathered throught the years, way before Bush was in the White House, indicated that there was no time left for UN footdragging and niceties.

Quote[/b] ]And now that there is no WMD, and no AQ ties, they are stuck in a mud pit.

Yes they are. No arguments there.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]"And so, they wanted to have that evidence out there to help their case in the run-up to war. Selective leaking authorized at the highest level, that's -- I'm afraid that is business as usual in Washington. It's been practiced by Republicans and Democrats alike."

I.e. GOP is no better than Dems they berate. How nice.  

Perhaps next time a Dem president uses this tactic, those who defend TBA should rise up and do it too.

But I don't know what you mean by those that defend in the Libby case. Are you referring to the news services who have repeatedly clarified that Bush is not being accused of any illegal activity here and is within his administartive rights?

Again, another 2 way street. This is getting petty already.

[walker 0]

Hi all

And in reply to Avon.

The argument that Democrats agreed to the war after TBA had lied to them just does not wash.

The Yellowcake report was after all a lie which TBA was fully aware of. Saddam had made no agreement with Niger to get any Yellowcake. When George Bush Junior made that statement to congress TBA was fully cognisant of the fact that the document was false.

The incident is fully documented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_Forgery

Hiding the fact they had been caught in the act of perpetrating such a lie is the reason why George Bush Junior, Dodgy Dick Cheney and the rest of TBA left all considerations of national security behind and began declassifying National Intelligence Estimates willy nilly; just to try to muddy the waters. TBA had been caught lying to congress, yes even to the point of George Bush Junior using it in his state of the Union address. It is there on record inescapable facts.

It is in this light that someone in TBA threw all ethical, moral and National Security questions to the wind and released the name of the CIA's NOC agent in charge of Counter Proliferation. Lying about her role in setting up the investigation into the Niger Yellowcake forgeries in a petty attempt to smear her husband who was doing his duty to the American people by saying the document was a forgery and should not be the basis for a war.

An act that can only be described as a despicable crime.

It is this that you are trying to defend Avon.

When you still refuse to answer the very simple question; "How can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?"

Kind Regards Walker

[theavonlady 2]

The argument that Democrats agreed to the war after TBA had lied to them just does not wash.

I was very careful to quote you stating that it was TBA going after ""the wrong enemy" - your words. The quotes I brought were to show that all the bigwig Democrats from the top down had the same opinion of Hussein even through the beginning of 2003 but they differed with TBA on the immediate need to declare a war. Try not to change the subject.

Next:

Quote[/b] ]

The Yellowcake report was after all a lie which TBA was fully aware of. Saddam had made no agreement with Niger to get any Yellowcake. When George Bush Junior made that statement to congress TBA was fully cognisant of the fact that the document was false.

Here we go again. Round and round.

Bush's exact words were:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Where did Bush state that any agreement was signed and sealed?

Next:

Quote[/b] ]The incident is fully documented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_Forgery

That very same article clearly states:

In December, the State Department issued a fact sheet listing the alleged Niger yellowcake affair in a report entitled "Illustrative Examples of Omissions From the Iraqi Declaration to the United Nations Security Council". In his January 2003 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush repeated the allegation, citing British intelligence. The administration later conceded that evidence in support of the claim was inconclusive and stated "these 16 words should never have been included" in Bush's address to the nation, attributing the error to the CIA.

Where is the proof that - and again I quote you verbatim - "when George Bush Junior made that statement to congress TBA was fully cognisant of the fact that the document was false? Oh, I see. Patrick Buchanan said so, so it must be true.

Quote[/b] ]Hiding the fact they had been caught in the act of perpetrating such a lie

You've shown us no proof. You seem to dream of the stories you want to have happened and cherry-pick the facts that suit you.

Yellow journalism is alive and well.

Sadly,

Avon

p.s. Just found this. Have fun: Iraq Did Seek Niger's Uranium After All

[ralphwiggum 6]

ah, the good old divert the attention and dump the blame...

Quote[/b] ]First and foremost, they are "substantially correct".

They are correct in the sense that it was taken out of context. The sources from which the statements were taken all advocated containment, not invasion. However, whoever complied it decided to ignore the fact that the quotes were part of reason for "containment" not "invasion"

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]However, some of the quotes are truncated

Some - not all

And why would someone truncate the words? Because that person wanted to take it out of context and make it work for them.

Quote[/b] ]Now, read the entire Snopes page you linked to. The quotes appear in their full context. And what they are saying and showing is that numerous top brass democrats from Clinton down did NOT consider Saddam "the wrong enemy", using Walker's words.

I never argued that the democrats disagreed with Bush with committing to war. Look at the last Kerry quote I brought down and my comment about it.

But to say that it was the Republican's initiative to pursue Hussein as a major threat to the US and its allies is simply a lie.

TBA decided to put Iraq as part of War on Terror, claiming that Iraq had WMD ready to go, and is the next AQ. So while TCA was more interested in containment, TBA out right went for Hussein. If that's not the Republican initiative, then I have some uber secret alpha demo of ARMA to sell.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps when a Democrat president decides to do something, CONs should follow instead of complaining about it.

Indeed but that should be a 2 way street

But CONs go only one way and that's it. Funny thing is that when the congress voted to allow the OIF to go on, CONs thought it was sign that GOP was the one that was the right one taking initiative to drive out the evil WMD loving dictator(no, not Musharaf) out. But now that Iraq situation is not going well, the same people are turning around and saying "but...but... you agreeed to it too!"

Quote[/b] ]I've stated in the past that I believe that Bush and the Pentagon believed that the intelligence reports gathered throught the years, way before Bush was in the White House, indicated that there was no time left for UN footdragging and niceties.

You mean selectively taking the intels that they wanted, and not how it is? One of the informant was named screwball since he tended to be evasive on a lot of things.

Quote[/b] ]But I don't know what you mean by those that defend in the Libby case. Are you referring to the news services who have repeatedly clarified that Bush is not being accused of any illegal activity here and is within his administartive rights?

For those who are saying this is usual day in the politics and use it as reason to defend TBA, maybe next time when a Dem administration does something to discredit their opponent, maybe they should need to look back on this and not complain.

[Akira 0]

Damn. How long have I been gone?

And Avon is STILL using the same qoutes that have been debunked multiple times.

Was hopin' somethin' had changed...

[chipper 0]

i always get lost in quotes and quote of quotes whenever i visit these political threads.

[walker 0]

Hi all

TBA have been caught lying about National Security Intelligence again.

Quote[/b] ]Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War

Administration Pushed Notion of Banned Iraqi Weapons Despite Evidence to Contrary

By Joby Warrick

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, April 12, 2006; Page A01

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.

The authors of the reports were nine U.S. and British civilian experts -- scientists and engineers with extensive experience in all the technical fields involved in making bioweapons -- who were dispatched to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency for an analysis of the trailers. Their actions and findings were described to a Washington Post reporter in interviews with six government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had direct knowledge of it.

None would consent to being identified by name because of fear that their jobs would be jeopardized. Their accounts were verified by other current and former government officials knowledgeable about the mission. The contents of the final report, "Final Technical Engineering Exploitation Report on Iraqi Suspected Biological Weapons-Associated Trailers," remain classified. But interviews reveal that the technical team was unequivocal in its conclusion that the trailers were not intended to manufacture biological weapons. Those interviewed took care not to discuss the classified portions of their work...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....88.html

Follow link for the fully detailed report

The fact is NeoConMen of TBA have been playing fast and loose with National Security Intelligence since they got into power by taking over the republican party. These are the actions of any entriest group seeking to control the levers of power but the similarities of the NeoConMen to to the worst exesses of communism astonishing. We now have KGB style tapping of US citizens phones and emails. The US people, press congress, senate and judiciary get lied to at rate similar to soviet tractor reports. Generals who disent are forced out of their jobs. Who would have thought the US republican party could be come such a home to communism.

It is why I keep asking "How can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?"

Sadly Walker

[AliMag 0]

Hi,

I got there by accident. I never participate or even read threads on politic but beeing already there I looked at a few of the answers and it really stroke me that you came over and over again with (in my humble opinion) a really ludicrous question:

"How can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?"

I think the question should simply be:

"How can you trust a politician?"

If you dont trust the "NeoConMan republican" but trust the "NeoLibMan democrat" you are not showing much more wisdom than the others.

Saying that a politician is lying is like saying that a bird is flying. This is what they do for a living.

Now, back to more interesting things...

Cheers

[karantan 0]

Amen to that (to all of your poster), AliMag.