Dying Iraq veteran sends Cheney and Co. a letter....

[NoStateofMind]

Don't act like I said active duty counts more than anything else. Believe it or not it's possible for a veteran to be a bad president, and I think its insulting to insinuate that anyone with active duty experience suffers from the same deficiencies that McCain does. What I don't want to see is some asshole like Cheney (and his 5 student deferments, then a expectant father deferment when he ran out of those) talking down to experienced Pentagon brass like they don't have a clue about war. What I don't want to see is a spoiled frat boy who went AWOL sending others off to die because his dad's friends told him it was a great idea.


McCain has a temperament that I consider inappropriate for CiC, but at least he had the balls to go get shot at for his country. He's no chickenhawk.

Fair enough.

 

[LTC8K6]

No mention of Congress?

 

[LTC8K6]

The Congress needs to be involved in these decisions to go to war. They should not stand back.

 

[Anarchist420]

McCain has a temperament that I consider inappropriate for CiC, but at least he had the balls to go get shot at for his country

McCain didn't get shot at for his country, he got shot at for his country's govt.

Also, he wasn't supposed to get shot for his country anyway... he was supposed to make the other bastard get shot for his.

 

[Harvey]

Hey Harvey, ever get that Obama macro completed? I'm pretty sure all you had to do was switch out Bush for Obama and you'd be done

Hey, Dr. Strangelove,

Did you ever notice that everything I posted, then, was true and is exactly what this dying soldier is talking about?

Did you ever notice that the biggest tragedy of the lyrics of my song are that they're all true, and we're still being led around by jackass Republican retards ever willing to squander lives and money on stupid wars?

You were a lame loudmouth at the time, and you were dead ass wrong, then. Some things never change.

Go back to practicing medicine. At least, your idiotic opinions only kill one patient at a time. :thumbsdown:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Congress needs to be involved in these decisions to go to war. They should not stand back.

It was a Republican President. A Republican Congress backs him. Same with Democrats. Certainly there are exceptions, but the reality is we don't have real separation of powers but Democrats (and Republicans) who happen to be Presidents or congressmen. Party and ideology come first. Even so, Congress was complicit in,not the creator of the farce.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Hey, Dr. Strangelove,

Did you ever notice that everything I posted, then, was true and is exactly what this dying soldier is talking about?

Did you ever notice that the biggest tragedy of the lyrics of my song are that they're all true, and we're still being led around by jackass Republican retards ever willing to squander lives and money on stupid wars?

You were a lame loudmouth at the time, and you were dead ass wrong, then. Some things never change.

Go back to practicing medicine. At least, your idiotic opinions only kill one patient at a time. :thumbsdown:

Well what a revisionist history you have there. Should anyone (including yourself) actually read my posts back then I was in total agreement, not only with Bush and Dick but also your macros. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

But I honestly would like to see the same zeal for Obama as you had for Bush. I guess one can dream can't he?

Regardless, we are in agreement with this thread.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hey, Dr. Strangelove,

Did you ever notice that everything I posted, then, was true and is exactly what this dying soldier is talking about?

Did you ever notice that the biggest tragedy of the lyrics of my song are that they're all true, and we're still being led around by jackass Republican retards ever willing to squander lives and money on stupid wars?

You were a lame loudmouth at the time, and you were dead ass wrong, then. Some things never change.

Go back to practicing medicine. At least, your idiotic opinions only kill one patient at a time. :thumbsdown:

You know Harvey, I was never for the war and I'm not letting Cheney or his of the hook, but what happened to the supposed passion for justice? I hoped there would be that when Obama came to power and there was nothing. The only lesson being learned is by future administrations which will understand that virtually no act of war is off the table. They'll get away with it in the end. I do not find that acceptable

 

[lotus503]

Well what a revisionist history you have there. Should anyone (including yourself) actually read my posts back then I was in total agreement, not only with Bush and Dick but also your macros. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

But I honestly would like to see the same zeal for Obama as you had for Bush. I guess one can dream can't he?

Regardless, we are in agreement with this thread.

You bring up a good point why no zeal for the Obama admin.

I think I have some answers.

1. as a society we have a short attention span by the time Obama came to office the public had already reconciled two wars. so continuation of those wars didnt get the same fervor. So the public still see the wars as Bush's.

2. Drone strikes and program are run as secret as they can be hidden from the typical American view, Obama owns the drone program and he isn't being transparent about it.

3. Lastly its the team sport mentality that often as a sideshow rears itself here, I see liberals say stupid shit all the time and try whenever possible to point it out. Too often in society and reflected here people are willfully ignorant n the stupid stuff their side does. So democrats get a pass on doing horrendous stuff from democrats, Republicans the same.


Until we ditch the team partisan mentality this will continue and I think its why the team mentality is fostered and encouraged throughout society, media in general.

because as long as were bickering we aren't holding anyone really accountable collectively and they (Politicians and power structure) know this. From Spin to Spin from news cycle to news cycle its the same thing.


Take the banks no one prosecuted despite most democrats and republicans thinking someone should be, were too busy blaming each other for it.

 

[Harvey]

Well what a revisionist history you have there. Should anyone (including yourself) actually read my posts back then I was in total agreement, not only with Bush and Dick but also your macros. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

But I honestly would like to see the same zeal for Obama as you had for Bush. I guess one can dream can't he?

Regardless, we are in agreement with this thread.

I'll take you at your word that you were against the Bushwhackos' War of Lies. I may have mistaken you for one of the many wingnut warhawks who chided me, then, for my "macros." That said, it's no revision at all that what I was posting, then, is just as true, today. To make the point, here is one quoted from of my posts in 2008, and it links to previous posts of the same material:

The Bushwhackos have committed the gravest of criminal offenses against the American people, our Constitution and the world. They've been caught up to the top of their lying skulls about WMD's, domestic spying on American citizens, torture, screaming threats of WW III with Iran and obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence of crimes by the CIA.

Before anyone screams that I'm posting "macros," you bet I'm quoting from my previous posts. They take a long time to write and format, and they happen to be true so I'm not going to rewrite the same information from scratch. Here are five general areas of high crimes:

1. TREASON

2. MURDER

3. LYING TO CONGRESS

4. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

5. WAR CRIMES

---

1. TREASON

In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

Here's another definition:

trea·son

(tre'z?n)
n.

1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
   
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

If you don't consider offering only a continuous string of ever changing lies as justification for taking the nation into a war that has squandered thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars in current and future debt, or illegal, unconstitutional unwarranted spying against American citizens to be a betrayal of trust or confidence, please tell us what it is. :shocked:

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution provides that each president shall recite the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The Vice President also swears of affirms a similar oath. Since the day Bush and Cheney took office, they and their henchmen have waged an aggressive war against the rights guaranteed to all American citizens under the U.S. Constitution.

How is that not a violation of their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?

How is that not a violation of allegiance toward one's country or the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies?

Even if you don't believe that in so doing, they have committed treason, they have most definitely violated their oaths of office. :|

2. MURDER

Under Federal and most state statutes, one definition of murder is committing an act in callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others that, in fact, causes the death of another. One foreseeable consequence of war is death... in fact, many deaths. As of 6/8/08, your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal have murdered 4,094 American troops (and growing) and left tens of thousands more wounded, scarred and disabled for life in his war of LIES in Iraq.

All of the American casualties did not occur in one cataclysmic event. They happened over the years we since the Bushwhackos started their illegal war. If you question whether their actions constitute callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others, it begs the question of how many times, and over what period, can one consider excusing those ongoing, repeated acts that continue to raise the number of dead and wounded Americans on a daily basis. At what point does it shock the conscience sufficiently to cross the threshold from being 4,094 cases of mere negligent homicide, which is another criminal offense? :shocked:

3. LYING TO CONGRESS

In case you didn't know it, lying to Congress is a felony even if it is not done under oath. The following list of public lies are the same ones the Bushwhackos fed to Congress to convince them to authorize their war of LIES. It took just a few minutes to find lots of threads, including some like this one going back to 2004. The "macros" weren't as long, then, but either was the string of known lies. :shocked: (All times are Pacific time zone):

10/14/2007 01:34 PM

Originally posted by: Harvey

Remember, YOU asked for this, so don't give me shit about its length or the fact that I posted it previously.

• "Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
  Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
  
• "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
  
• "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
  
• "This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
  George W. Bush, 9/26/02
  
• "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
  George W. Bush, 10/2/02
  
• "There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
  George W. Bush, 10/2/02
  
• "There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
  George W. Bush, 10/7/02
  
• "The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
  George W. Bush, 10/16/02
  
• "There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
  George W. Bush, 10/28/02
  
• "I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
  George W. Bush, 11/1/02
  
• "I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
  
• "Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
  George W. Bush, 11/3/02
  
• "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
  George W. Bush, 11/23/02
  
• "The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
  George W. Bush, 1/3/03
  
• "Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
  
• "Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
  
• "Well, of course he is.?
  White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question ?is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home??, 1/26/03
  
• Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
  Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
  
• Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
  Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
  
• Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
  Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
  
• "This is about imminent threat."
  White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
  
• "The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
  George W. Bush, 3/16/03
  
• "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
  George W. Bush, 3/19/03
  
• "It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
  Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
  
• "The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
  
• "We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
  George W. Bush 4/24/03
  
• "Absolutely."
  White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
  
• "Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
  George W. Bush, 7/2/03
  
• Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
  White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
  
• "We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
  George W. Bush, 7/17/03
  
• "There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
  White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
  
• We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ?90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
  
• "Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
  George W. Bush, 1/28/2003 State of the Union Address
  
• "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
  George W. Bush, 1/28/2003 State of the Union Address
  
• "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
  Dick Cheney, 3/16/2003 on ?Meet the Press?
  
• We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ?93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ?93. And we?ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
  Dick Cheney, 9/14/2003 on "Meet The Press"

You can continue with info about more lies and deception as documented in the 9-11 Commission Report from 2004.

If that's not enough for you, we can move on to admin quotes about the mysteriously disappearing communications between the Whitehouse and Gonzo the Clown and his lackeys at the Department of Justice and their lies about a host of their other lies, failures and deceptions.

Want more? No problem, but remember, if you do, YOU asked for it. :shocked:

11/03/2007 05:59 PM (See later post in same thread with more detail on first half)

Originally posted by: Harvey

It took me only two minutes to find several of my posts with the following list of Bushwhacko lies and incompetence from one of my earlier posts. I warned you, and I apologize in advance for reposting it because it's very long, but since you insist...

• The "intelligence" fed to Congress and the American people was cherry picked and directed from the top.
  
• Rumsfeld set his own parallel "intelligence" operation within DOD when the CIA and FBI couldn't tell him what he wanted to hear.
  
• There was no yellow cake uranium in Niger.
  
• There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.
  
• There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
  
• There were no long range rockets.
  
• There were no WMD's.
  
• There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.

They ignored any information from competent internal sources that ran counter to their ambitions:

• They ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clarke, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clarke also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.
  
  The Bushwhackos didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  
• They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 400,000 troops to do the job.
  
  The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  
• Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed that the reports were false.
  
  The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.

Need more lies? Try these:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction
Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent?. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
George W. Bush, radio address, Feb. 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
George W. Bush, address to U.S., March 19, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly?..All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleisher, press briefing, March 21, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
George W. Bush, NBC interview, April 24, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need?.so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld, press briefing, April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 3, 2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein ? because he had a weapons program.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 6, 2003

We said what we said because we meant it?..We continue to have confidence that WMD will be found.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, but for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 31, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice, Reuters interview, May 12, 2003

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld, Fox News interview, May 4, 2003

I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons [SEE NEXT QUOTE].
Donald Rumsfeld, Senate appropriations subcommittee on defense hearing, May 14, 2003

We believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Dick Cheney, NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld, remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003

"I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.? Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat." [SEE NEXT QUOTES].
Scott McClellan, press briefing, Jan. 31, 2004

This is about an imminent threat.
Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003

After being asked whether Hussein was an "imminent" threat: "Well, of course he is."
Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

After being asked whether the U.S. went to war because officials said Hussein?s alleged weapons were a direct, imminent threat to the U.S.: "Absolutely."
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

11/07/2007 01:23 PM (Links and details for the first half of the previous post):

Originally posted by: Harvey

Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed them that the reports were false, and that several European intelligence agencies had thoroughly discredited the source for the reports.

The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.

• There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges to process nuclear material.

Evidence on Iraq Challenged
Experts Question if Tubes Were Meant for Weapons Program

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 19, 2002

A key piece of evidence in the Bush administration's case against Iraq is being challenged in a report by independent experts who question whether thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes recently sought by Iraq were intended for a secret nuclear weapons program.

The White House last week said attempts by Iraq to acquire the tubes point to a clandestine program to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. But the experts say in a new report that the evidence is ambiguous, and in some ways contradicts what is known about Iraq's past nuclear efforts.

The report, from the Institute for Science and International Security, also contends that the Bush administration is trying to quiet dissent among its own analysts over how to interpret the evidence. The report, a draft of which was obtained by The Washington Post, was authored by David Albright, a physicist who investigated Iraq's nuclear weapons program following the 1991 Persian Gulf War as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection team. The institute, headquartered in Washington, is an independent group that studies nuclear and other security issues.

"By themselves, these attempted procurements are not evidence that Iraq is in possession of, or close to possessing, nuclear weapons," the report said. "They do not provide evidence that Iraq has an operating centrifuge plant or when such a plant could be operational."

The controversy stems from shipments to Iraq of specialized aluminum metal that were seized en route by governments allied with the United States. A U.S. intelligence official confirmed that at least two such shipments were seized within the past 14 months, although he declined to give details. The Associated Press, citing sources familiar with the shipments, reported that one originated in China and was intercepted in Jordan.

The shipments sparked concern among U.S. intelligence analysts because of the potential use of such tubes in centrifuges, fast-spinning machines used in making enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. High-strength, heat-resistant metals are needed for centrifuge casings as well as for the rotors, which turn at up to 1,000 rotations per minute.

There is no evidence that any of the tubes reached Iraq. But in its white paper on Iraq released to the United Nations last week, the Bush administration cited the seized shipments as evidence that Iraq is actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said in a televised interview that the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."

Since then, U.S. officials have acknowledged differing opinions within the U.S. intelligence community about possible uses for the tubes -- with some experts contending that a more plausible explanation was that the aluminum was meant to build launch tubes for Iraq's artillery rockets.

"But the majority view, held by senior officials here, is that they were most likely intended for gas centrifuges," one U.S. intelligence official said in an interview.

The new report questions that conclusion on several grounds, most of them technical. It says the seized tubes were made of a kind of aluminum that is ill-suited for welding. Other specifications of the imported metal are at odds with what is known about Iraq's previous attempts to build centrifuges. In fact, the report said, Iraq had largely abandoned aluminum for other materials, such as specialized steel and carbon fiber, in its centrifuges at the time its nuclear program was destroyed by allied bombers in the Gulf War.

According to Albright, government experts on nuclear technology who dissented from the Bush administration's view told him they were expected to remain silent. Several Energy Department officials familiar with the aluminum shipments declined to comment.

Note the date -- September 19, 2002, BEFORE they launched their war of LIES.

• There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons
  
• There were no long range rockets.
  
• There were no WMD's.
  
• There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Even Colin Powell has since said he strongly questioned the "evidence" the Bushwhackos were pimping to Congress and the American people before he gave his infamous dog and pony show at the U.N.

Powell: Some Iraq testimony not 'solid'

Saturday, April 3, 2004 Posted: 11:05 AM EST (1605 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said his pre-war testimony to the U.N. Security Council about Iraq's alleged mobile, biological weapons labs was based on information that appears not to be "solid."

Powell's speech before the Security Council on February, 5, 2003 --detailing possible weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- was a major event in the Bush administration's effort to justify a war and win international support.

Powell said Friday his testimony about Iraq and mobile biological weapons labs was based on the best intelligence available, but "now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid," Powell said.
.
.
. (continues

You can pick and choose from the examples in the article, but remember George Tenet's "slam dunk?" Remember the infamously unreliable testimony from "Curveball? :roll:

Powell also told columnist, Robert Scheer that he and his department?s top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim.

Robert Scheer: Now Powell Tells Us
.
.
On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told me that he and his department?s top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim. Now he tells us.
.
.
I queried Powell at a reception following a talk he gave in Los Angeles on Monday. Pointing out that the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate showed that his State Department had gotten it right on the nonexistent Iraq nuclear threat, I asked why did the president ignore that wisdom in his stated case for the invasion?

?The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote,? Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush?s State of the Union speech? ?That was a big mistake,? he said. ?It should never have been in the speech. I didn?t need Wilson to tell me that there wasn?t a Niger connection. He didn?t tell us anything we didn?t already know. I never believed it.?

When I pressed further as to why the president played up the Iraq nuclear threat, Powell said it wasn?t the president: ?That was all Cheney.?
.
.
. (continues)

4. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

The Bushwhackos have continually withheld evidence from Congress regarding Whitehouse involvement with anything and everything from Alberto Gonzales' communications to their involvement with outing covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame, to their direct involvement with the CIA's use of torture and the subsequent destruction of the tapes showing them in the act of committing that torture.[/list]

5. WAR CRIMES

George W. Bush, Dickwad Cheney, Alberto Gonzales and others authorized and encouraged American intelligence agencies to commit gross violations of human rights, including TORTURE, in violation of international laws and obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which Berto the Clown Gonzales derided as "quaint."

---

At this point, with all the evidence against them that is public information, anyone who continues to deny the Bushwhackos' crimes is either in complete self denial or one of the lying murderers and traitors. :|

Care to tell me which part of the above is wrong?

I'm not happy with everything Obama has done, but I fault him most for not prosecuting the Bushwhackos for their heinous crimes. If you think Obama is as bad as Bush and company, I think you have no sense of proportion and even less of justice. However, you still have the right to express your opinions. If you want any credibility, it would help if you can substantiate them.

 

[lotus503]

I'll take you at your word that you were against the Bushwhackos' War of Lies. I may have mistaken you for one of the many wingnut warhawks who chided me, then, for my "macros." That sais, it's no revision at all that what I was posting, then, is just as true, today. To make the point, here is one quoted from of my posts in 2008:



I'm not happy with everything Obama has done, but I fault him most for not prosecuting the Bushwhackos for their heinous crimes. If you think Obama is as bad as Bush and company, I think you have no sense of proportion and even less of justice. However, you still have the right to express your opinions. If you want any credibility, it would help if you can substantiate them.

As for your last part is Obama as bad as Bush, I would ask what has he really done differently from a matter of policy?

Sure he talks a different game but does he legislate one? I would say not really, a lot of the same crap that went on during Bush's term goes on now.

 

[chucky2]

There's nothing but a poor view to have. Note that those on the Left here don't claim me as one of their own. The history of the war demonstrates that it was one of the moments of shame. One might disagree with the specifics of his claims, but not the results. From aluminum tubes to "mobile chemical factories" abuse of the intelligence community, yellowcake claims and more, the chain of justifications based on the obviously false means incompetent beyond belief or planned deception which stole resources and momentum from our legitimate mission in Afghanistan.

The facts aren't Left or Right. They are damning.

WMDs were but only one of the reasons we went into Iraq, and really the reason we went into Iraq was one never explained to the American Sheeple...too complex for them, plus it interrupts American Idol. What's damning and nothing but a poor view is how the war in Iraq was managed, but that too, predictable and with a reason(s). This is why it is so sad this guy is so mind F'd.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

drivel snipped

Macro you are back!!!!!

Once O'Bummer The Messiah was elected, poof!, your non-partisan posts just disappeared, it was like, Where did that non-out of context non-ignore big picture non-partisan poster go? Then, when Bummer became Bush 2, we waited and waited and waited for like another splenderific song self-pimped, but, none came!

Let me guess, the new hit is: They're still watching over you over you? Or maybe, Messiah's the same what'll we do what'll we do? The options are endless...

Chuck

P.S. Almost forgot, here's all the emoticons, can't have a Macro post without'em! :whiste::$:biggrin::ninja::awe::hmm::twisted: :thumbsup:

 

[NoStateofMind]

You bring up a good point why no zeal for the Obama admin.

I think I have some answers.

1. as a society we have a short attention span by the time Obama came to office the public had already reconciled two wars. so continuation of those wars didnt get the same fervor. So the public still see the wars as Bush's.

2. Drone strikes and program are run as secret as they can be hidden from the typical American view, Obama owns the drone program and he isn't being transparent about it.

3. Lastly its the team sport mentality that often as a sideshow rears itself here, I see liberals say stupid shit all the time and try whenever possible to point it out. Too often in society and reflected here people are willfully ignorant n the stupid stuff their side does. So democrats get a pass on doing horrendous stuff from democrats, Republicans the same.


Until we ditch the team partisan mentality this will continue and I think its why the team mentality is fostered and encouraged throughout society, media in general.

because as long as were bickering we aren't holding anyone really accountable collectively and they (Politicians and power structure) know this. From Spin to Spin from news cycle to news cycle its the same thing.


Take the banks no one prosecuted despite most democrats and republicans thinking someone should be, were too busy blaming each other for it.

We agree. Divide and conquer.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I'll take you at your word that you were against the Bushwhackos' War of Lies. I may have mistaken you for one of the many wingnut warhawks who chided me, then, for my "macros." That said, it's no revision at all that what I was posting, then, is just as true, today. To make the point, here is one quoted from of my posts in 2008, and it links to previous posts of the same material:



Care to tell me which part of the above is wrong?

I'm not happy with everything Obama has done, but I fault him most for not prosecuting the Bushwhackos for their heinous crimes. If you think Obama is as bad as Bush and company, I think you have no sense of proportion and even less of justice. However, you still have the right to express your opinions. If you want any credibility, it would help if you can substantiate them.

As for your last part is Obama as bad as Bush, I would ask what has he really done differently from a matter of policy?

Sure he talks a different game but does he legislate one? I would say not really, a lot of the same crap that went on during Bush's term goes on now.

This.

By the same measure we judged Bush so should the same be held for Obama. Neither have been human or liberty rights defenders. Bush couldn't articulate a strong argument, he's the guy you could have a beer with. Obama can speak very well which IMO helps provide cover for the continued policies, but he's the one you can smoke a joint with. They portray likable people who smile in your face and would be your friend but all the while have an ulterior motive. I understand there will be some who cannot or will not see this but the faster we become aware the better we can fight against it.