It's time for you libs to apologize for calling Pres Bush a liar

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
Your position is so weak, CkG, it's completely laughable!!

Do you honestly think the Senate had the knowledge of all of the intelligence data that the administration had? Do you not remember that the Senators didn't receive the final intelligence report until a few days before the vote?

Do you honestly think the Senators saw the unvetted intelligence data that Wolfowitz/Feith were using in their DIA?

No, no it's not.
It doesn't matter if you try to claim they didn't see all the intel. They are supposed to have over-sight of the intel process - you know...separation of powers and all that so there isn't agenda driven intel Seems to me the ones who are at fault here is not only the CIA for not getting and putting together better intel - but the "intelligence" committee who has oversight. They should have demanded better proof before Bush was ever in office over this whole Saddam/Iraq business. According to your ever so wonderful Blix(or was it Ritter) - supposedly the WMDs weren't there after 1994. So what's the excuse for Clinton's little adventure? Why didn't they follow up to see if they "got it all"? Where was the intel oversight in the last decade or two that was actually making sure the CIA was getting it right?
Yes, the CIA and others intel agencies across the globe got some things wrong - but where was the oversight by those who's job it is to oversee the intel agencies? Hmm....

I don't care what you are try to claim by asking what you are. I really don't care if it's vetted or unvetted - the "intelligence" committee has oversight over the CIA - correct? Why only now are they demanding better intelligence and "proof"? Why weren't these people, who are making these reports blasting the CIA, doing their job and making sure the CIA was giving the President the the rest of Congress the best intel possible? The answer is - they weren't doing their job. They have over-sight - it's their responsibility....separation of powers and all

CkG

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: GrGr
brxndxn,

Do you want to have a serious discussion on the topic of Bush's lies.

Then start with defending these statements by Bush and his regime:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 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
September 12, 2002


If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002


We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 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.

George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003


We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 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
February 8, 2003


If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.

Colin Powell
Interview with Radio France International
February 28, 2003


So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003


Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 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


There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003


I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003


One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 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


Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 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


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'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


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


I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003


Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003


Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 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


For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

It was a surprise to me then ? it remains a surprise to me now ? that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003

Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there."

Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency
Press Conference


link

Contrast that with this video of Powell and Rice telling the truth

Moreover: The Bush regime has used at least 27 rationales for the Iraqi war - link

The Bush regime has used 237 misleading statements on Iraq - Iraq on the record

OWNED

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: GrGr
brxndxn,

Do you want to have a serious discussion on the topic of Bush's lies.

Then start with defending these statements by Bush and his regime:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 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
September 12, 2002


If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002


We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 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.

George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003


We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 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
February 8, 2003


If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.

Colin Powell
Interview with Radio France International
February 28, 2003


So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003


Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 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


There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003


I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003


One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 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


Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 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


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'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


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


I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003


Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003


Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 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


For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

It was a surprise to me then ? it remains a surprise to me now ? that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003

Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there."

Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency
Press Conference


link

Contrast that with this video of Powell and Rice telling the truth

Moreover: The Bush regime has used at least 27 rationales for the Iraqi war - link

The Bush regime has used 237 misleading statements on Iraq - Iraq on the record

Troll

Conjur might agree.

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Your position is so weak, CkG, it's completely laughable!!

Do you honestly think the Senate had the knowledge of all of the intelligence data that the administration had? Do you not remember that the Senators didn't receive the final intelligence report until a few days before the vote?

Do you honestly think the Senators saw the unvetted intelligence data that Wolfowitz/Feith were using in their DIA?

No, no it's not.
It doesn't matter if you try to claim they didn't see all the intel. They are supposed to have over-sight of the intel process - you know...separation of powers and all that so there isn't agenda driven intel Seems to me the ones who are at fault here is not only the CIA for not getting and putting together better intel - but the "intelligence" committee who has oversight. They should have demanded better proof before Bush was ever in office over this whole Saddam/Iraq business. According to your ever so wonderful Blix(or was it Ritter) - supposedly the WMDs weren't there after 1994. So what's the excuse for Clinton's little adventure? Why didn't they follow up to see if they "got it all"? Where was the intel oversight in the last decade or two that was actually making sure the CIA was getting it right?
Yes, the CIA and others intel agencies across the globe got some things wrong - but where was the oversight by those who's job it is to oversee the intel agencies? Hmm....

I don't care what you are try to claim by asking what you are. I really don't care if it's vetted or unvetted - the "intelligence" committee has oversight over the CIA - correct? Why only now are they demanding better intelligence and "proof"? Why weren't these people, who are making these reports blasting the CIA, doing their job and making sure the CIA was giving the President the the rest of Congress the best intel possible? The answer is - they weren't doing their job. They have over-sight - it's their responsibility....separation of powers and all

CkG

Do they get to see uncensored Intel?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Do they get to see uncensored Intel?

Does the intelligence oversight committees not over-see the CIA?

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski
Do they get to see uncensored Intel?

Does the intelligence oversight committees not over-see the CIA?

CkG

That doesn't answer the question. Do they have access to Uncensored Intel direct from the CIA without a Middleman? Yes/No will suffice

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski
Do they get to see uncensored Intel?

Does the intelligence oversight committees not over-see the CIA?

CkG

That doesn't answer the question. Do they have access to Uncensored Intel direct from the CIA without a Middleman? Yes/No will suffice

Your's is moot since I'm taking about who over-sees the intel community...or I should say - should have been over-seeing our intel community...I mean - who's job it is to oversee our intel community.

You asked a question in response to my post where I asked about over-sight. Now please answer(or go do some research to find out) and that might help you understand why your question is moot regarding those on the oversight committees.

CkG

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: alchemize
GrGr: You forgot these quotes:

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It?s about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability ? a capability that could be less than a year away.

I believe that Saddam Hussein?s Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

We must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, and eliminate Iraq?s weapons of mass destruction once and for all.

Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations? credibility.

Meh.

"The administration at all levels, and to some extent us, used bad information to bolster its case for war. And we in Congress would not have authorised that war ... if we knew what we know now," he said at a press conference following the report's publication. "Tragically, the intelligence failures set forth in this report will affect our national security for generations to come. Our credibility is diminished. Our standing in the world has never been lower. We have fostered a deep hatred of Americans in the Muslim world, and that will grow. As a direct consequence, our nation is more vulnerable today than ever before."

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Troll

Conjur might agree.

CkG

How very childish of you. :roll:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Your position is so weak, CkG, it's completely laughable!!

Do you honestly think the Senate had the knowledge of all of the intelligence data that the administration had? Do you not remember that the Senators didn't receive the final intelligence report until a few days before the vote?

Do you honestly think the Senators saw the unvetted intelligence data that Wolfowitz/Feith were using in their DIA?

No, no it's not.
It doesn't matter if you try to claim they didn't see all the intel. They are supposed to have over-sight of the intel process - you know...separation of powers and all that so there isn't agenda driven intel Seems to me the ones who are at fault here is not only the CIA for not getting and putting together better intel - but the "intelligence" committee who has oversight. They should have demanded better proof before Bush was ever in office over this whole Saddam/Iraq business. According to your ever so wonderful Blix(or was it Ritter) - supposedly the WMDs weren't there after 1994. So what's the excuse for Clinton's little adventure? Why didn't they follow up to see if they "got it all"? Where was the intel oversight in the last decade or two that was actually making sure the CIA was getting it right?
Yes, the CIA and others intel agencies across the globe got some things wrong - but where was the oversight by those who's job it is to oversee the intel agencies? Hmm....

I don't care what you are try to claim by asking what you are. I really don't care if it's vetted or unvetted - the "intelligence" committee has oversight over the CIA - correct? Why only now are they demanding better intelligence and "proof"? Why weren't these people, who are making these reports blasting the CIA, doing their job and making sure the CIA was giving the President the the rest of Congress the best intel possible? The answer is - they weren't doing their job. They have over-sight - it's their responsibility....separation of powers and all

CkG

The Senate does not oversee the intelligence provided by the administration.

The Senate Intelligence Committee does.

Also, and this is the key aspect that most Bush fans blatantly ignore, the vote to authorize the President to use force was only to use force as a last resort: after diplomacy, sanctions, and inspections failed.

Did the President exhause diplomatic means? No.

Did the President seek to alter economic sanctions as recommended by Colin Powell? No.

Did the President allow inspectors to properly do their job? No.


Now we see the Senate Intelligence Committee doing its investigatory work and what they've found so far is damning. There's still the second phase yet to come: the investigation into the administration's use or misuse of the data.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Your position is so weak, CkG, it's completely laughable!!

Do you honestly think the Senate had the knowledge of all of the intelligence data that the administration had? Do you not remember that the Senators didn't receive the final intelligence report until a few days before the vote?

Do you honestly think the Senators saw the unvetted intelligence data that Wolfowitz/Feith were using in their DIA?

No, no it's not.
It doesn't matter if you try to claim they didn't see all the intel. They are supposed to have over-sight of the intel process - you know...separation of powers and all that so there isn't agenda driven intel Seems to me the ones who are at fault here is not only the CIA for not getting and putting together better intel - but the "intelligence" committee who has oversight. They should have demanded better proof before Bush was ever in office over this whole Saddam/Iraq business. According to your ever so wonderful Blix(or was it Ritter) - supposedly the WMDs weren't there after 1994. So what's the excuse for Clinton's little adventure? Why didn't they follow up to see if they "got it all"? Where was the intel oversight in the last decade or two that was actually making sure the CIA was getting it right?
Yes, the CIA and others intel agencies across the globe got some things wrong - but where was the oversight by those who's job it is to oversee the intel agencies? Hmm....

I don't care what you are try to claim by asking what you are. I really don't care if it's vetted or unvetted - the "intelligence" committee has oversight over the CIA - correct? Why only now are they demanding better intelligence and "proof"? Why weren't these people, who are making these reports blasting the CIA, doing their job and making sure the CIA was giving the President the the rest of Congress the best intel possible? The answer is - they weren't doing their job. They have over-sight - it's their responsibility....separation of powers and all

CkG

The Senate does not oversee the intelligence provided by the administration.

I never stated it did.

The Senate Intelligence Committee does.

That is what I asked. "Does the intelligence oversight committees not over-see the CIA?"

Also, and this is the key aspect that most Bush fans blatantly ignore, the vote to authorize the President to use force was only to use force as a last resort: after diplomacy, sanctions, and inspections failed.

Did the President exhause diplomatic means? No.

IMO - yes - Saddam had not fulfilled his end of the agreement. "Diplomacy" only goes so far and in this case it would not have solved the situation. Do you really think Saddam would have given in and actually followed through? Are you really that naive?

Did the President seek to alter economic sanctions as recommended by Colin Powell? No.

your point? Do you really think more economic sanctions would have changed things? Are you purposely ignoring the oil-for-fools program?

Did the President allow inspectors to properly do their job? No.

Did Saddam allow the inspectors to properly do their job? NO. The easteregg hunters weren't there to find WMD - they were supposed to be there to document, inspect, and destroy the weapons - not go find them. Ofcourse people don't really understand the "inspectors" job due to their willing ignorance or purposeful mischaracterization of what they were there to do.

Now we see the Senate Intelligence Committee doing its investigatory work and what they've found so far is damning. There's still the second phase yet to come: the investigation into the administration's use or misuse of the data.

Maybe the Intelligence Committee should have kept closer tabs on the CIA - no? Isn't that their JOB? It will definitely prove to be a useful "investigation" but due to their gross incompetence at "over sight" the CIA didn't provide accurate data. Now yes - it's the CIA's fault for the intelligence failures, but the oversight committee should constantly be keeping tabs on the intel agencies to make sure they are providing the best intel available. They failed in their oversight duties.

Oh, and one more thing. If you were provided the data the CIA provided - would you have acted? Would you have seen a threat? Or would you have passed it off? Now be honest and try to leave hindsight out of the equation. No one in their right mind would have just ignored the data provided. Remember - you are part of the crowd bleating about not connecting the dots before 9/11 yet here you sit whining about connecting too many dots and acting. Seems a bit disingenuous if you ask me.

BTW- yes your actions regarding the "troll" situation were childish.

CkG

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Well if Bush and co. weren't entirely sure and were acting on their best instincts then wouldn't it have been better to let the UN inspectors finish their jobs. They would have concluded there was no WMD's, we would not have had to go to war, and none of this nonsense would have happened. Bush might even have had a chance at reelection. This entire war, from start to finish has been wraught with mistakes. The prisoner abuse scandal, the poor planning which led to a lack of troops, the hotbed of terrorism that now exists in Iraq, the list goes on and on. CAD, it's time for you and the rest of the Rep. to finally accept the fact that the Bush administration could have played this situation out much better. My god, your partisan loyalty won't let you budge one inch, even when we have all the evidence against you.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Your position is so weak, CkG, it's completely laughable!!

Do you honestly think the Senate had the knowledge of all of the intelligence data that the administration had? Do you not remember that the Senators didn't receive the final intelligence report until a few days before the vote?

Do you honestly think the Senators saw the unvetted intelligence data that Wolfowitz/Feith were using in their DIA?

No, no it's not.
It doesn't matter if you try to claim they didn't see all the intel. They are supposed to have over-sight of the intel process - you know...separation of powers and all that so there isn't agenda driven intel Seems to me the ones who are at fault here is not only the CIA for not getting and putting together better intel - but the "intelligence" committee who has oversight. They should have demanded better proof before Bush was ever in office over this whole Saddam/Iraq business. According to your ever so wonderful Blix(or was it Ritter) - supposedly the WMDs weren't there after 1994. So what's the excuse for Clinton's little adventure? Why didn't they follow up to see if they "got it all"? Where was the intel oversight in the last decade or two that was actually making sure the CIA was getting it right?
Yes, the CIA and others intel agencies across the globe got some things wrong - but where was the oversight by those who's job it is to oversee the intel agencies? Hmm....

I don't care what you are try to claim by asking what you are. I really don't care if it's vetted or unvetted - the "intelligence" committee has oversight over the CIA - correct? Why only now are they demanding better intelligence and "proof"? Why weren't these people, who are making these reports blasting the CIA, doing their job and making sure the CIA was giving the President the the rest of Congress the best intel possible? The answer is - they weren't doing their job. They have over-sight - it's their responsibility....separation of powers and all

CkG

The Senate does not oversee the intelligence provided by the administration.

I never stated it did.

Uh, yes you did. See the part above that I bolded? You were replying to my post where I mention the Senate and the Senators (meaning all Senators in the Senate.) I know you're going to try and backpedal and say you were talking about the intelligence committee but you weren't talking about the intelligence committee there. You will also try and say you are not backpedaling.

The Senate Intelligence Committee does.

That is what I asked. "Does the intelligence oversight committees not over-see the CIA?"

Only when it's thought that the CIA has erred or when complaints have been filed:

Rule 6. Investigations
No investigation shall be initiated by the Committee unless at least five members of the Committee have specifically requested the Chairman or the Vice Chairman to authorize such an investigation. Authorized investigations may be conducted by members of the Committee and/or designated Committee staff members.

Rule 7. Subpoenas
Subpoenas authorized by the Committee for the attendance of witnesses or the production of memoranda, documents, records or any other material may be issued by the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, or any member of the Committee designated by the Chairman, and may be served by any person designated by the Chairman, Vice Chairman or member issuing the subpoenas. Each subpoena shall have attached thereto a copy of S. Res. 400, 94th Congress, 2nd Session and a copy of these Rules.

Also, and this is the key aspect that most Bush fans blatantly ignore, the vote to authorize the President to use force was only to use force as a last resort: after diplomacy, sanctions, and inspections failed.

Did the President exhause diplomatic means? No.

IMO - yes - Saddam had not fulfilled his end of the agreement. "Diplomacy" only goes so far and in this case it would not have solved the situation. Do you really think Saddam would have given in and actually followed through? Are you really that naive?

Are you really that narrow-minded? How much diplomacy was Bush using with the Arab nations, the Arab League, etc. How much diplomacy did Bush use in making an effort to revisit the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (a great source of Saddam's hatred of the U.S. - our support, mostly military, of Israel)? NONE.

Did the President seek to alter economic sanctions as recommended by Colin Powell? No.

your point? Do you really think more economic sanctions would have changed things? Are you purposely ignoring the oil-for-fools program?

My point is did the President seek to alter the economic sanctions that had been levied against Iraq.

Speaking at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Powell said the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein "must have the U.N. inspectors go back into the country if he wants to get out of sanctions, if he wants to regain control of the oil-for-food escrow accounts."

Although it is still formulating a policy for Iraq, the Bush administration is moving to support removing curbs on trade with Iraq on consumer goods while maintaining curbs on assistance to Saddam's weapons program and on the flow of oil.

Powell denied that modifying the sanctions to ease their impact on civilians represented a retreat by the Bush administration. He said: "What we are trying to do is to see how we could stabilize the collapsing situation."

"This wasn't an effort to ease the sanctions; this was an effort to rescue the sanctions policy that was collapsing," Powell said.

How much effort did Bush exert to follow through on that? NONE.

Did the President allow inspectors to properly do their job? No.

Did Saddam allow the inspectors to properly do their job? NO. The easteregg hunters weren't there to find WMD - they were supposed to be there to document, inspect, and destroy the weapons - not go find them. Ofcourse people don't really understand the "inspectors" job due to their willing ignorance or purposeful mischaracterization of what they were there to do.

The inspectors had unprecedented access to any site they requested to visit:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm
Cooperation on process

It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.

Some incidents were noted by Blix but they did not interfere with their ability to finish reviewing locations.

Now we see the Senate Intelligence Committee doing its investigatory work and what they've found so far is damning. There's still the second phase yet to come: the investigation into the administration's use or misuse of the data.

Maybe the Intelligence Committee should have kept closer tabs on the CIA - no? Isn't that their JOB? It will definitely prove to be a useful "investigation" but due to their gross incompetence at "over sight" the CIA didn't provide accurate data. Now yes - it's the CIA's fault for the intelligence failures, but the oversight committee should constantly be keeping tabs on the intel agencies to make sure they are providing the best intel available. They failed in their oversight duties.

See my earlier response.

Oh, and one more thing. If you were provided the data the CIA provided - would you have acted? Would you have seen a threat? Or would you have passed it off? Now be honest and try to leave hindsight out of the equation. No one in their right mind would have just ignored the data provided. Remember - you are part of the crowd bleating about not connecting the dots before 9/11 yet here you sit whining about connecting too many dots and acting. Seems a bit disingenuous if you ask me.

Given the data the CIA provided? No.

Given the data provided by the DIA? Probably. And that's what was used as the basis for the justification. Remember, the CIA had broken off relations with the INC in 1996 and knew they were not a credible organization. That didn't stop Feith, though, did it?

BTW- yes your actions regarding the "troll" situation were childish.

CkG

No, *you* were the one that edited jpeyton's response from "OWNED" to "troll". It is that display of your childish behavior to which I was referring.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Well if Bush and co. weren't entirely sure and were acting on their best instincts then wouldn't it have been better to let the UN inspectors finish their jobs. They would have concluded there was no WMD's, we would not have had to go to war, and none of this nonsense would have happened. Bush might even have had a chance at reelection. This entire war, from start to finish has been wraught with mistakes. The prisoner abuse scandal, the poor planning which led to a lack of troops, the hotbed of terrorism that now exists in Iraq, the list goes on and on. CAD, it's time for you and the rest of the Rep. to finally accept the fact that the Bush administration could have played this situation out much better. My god, your partisan loyalty won't let you budge one inch, even when we have all the evidence against you.

I never said it couldn't have been done better, but it's nice you ASSumed as much. I think it should have been handled in an entirely different fashion, but I have no problem with the outcome his path has led us to.
Your assessment of the war is juvenile at best but mostly just naive parroting of the anti-Bush left's chantings.

CkG

 

[conjur]

And that fashion would be???

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
And that fashion would be???

I've repeatedly told of how I would have handled Saddam, or how I would have like to have seen the whole Iraq situation transpire. Suffice it to say that Saddam would have been gone long ago. He had his chance(s) - he failed to follow through and we(and the world) basically appeased him for far too long.

CkG

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I've repeatedly told of how I would have handled Saddam, or how I would have like to have seen the whole Iraq situation transpire. Suffice it to say that Saddam would have been gone long ago. He had his chance(s) - he failed to follow through and we(and the world) basically appeased him for far too long.

CkG

The good news is, you weren't in charge at the time, and you aren't, now.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I've repeatedly told of how I would have handled Saddam, or how I would have like to have seen the whole Iraq situation transpire. Suffice it to say that Saddam would have been gone long ago. He had his chance(s) - he failed to follow through and we(and the world) basically appeased him for far too long.

CkG

The good news is, you weren't in charge at the time, and you aren't, now.

I stand it awe of Harvey's elite grasp of the obvious. Maybe next he'll tell us that the rest of you weren't/aren't in charge too.:roll:

CkG

 

[happyhelper]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Reporter:

?Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th??

Bush:

?I can't make that claim.?

Blair:

"That answers your question.?

Oh, and just FYI - that was in JANUARY OF 2003 for all you FUD spreaders who keep trying to claim Bush claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

CkG

You know what this administration was up to in the months leading up to the war.

The constant obfuscation...blurring the lines between Iraq/Saddam and Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks.

Why do you think about 3/4 of the American public believed Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks?? Who would have given them that idea?

Hmmm....I wonder....

BTW, 62% of Americans still believe this particular lie which Bush et al promulgated - that Saddam was connected to al-qaeda. That hasn't changed much since the beginning of the Iraq war when it was 68%.

25a. Before the war, do you think Iraq did or did not provide direct support to the Al Qaeda terrorist group? IF YES: (Is that your suspicion only), or (do you think there's been solid evidence of that)?

-----------Provided Support------------ Iraq did not No
NET Suspicion only Solid evidence provide support op.
6/20/04 62 38 23 33 6




Compare to: Do you think Iraq has or has not provided direct support to the Al Qaeda terrorist group?

Provided Not provided No
support support opinion
1/28/03 68 17 15


25b. Do you think the Bush administration (intentionally misled the American public) about possible links between Iraq and the Al Qaeda (Al KY-da) terrorist group, or do you think the administration (told the American public what it believed to be true) about this?

Intentionally misled Told the American public No
the American public what it believed to be true opinion
6/20/04 48 50 2

Link (see #25a)

Looking at 25a, and then 25b, it is ironic that 62% of the people believe that Iraq directly supported al-qaeda, and at the same time 48% of the people believe that Bush intentionally misled us about Iraq/al-qaeda connections! It's also ironic that the questions asks "do you think the administration told the American public what it believed to be true?" since 95%+ of their statements present their "beliefs" as facts of reality (i.e., "this is something we know to be true, factual, indisputable") instead of being qualified as "this is what we believe."

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Well if Bush and co. weren't entirely sure and were acting on their best instincts then wouldn't it have been better to let the UN inspectors finish their jobs. They would have concluded there was no WMD's, we would not have had to go to war, and none of this nonsense would have happened. Bush might even have had a chance at reelection. This entire war, from start to finish has been wraught with mistakes. The prisoner abuse scandal, the poor planning which led to a lack of troops, the hotbed of terrorism that now exists in Iraq, the list goes on and on. CAD, it's time for you and the rest of the Rep. to finally accept the fact that the Bush administration could have played this situation out much better. My god, your partisan loyalty won't let you budge one inch, even when we have all the evidence against you.

I never said it couldn't have been done better, but it's nice you ASSumed as much. I think it should have been handled in an entirely different fashion, but I have no problem with the outcome his path has led us to.
Your assessment of the war is juvenile at best but mostly just naive parroting of the anti-Bush left's chantings.

CkG

Explain to me how my assessment is juvenile? I'm raising valid points and questions, and if they are so juvenile it shouldn't be too hard for you to answer them. Or is that beneath you to answer them, oh mighty one?

:roll:

 

[happyhelper]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Doesn't matter SA - to claim that Bush lied would also mean that people who said the above lied too - especially since they had "intelligence" oversight and voted FOR the war. People like the person who's quotes I've displayed here aren't and weren't Bush lovers. This person isn't just a Bush parrot who believes something just because Bush said so. He had plenty of time, resources, and clout to do something - but didn't.

Dude what is a fvckball senator that no one has ever heard of going to be able to do about it versus Hitler and the rest of the Nazis in the White House in late 2002 and early 2003? You, as a blind sheep follower of those Nazis have absolutely no comprehension or recollection of the cult-like environment of DC (of this entire country) at that time. A bunch of Democrat Congressmen did barely "criticize" (LMAO, it's the wimpiest "criticism" any politician has ever received - nothing remotely close to calling him a liar or saying he disbelieved the bogus intel) and caught all hell for it, and ended up going to the White House as a group to kiss the President's asscrack to be forgiven (not by the Pres, but by the electorate that believed he was on the terrorist's side for speaking against the Pres).

Oh cool, I found it... here is the horrible thing Daschle said about The Fuhrer on that occasion:

"The Congress has a constitutional responsibility to ask questions. We are not a rubber stamp to this president or to anybody else. We must do what the Constitution and what our best judgment requires."

Because of the reaction to that statement, from the President, from the press, and from the people, the Congress basically became a rubber stamp; it had no choice. FDR got away with the same thing and turned the US into a socialist democracy* (and so did Hitler, to an even larger extent, and turned his country into a fascist dictatorship)... where nobody could oppose the leader on anything. Funny that Howard Byrd remained in opposition anyway, because he was 87 years old and probably wasn't going to run for re-election anyway (and also maybe because he's been in politics long enough to realize that the average American has a worse memory than he does, at 87). Somebody else here called Bush's "cloak of invincibility" Political Capital - a year and a half ago, Bush had a monopoly on all the political capital. Of course you'll probably disbelieve that, and think DC operates in the way those cartoons from grade school depicted it.


* - the grade school cartoons didn't explain that to you?

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: happyhelper
Dude what is a fvckball senator that no one has ever heard of going to be able to do about it versus Hitler and the rest of the Nazis in the White House in late 2002 and early 2003?

Originally posted by: happyhelper
You, as a blind sheep follower of those Nazis have absolutely no comprehension or recollection of the cult-like environment of DC (of this entire country) at that time.

lol?.good stuff

A reference to Hitler?s Third Reich followed up with an accusation someone else being a blind sheep.

It doesn?t get any quainter than this ladies and gentlemen.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
And that fashion would be???

I've repeatedly told of how I would have handled Saddam, or how I would have like to have seen the whole Iraq situation transpire. Suffice it to say that Saddam would have been gone long ago. He had his chance(s) - he failed to follow through and we(and the world) basically appeased him for far too long.

CkG

Care to point out a thread where you stated your position, oh Master of Diversion and Backpedaling?


BTW, I see you failed to answer my other response to you.

 

[burnedout]

From the "discredited, mint tea sippers" department.

[Hat tip: The Sage of Knoxville

Now that we've firmly established the fact that Joe Wilson is little more than a DAMN LIAR, a rather interesting statement at the bottom of old Joe's webpage provides us with even more revealing insight.

[Please scroll to the bottom of the page]

*-drum roll, please-*

Paid for by John Kerry for President, Inc

<Dikembe Mutombo>HA.... HA.... HA.... HA.... HA.... </Dikembe Mutombo>

"I'm not a politician and I'm not a political partisan." Yeah, whatever. So long, Joe.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur


Also, and this is the key aspect that most Bush fans blatantly ignore, the vote to authorize the President to use force was only to use force as a last resort: after diplomacy, sanctions, and inspections failed.

Did the President exhause diplomatic means? No.

Did the President seek to alter economic sanctions as recommended by Colin Powell? No.

Did the President allow inspectors to properly do their job? No.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html




SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.



I guess the Authors and co-Authors of the resolution forgot to put the exact language you wanted in there, conjur. Maybe there is a Lawer or two on this forum that could comment on this language. It almost looks like a "Blank check" authorization. .


BTW who did Author and co-Author the resolution?