Vermont votes to impeach
POSTED BY: Dayve
UPDATED: Friday, March 9, 2007 02:42
VIEWED: 5496
PAGE 3 of 9
Rap,
Do you remember when Bush talked about Iraq and yellowcake and Africa in his SOTU? In no time at all - months in fact - wayyyy BEFORE the US attacked Iraq - there was an investigation into how such an unfounded statement ended up in the speech. In fact there was a Senate investgation, and the report made itself onto the internet.
In that report the history of that allegation was traced. Bush had put it into TWO previous speeches and the CIA had deleted it. When it was put yet again into a speech - this time the SOTU - the speech was NOT sent to CIA for vetting. (Because the CIA would have required retraction, again.)
Bush KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt that that claim was false. Yet he found a way to sneak it into this speech to fire people up over Iraq.
Bush claimed something to be fact that he KNEW was not true. IOW, Bush lied.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yep, not denying that. Just the global thing.
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FMF:
Geez talk about drinking the kool aid!
Auraptor - sure would like to see this volume of FACTS you have. Need something to line the ferret cage with.
Sorry toots, but this has nothing to do w/ KoolAid drinkin', and everything to do w/ facts. I'd first like to remind you that the burden of proof rests w/ those making the claim , such as BUSH LIED, that need to present the evidence and make their case.
Second, I present the so called - KoolAid :
The Senate Report on Iraqi WMD Intelligence - While it acknowledged that mistakes were made from the INTELLIGENCE community....., which was released on July 9, 2004, identified numerous failures in the intelligence-gathering and -analysis process. The report found that these failures led to the creation of inaccurate materials that misled both government policy makers and the American public....there was nothing which indicated that the Bush administration LIED per the intel.
Also, ....The report concludes that prior to October, 2002, it was reasonable for the intelligence community to assess Iraq may have been attempting to obtain uranium from Africa.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_
Iraq#General_conclusions_on_intelligence_relating_to_Iraq.27s_WMD_and_ties_to_terrorism
Also, the report ' he Commission of the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction ', the report absolves the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. It puts the blame for the bad intelligence squarely at the feet of the intelligence community.
http://www.wmd.gov/report/
Ball's in your court, ma'am.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
For the record (and you all know I'm no fan of Bush), I was a Intelligence Analyst for my 10 years in the military, and I was scared shitless the first time we had in-coming rockets. Not of HE warheads, nay--I was scared that they had nerve gas. Now why would that be? Well, not because of anything the president said. It was because the intel that I'd seen (some pre-dating the Bush presidency by a good 5 years) had led me to the conclusion that he had it. Other intel from as close as a few weeks indicated the same thing. So it's not as simple as "Bush lied."
Tsk Tsk Tsk - weren't you debriefed? Do we have "need to know" I think not. Now I have to send the clearance nazi's after you!
snicker snicker
----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
[
Sorry toots, but this has nothing to do w/ KoolAid drinkin', and everything to do w/ facts. I'd first like to remind you that the burden of proof rests w/ those making the claim , such as BUSH LIED, that need to present the evidence and make their case.
The Congressional resolution authorizing Bush's War required the president to certify to Congress that war was necessary.
"(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
Ummmmm, I believe that was were he CERTIFIED to congress that Saddam and Iraq had a role in 9/11. So LIE!
And don't call me toots.
----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Rap,
Do you remember when Bush talked about Iraq and yellowcake and Africa in his SOTU? In no time at all - months in fact - wayyyy BEFORE the US attacked Iraq - there was an investigation into how such an unfounded statement ended up in the speech. In fact there was a Senate investgation, and the report made itself onto the internet.
In that report the history of that allegation was traced. Bush had put it into TWO previous speeches and the CIA had deleted it. When it was put yet again into a speech - this time the SOTU - the speech was NOT sent to CIA for vetting. (Because the CIA would have required retraction, again.)
Bush KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt that that claim was false. Yet he found a way to sneak it into this speech to fire people up over Iraq.
Bush claimed something to be fact that he KNEW was not true. IOW, Bush lied.
Sorry rue, but I hate to burst your bubble. The CIA didn't want that line in there NOT because it wasn't true, but because it didn't come through their intel. It came from BRITISH intel. Further more, it was NEVER shown that the claim was false, quite to the contrary. The Brits STILL stand by their claim of the original story. Sorry, but Bush didn't lie. Bush accurately stated that BRITISH intel said ..... Even if it had turned out to be wrong, the burden of proof was still layed on the Brits. Bush clearly put that in there to show the world that our info wasn't unilateral in its source.
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm going to make a number of assumptions to speed things up. I'm going to assume you're familiar with or have access to the text of Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, comments by Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al regarding Iraq's WMD, Colin Powell's UN address, David Kay's final report (his final report, not 'the' final report), the Senate report and the 9/11 Commission report. I'm also going to assume you have sufficient memory of, or access to, news reporting from that time frame.
A 'yes' answer will also speed things up, a 'no' answer will take more of your time.
----------
1) Do you agree that the DIA, Office of Special Plans and the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group answer to Rumsfeld?
Yes
No
If 'no', please explain why not. A 'no' explanation also requires references to ORIGINAL documents only, with links. I'm not going to spend time addressing some flack's 'interpretations'.
----------
From the Senate Armed Services Committee
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MR. KAY: Senator Warner ... I believe that the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficiently intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed militarized chemical and biological weapons there..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEN. LEVIN: Dr. Kay, on the question of stockpiles, you have stated, I believe, that in your opinion Iraq did not have large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in 2002. Is that correct?
MR. KAY: That's correct, Senator.
SEN. LEVIN: Do you have any evidence that they had any stockpiles,
large or small, in 2002?
MR. KAY: Simply have no evidence, Senator.
SEN. LEVIN: You have not uncovered any evidence of small stockpiles?
MR. KAY: We have not uncovered any small stockpiles, that's correct.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Do you accept David Kay's conclusion that Iraq had no large or small biological or chemical weapons stockpiles?
Yes
No
If 'no', please explain why not, with links to original documents.
Since Iraq did not have existing nuclear weapons, the question was one of nuclear weapons programs rather than stockpiles.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEN. LEVIN: -- in your judgment, had Iraq reconstituted its nuclear weapon program, in the way you understand the word "reconstitute"?
MR. KAY: It was in the early stages of renovating the program,
building new buildings. It was not a reconstituted, full-blown nuclear program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEN. ALLARD: Did they use the aluminum tubes at that point in time to enrich their uranium? Do we know --
MR. KAY: No, they did not. They relied on different processes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Do you accept David Kay's conclusion that Iraq had no nuclear programs?
Yes
No
If 'no', please explain why not, with links to original documents.
----------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 4,2002, the NSC (Condoleezza Rice) sent a draft of a speech they were preparing for the President to deliver in Cincinnati, Ohio. It was draft six of the speech and contained the line, “and the regime has been caught attempting to purchase up to 500 metric tons of uranium oxide from Africa -an essential ingredient in the enrichment process.”
On October 5,2002, the ADDI .. asked the analysts to bring forward any issues that they thought should be addressed with the NSC. The ADDI said an Iraq nuclear analyst raised concerns about the sourcing and some of the facts of the Niger reporting,
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AURaptor,
Where's the final part of Phase II of that report?
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
Saying that this statement wasn't a lie is arguing by semantics. Bush had been told repeatedly that this claim was wrong. So his lie is a lie of omission. An accurate statement would have been, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. This is counter to all the evidence that our own intelligence agencies have looked at."
I can guarantee that if I had tried out this line of defense on my mom it wouldn't have worked, "Mom, Tom next door claims that I did not break the window."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I find it amazing that there has been very little discussion about the Downing Street Memos in this country - But Auraptor - I point your attention to the bit that says intelligence and facts were being FIXED AROUND the policy.
"SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minis
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First of all, the President doesn't need any authorization from, or clarification to Congress to use military force.
Second, nothing in this ...... " (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." ..which specifically ties Saddam w/ al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks what so ever. It simply says that we can follow into any country which harbors known terrorists we do find have connections to the 9/11 attacks. The part, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned....the terrorist attacks....on September 11, 2001". doesn't directly link Iraq w/ al Qaeda. It only allows for the President to use force where ever he deems it necessary.
Sorry, no lie.
And I take back the 'toots' remark.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME