Democrats & Liberals: Archives

If the SOP for intelligence that contradicts the march to war is to shoot the messenger, then what does that say about our leader’s mindset? ?Restoring honor and respect to the White House? - don’t think so.

Andre,

Wilson’s trip to Niger actually bolstered that claim. Iraq did in fact approach Nigerian officials to buy uranium.

Wilson himself is on record saying that we will no doubt find WMD in Iraq.

By your standard for Bush, all the world was LYING. Because no matter how much you try to spin it all the intelligence services of the world believed Saddam still had WMD including his own intelligence service and generals!

Including every democrat who voted for the war.

The CIA and Cheney were very interested in the link between Saddam and nuclear weapons prompting Joseph Wilson to be sent to investigate.

This is laughable. Of course, Bush and Cheney were lying about their claims, they then sent a partisan critic to Africa so that he could debunk the claims. Brilliant. You are repeating one of Wilson’s lies.

Wilson’s trip to Niger actually bolstered that claim. Iraq did in fact approach Nigerian officials to buy uranium.

Link?

Wilson himself is on record saying that we will no doubt find WMD in Iraq.

Link?

Wow Eric, do you have anything backing up what you just said? cause i believe its a pack of misinformation and lies. A report? An article?

By your standard for Bush, all the world was LYING. Because no matter how much you try to spin it all the intelligence services of the world believed Saddam still had WMD including his own intelligence service and generals

That’s a typical copout. You know the Administration was out front in the selective reading of intelligence. “Leading” so to speak - not following the lead of the intelligence community.

By the way, Cheney is the one that consistently has lied.

All,

Just a small clarification.

Country: Niger
Nationality: Nigerien

Country: Nigeria
Nationality: Nigerian

For further info on the two countries (basics), check here and here.

Andre-

I do give you credit for calling for the report over just Rove’s head. No matter what’s in it the report will be a win for the Democrats; why not wait for them to hand you a real stick. Wait, since Fitzgerald is a Republican it’s more like Republicans beating themselves. That’s even better!

And the closer to 2006 the report is released the greater the chance to actually turn some political capital into votes (something your side has not been too good at lately).

I agree that the memo - along with a ton of others sources continues to point to the true nature of this administration: The ends justifies the means.

However, Rove completely deserves to run through the wringer on this - and I plan on enjoying every second of it.

ericsimonson,

It’s easy to believe all of the information you hear, when the sources of the information are willing to give, only the information you want to hear.
That’s Conservative News Radio in a nutshell.
Go Superpatriots!!!!!!!!

The investigation is more important to you because the object of the investigation is Republican and close to President Bush and ANY dig at or near President Bush you think will put your party closer to the White House.

Ms Schwamp,
“By your standard for Bush, all the world was LYING. Because no matter how much you try to spin it all the intelligence services of the world believed Saddam still had WMD including his own intelligence service and generals
That’s a typical copout. You know the Administration was out front in the selective reading of intelligence. “Leading” so to speak - not following the lead of the intelligence community.” Are you saying that all of the rest of the world took the President’s word that WMDs existed? We both know the leaders of other countries wouldn’t follow our leader without their own intellengence.

This article adds credence to the fact that the left is more concerned about pulling our president down than correcting a wrong….IF anything wrong happened in the first place.

tomd -

Please bring some sort of fact or objective reasoning into this. Your post right now is a jumble of sweeping generalizations and ‘leftie-hate’ speak. I have no idea what you response you want from your post. I know you do not like Dems… sorry about that, but it is a blog aimed at democrats and liberals… what do you expect to find here?

If you do have a point - please try to be clear about it and support it with … something…?

This article adds credence to the fact that the left is more concerned about pulling our president down than correcting a wrong….IF anything wrong happened in the first place.

Sure, a lot of this is political…but don’t kid yourself: Were the tables turned, politicians on ‘the right’ would be doing the exact same thing.

I think the potential crime here is serious (especially for the apparent reasons that it was broken). Also, I believe it fits Mr. Rove’s MO, and knowing his sorted history (especially behind-the-scenes in Texas politics), I really wouldn’t mind seeing him go down.

ericsimonson,

Not to argue to many points, but must correct one comment you have left to us…

“of course Bush and Cheney were lying about their claims, they then sent a partisan critic to Africa so he could debunk the claims. Brilliant. You are repeating one of Wilson’s lies.”

First of all Wilson is a registered “Republican.” He was appointed to his first post by the first Bush president. Wilson then continued under Clinton to serve.
For you to imply that Wilson is a critic of GW Jr. is a laugh. It shows you are just saying things without facts to back them up. Just like a few of the other comments in your post…

maybe Rove and Delay can share a cell together…

Andre,

Just a couple of points I would like you to clear up.

illegal and unjust attack of the sovereign nation of Iraq

For my edification, please state the law that you feel makes the war in Iraq illegal.

As for unjust, Iraq was in direct material breach of multiple UN Security Council Resolutions not to mention the dozens of times that US and British aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones were fired upon. To me protecting our pilots is more than enough justification.

If lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense

This is the typical spin of the left. Clinton was not impeached for lying about an affair. Clinton was impeached for a criminal offense. He committed perjury when he lied to a Grand Jury under oath. That is an impeachable offense weather regardless of what the lie was about.

It was an unjust war because we attacked a sovereign country without provocation. Also, the UN resolutions that you speak of mainly dealt with illegal weapons Iraq could not possess. None of these weapons were found. The UN resolutions were only discussed as being violated - they were never proven until after we attacked and discovered no WMDs. Also, it’s up to the UN to police it’s resolutions - for us to come and start policing on individual basis is ludicrous.

Also - with regards to violating UN resolutions - America and Israel are two of the worst offenders. I don’t think we should attack ourselves, but the point is UN resolutions are violated by scores of countries… so to single one out and then to get it completely wrong… now that’s criminal.

Clinton lied under oath - you are correct about that.

Speculation:
Is the CIA paying back the Neocons?

The ‘bad intelligence’ used to whip up national enthusiasm for invading Iraq was blamed on the CIA. The congressional investigation, chaired by Roberts, carefully restricted itself to criticizing the intelligence, and never the political manipulation of the intelligence.

The Agency took the fall. Tenet resigned. Among the Neocons, only Douglas Feith, of the Office of Special Plans fame, resigned.

(Digression: General Tommy Franks gave his opinion of Douglas Feith in an interview. If I recall, Franks said something like this: “He’s the stupidest f****** man on the planet, and everyday I have to meet with him.” I love it when a General unloads with both barrels!).

So Tenet resigned, and a Republican congressman, Goss, has been assigned to ride herd on the Agency.

The attitude of CIA analysts towards Bolton is known. The attitude of analyst Michael Scheuer, the so-called Anonymous writer of “Imperial Hubris,” is also known.

When conservative, nationally syndicated columnist Robert Novak revealed the identity of a CIA “operative” in an act of traitorous retaliation, the CIA would undoubtedly have requested an investigation anyway.

The CIA’s enthusiasm for aiding the prosecution could be far greater than we realize. Yes, it’s speculation. But how much of what we are witnessing reflects institutional revenge?

And one more idle speculation. Judith Miller is in jail. How secure is her information? Is it hidden? Encoded? Kept on a laptop under lock and key? I’d being willing to bet both the White House & the CIA have, at the very least, already made that assessment.

phx8, there’s speculation that Judith Miller is in cahoots with the administration. She went to jail (temporarily) to keep Rove out.

Tony, please cite the specific U.N. resolutions towards the U.S. that the U.S. has violated, also with Israel. I will say it again Tony, it is amazing how eager you are to defend the criminals of this planet and please refrain from the “illegal war” rhetoric. We had every right to invade Iraq stemming from the Gulf War cease fire treaty that Saddam signed himself. You’re lucky that I’m not in charge because I would have invaded Iraq years ago and would have put a bullet in Saddam’s head, not put him in prison.

Jay - I agree… I think we are all lucky you are not in charge.

UN resolutions specific to:

Nuclear Proliferation (both US and Israel)

Treatment of Prisoners of War (US)

Charter of Sovereign States (US and Israel)

Specific to demolition of homes by military (Israel)

Military invasion of a sovereign state without UN authorization (US – might be covered above…???)

(I’ll be back with links to exact UN articles… )

As far as illegal wars - we invaded without UN authorization. The cease fire and the WMD resolutions are both through the UN. Also - refer back to Powell’s testimony before the UN to try and gain support for the war resolution and then use of military force. It all centered around the US knowing - proof positive (“Not only do we know that they have them [WMDs], we know where they are.”) that Iraq possessed WMDs in direct violation of the UN resolutions for him to disarm.

We were completely wrong - and we lied to the world about it. How else do you categorize that action other than illegal? And before anyone else goes off on the issue of us lying or not - presenting intelligence as best guess is one thing, presenting it as absolute knowledge is completely different. And we had intelligence that contradicted virtually every item Powell presented to the UN before he presented it.

btw - I am not standing up for criminals around the world - I am standing up for the US in not becoming the biggest criminal on the block! If you can’t see the difference there - then I can not help you with that.

Jay,

Your post displays the American arrogance that the world has grown to dislike. You think that the U.S. has a seperate set of standards because you live here and that makes the United States more important than the rest of the world. The United States invaded Iraq based on “fixed” intelligence for the sole purpose of regime change. That is illegal.
The Bush administration fosters American arrogance. Hell Bush takes pride in it. That and his inability to lead, his use of secrecy and lies, make him very dangerous to our future.

we had intelligence that contradicted virtually every item Powell presented to the UN before he presented it.

Powell himself acknowledged that the intel was “bullshit”.

Got an idea:

Maybe Congress should pass a law that requires the President to swear an oath before delivering his/her State of the Union speech, just as witnesses testifying before Congressional committees are required to do.

This way future Presidents would be forced to tell us the truth about the real reasons they want us to go to war or they could be impeached.

For what it’s worth, my guess about the principle casus belli is that it was personal. Gerorge II started fishing around for cover stories on 9/12/01. From terrorism to WMD to Arabic democracy, the neocons threw everything they could think of against the wall to see what would stick when the real bottom line was that George II was bound and determined to finish the job that George I had started.

Remember the night before the invasion when he gave Saddam that bizzare “get out of town by sundown” ultimatum?

This war was a vendetta. After all, didn’t George II call Saddam “the guy who tried to kill my dad”?

If you had the President swear an oath on a bible before the State of the Union address… would anyone be able to watch that with a straight face?

It would def. shorten the speeches …

“Ummm, the State if The Union… yea, it’s cool. Good night.”

I say the next time the President gives any speech and we catch him lying or manipulating facts, we send him to Guantanamo Bay for a little R and R. Maybe a photo shoot with Pvt. Englund.
Instead of desecrating the Quran we could flush his copy of International Law for Dummies.

Tony,

It was an unjust war because we attacked a sovereign country without provocation.

Was it also unjust for the US to bomb Iraq during Desert Fox Dec 16-19, 1998 under Clinton?s orders? We were not provoked then, we were simply bombing Iraq because they were interfering with UNSCOM Inspections in violation of UN Resolutions and the Gulf War Cease Fire.

In your response you also ignore the multitude of incidents where US and British aircraft were targeted or fired upon while patrolling the No Fly Zones as part of Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch. The links below will give you a chronology of major incidents from both operations.

Again Iraq was in material breach of numerous UN Resolutions and the Gulf War Cease Fire. Therefore Operation Iraqi Freedom could not be unjust or illegal.

Operation Northern Watch

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/northern_watch-2003.htm

Operation Southern Watch

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/southern_watch-2003.htm

Andre,

Yes, Bill Clinton lied to the grand jury. He lied about an extra marital affair he had while in office to the grand jury (the lie was about a non criminal offense).

I spent 9 years working in my local district attorney’s office as a DA investigator. I can tell you this much. Our DA was not a Bill Clinton supporter, but the conversation came up many times in the office. Our DA had never in his 22 year history as the DA, filed a charge against an man or a women who lied in court about an extra marital affair.

In our investigations throughout my carrer, we came across lots of divorce cases where he said she said. Many times one or the other was having an affair an lied about it in court. However, it is common in most states to not file charges against people for lying under oath about non criminal offenses.

Bill clinton did lie. He did lie about his affair to the grand jury.

GW has lied to the American People about a situation that has cost American citizens their very lives.

I don’t like lies coming from anyone, however, some lies are worse than others. There is a reason that Courts don’t charge men or women for perjury during divorce hearings about affairs. Affairs a non criminal. The courts don’t find it worth their time.

kirk -

Bombing for specific reasons - while probably not exactly within keeping with UN charters… There’s a huge gulf between a bombing run and invading and occupying a country for regime change. That was a pretty weak attempt…

Tony,

Who made Regime Change in Iraq part of the stated US foreign policy?

Kirk:

President Bush. It’s all he’s talked about for 2 years.

you also ignore the multitude of incidents where US and British aircraft were targeted or fired upon while patrolling the No Fly Zones

That’s a good point, Kirk. If President Bush had made that the reason for invading Iraq, I would have been behind him 100%. But he didn’t. He and his administration chose to mislead everyone by presenting guesses as fact.

Bill clinton did lie. He did lie about his affair to the grand jury.

Technically, he didn’t lie. By the definition of sexual relations used by Starr, he never did have sexual relations with that woman.

Clinton was asked “have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court.” The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, Clinton answered “I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.”

And he was never convicted.

Of course he did mislead everyone about his extra-marital affair, and was rightly censured by Congress, but he never broke the law. That still really ticks of the GOP witch hunters. :)

BTW, I never have heard a good reason why, during the investigation of a financial deal, Clinton’s sex life was investigated. And I haven’t heard an apology from the right, either.

Who made Regime Change in Iraq part of the stated US foreign policy?

Ooh! Ooh! I know! Pick me! It was Clinton. Kirk, there’re a hundred different ways to do regime change. Unilaterally invading and occupying the country is the stupidest.

AP,

You must be a victim of new math. Since when does 27 (allies with troops in Iraq) equal unilateral?

Sorry but, making “misleading statements” to a grand jury is a crime.

He wsa never convicted because he made a deal with the prosecuter to avoid prosecution. May he have been aquitted if he had gone to trial? Sure, OJ and Michael were. Obviously Bill feot that the prosecution had enough on him to make conviction a real possibility or he would not have made the deal.

You gotta love how every time the republican admin does something wrong, the republicans drag out Clinton’s name. Forget the fact that the infraction committed by Clinton was very minor by any standard. The republicans pushed and pushed for his entire time in office to try to get him on something, and that is all they could come up with. And it didn’t even occur before the investigations! It wasn’t even part of the investigations! It was because of the investigations. The guy had been hammered so long that he finally became defensive and denied his involvement with Monica. Which, by the way, one could even argue that the repubs had no business even asking the question.
Now, on the other hand, The question of lies and misdeeds by this administration goes so far beyond that as to make the Clinton situation pale in comparison, and those same republicans are defending the players involved.
Get real, folks. Apples and oranges. You got your pound of flesh from Clinton; albeit for the wrong reasons. Time to quit beating that horse.
If you can’t come up with anything better than that, just admit the wrongs of this admin and move on.