Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Just another example of a compliant Republican senate, not wanting to rock the bock for Dubya. Though it’s not the same as a senate investigation, Fitzgerald appears to be an honest prosceutor.

What is critical, to me, is that Fitzgerald be allowed to continue his probe of corruption in the White House. There will be a lot of pressure to either close his investigation or find a “more suitible replacement” as his appointed term comes to a close.

The results of his investigation could be a real boon for the Democratic party, and more importantly, the American people.

And if it shows there was no wrongdoing by the white house, he will be labelled a republican shill or that he caved under the pressure the white house.

That’s the problem with continually calling for a ‘special proscutor’ for every perceived wrongdoing, is that rare will people agree to the findings. It’s all political and reeks of partisanship.

But, of course, there is no other real alternative either. I agree with letting Fitzgerald finish his investigation, making his findings public and we all agree to them even if they don’t agree with your specific partisan views.

Rhinehold,

“That’s the problem with continually calling for a ‘special proscutor’ for every perceived wrongdoing,”

A war that has killed thousands of people is a perceived wrong doing?

When I hear the word partisan I know that the avoidance of accountability is being attempted, by both this administration and its supporters.

Wow, Andre. I was actually responding to Neville, but if you want me to respond to the original article I will.

You state: “A year ago Roberts committee concluded that CIA errors before the war fueled the erroneous belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.” Please show me where in the report it states that? I would be very interested in investigating that further.

I was under the impression that the UN, who stated that they did not know what happened to the remaining stockpiles and were getting blocked at every turn from finding out from the Saddam regime what happened to them, was what fueld that impression. Now you’re telling me it was a single piece of CIA evidence that was doing it? To be honest, I don’t think most people even knew about that when they made up their minds about Iraq. And to this day, people like Lieberman, Clinton, Kerry, etc, all STILL say that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was necessary based on what we knew at the time, which was very damned little.

Even Hans Blix stated before the war that he would not be surprised at all if we found huge stockpiles of WMD when we went in because they had no luck in finding out what happened to the weapons we knew existed before. Sure, Saddam said that they were disposed of, but he was obligated to destroy them in front of the UN inspectors and if he did destroy them he didn’t follow his procedure. The result was that we had no way of knowing FOR SURE what had happened to them.

And yes, politically people like France and Germany had a fun time putting the US in the position of doing the dirty work while being able to ‘rise above it’. But that doesn’t make them right and the US wrong it and of itself.

Many anti-war people like to play sunday morning quarterback with this situation, the same ones who didn’t care if Iraq had WMD are now saying ‘see, he never had them, it was all a sham’ but it WASN’T a sham. We seriously needed to find out what had become of them and after twelve years of stalling by the Saddam regime.

Now you want to investigate… what? Whether or not the CIA ‘fixed’ evidence because of the Downing Street Memo? Come on, the memo was a statement of opinion by a single person, the same opinion that some on the left were already saying at the time. That’s like saying we need an investigation into the intelligence fixing because Kennedy stated on the floor of the Senate that the Bush administration was ‘fixing intelligence’, which he DID say.

But you see, there is no PROOF. Nowhere has anyone brought to the attention of anyone of any proof of intentionally fixing intelligence. They did ‘cherry pick’, but that is understandable at the time in question. If you had the CIA and the UK intelligence telling you one thing and the State department saying ‘I don’t know, sounds a little fishy’, would you ignore the CIA and the UK Intelligence department?

We’ve already investigated the 16 words, it was found to be legitimate to use them by the president when he did. After finding out that some of the basis for the statement was a forged document (some, not all) then they agreed that it shouldn’t have been used, but AT THE TIME it was valid.

So yeah, keep investigating until you find the answers you want to find. I’m not sure what else you’re going to investigate that hasn’t been, and if you do have this ‘evidence’ than please provide it. Otherwise, don’t be surprised if many ignore your calls without evidence a leftist conspiracy theory and most of us in the middle and on the right will most likely ignore it.

Btw,

When I hear the word partisan I know that the avoidance of accountability is being attempted, by both this administration and its supporters.

I couldn’t let this pass. So what you are saying is if I call you, calling for a special prosecutor to investigate what we already know because you want to damage the president at every turn, partisan than I must be a ‘supporter of the president who is trying to avoid accountability’ instead of someone who honestly feels that you are being partisan in this situation?

If this is what you are saying than I think I can completely ignore everything else you write from this point forward. I’m really getting tired of seeing that play and especially having it applied to me.

If CIA Intelligence before the war was so erroneous, how reliable are any of the probes and studies (such as those below) done by the federal government?
__________________________
$107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail.
$1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck.
$150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud.
$84,000 to study out why people fall in love.
$1 million to study why people don’t ride bikes to work.
$144,000 to study whether pigeons follow human economic laws.
$Funds to study the cause of rudeness on tennis courts and examine smiling patterns in bowling alleys.
$219,000 to study and teach college students how to watch television.
$160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest.
$100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft.
$16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument.
$10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull’s potency.
$100,000 to study soybean-based ink.
___________________________

Sure, why not?
It really is more warranted than anything above.
But, how reliable will it be?

Rhinehold,
From the Boston Globe:

“But Roberts added that committee members remain at odds over how to judge public prewar statements made by members of the Bush administration and Congress. Many of the more than 400 such statements compiled by the committee are now known to have been based on faulty intelligence, and that could explain why the statements turned out to be misleading, Roberts said.

Some Democrats merely want to call attention to the statements to embarrass Bush and his top aides, Roberts said, and he sees no use in treading that ground when the committee could better concentrate its resources on future threats.

”So what do you do with that?” Robers asked. ”What have we gained other than the political objective of saying this administration issued the intelligence? Look in the front window. Don’t look in the back”
I appreciate the criticism of what I wrote and will make sure not to fall into the partisan trap,I hope you would be willing to do the same.

Andre

“This same committee chose not to take the next logical step and examine how the Bush administration used the erroneous information.”

Why is this a logical step for a Senate committee? They determined that the intelligence had problems and that Bush acted on this intelligence. As a leader, the President had to make his decision based on the information he had. You can argue that he his decision was not good, but there is no reason to investigate it.

This information actually supports the President and detracts from the “he lied” argument. The President acted on the intelligence he had available.

BTW - The Downing street memo used the word “fixed” in a more British, less American way, as you would fix a picture to a wall – i.e. attach. When you fix intelligence around a policy, you are attaching or justifying based on that intelligence, as you might “fix” the facts around your argument – i.e. find supporting information. It is a slightly archaic way to use the language for Americans, but the context indicates that is how it was.

Jack,
I’ve seen this language argument from you before, but I don’t see a big difference. Selectively picking facts to support your predetermined conclusions, and ignoring the others (fixing in British parlance, as you say) is not much better than just making stuff up. At least, the results are the same (bad intelligence, bad justification for war).
The president acted on the information he had available, but only those parts of it he wanted to use.

What? Why would Congress waste its time probing the reasons for war in Iraq? They’re far too busy looking into important things, like whether Rafael Palmeiro lied to them. Let’s keep our priorities straight, thank you very much!

Selectively picking facts to support your predetermined conclusions, and ignoring the others (fixing in British parlance, as you say) is not much better than just making stuff up. The president acted on the information he had available, but only those parts of it he wanted to use.

That’s funny. It reminds me of the Democrat’s arguments regarding the Valerie Plame case. And don’t the Democrats do just that regarding the whole war? Like when they say that WMD was the only reason Bush gave before the war or when they say Sadam had no links to terrorism, etc?

Hell, at least Bush had information available even if it was wrong; unlike, say, the Democrats with Gitmo, where they don’t even have information, just their own made-up accusations. I’ll give them some slack with the Gitmo thing, tough, since they seem to have dropped it like the proverbial hot potato. Their poling must have made them realize that the “torture” story was hurting their credibility.

Rheinhold says:

Many anti-war people like to play sunday morning quarterback with this situation, the same ones who didn’t care if Iraq had WMD are now saying ‘see, he never had them, it was all a sham’ but it WASN’T a sham. We seriously needed to find out what had become of them and after twelve years of stalling by the Saddam regime.

I think you meant to say “Monday” morning quarterbacking, but anyway, it is you who is trying to revise history.

If you’ll recall, many people agreed with you that we needed to seriously find out what happened to Iraq’s stockpiles. So these people (Democrats, Europeans, the U.N., nearly the entire world community) simply asked that we not rush into Iraq until the arms inspectors were finished with their work.

Saddam did not eject inspectors out of his country. We did, when we told them the bombs were about to fall.

Many people believed that there were in fact weapons stockpiles in Iraq, but that going to war before the inspectors uncovered evidence of such was a big mistake and could lead to a big mess. Those people were 100% right. Admit it and move on.

I was under the impression that the UN, who stated that they did not know what happened to the remaining stockpiles and were getting blocked at every turn from finding out from the Saddam regime what happened to them, was what fueld that impression.

No, the IAEA had already cleared Saddam of having a nuclear program (which was since verified by us), and Blix was a few weeks away from certifying that Iraq had no bio-chem programs, too (also verified). Blix says all the access he needed was provided in a reasonable amount of time. From his book,

“Had there been any denials of access? Any cat and mouse games? No. Had the inspections been going well? Yes.” Blix contends, “…but if there had not been hopeful results by, say, July 2003, when the 120 day [inspection] period would have expired, it seems likely that a majority in the [UN] Security Council might have been ready to authorize armed action, which could have started with UN legitimacy after the summer heat — and revealed that there were no weapons.”

Then you rant,

Now you want to investigate… what? Whether or not the CIA ‘fixed’ evidence because of the Downing Street Memo? Come on, the memo was a statement of opinion by a single person

LOL! That single person was the head of Britain’s intelligence service. I suspect he had a pretty good idea what he was talking about. :)

If you had the CIA and the UK intelligence telling you one thing and the State department saying ‘I don’t know, sounds a little fishy’, would you ignore the CIA and the UK Intelligence department?

A little fishy?! Powell called it “bullshit”. In any case, the CIA and UK intel were also telling you the info was “a little fishy.” President Bush wasn’t even convinced, “I’ve been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we’ve got?”

We’ve already investigated the 16 words, it was found to be legitimate to use them by the president when he did. After finding out…

Now you’re just making things up, Rhinehold. They knew months before hand that the reference was BS, in fact it was struck from a previous speech for just that reason.

I’m not sure what else you’re going to investigate that hasn’t been, and if you do have this ‘evidence’ than please provide it.

We’ve been providing it. You just don’t want to see it - going so far as to fabricate fantasy timelines so you can dismiss it. You crack me up, Rhinehold. :)

unlike, say, the Democrats with Gitmo, where they don?t even have information, just their own made-up accusations.

So… You’re just going to ignore the Pentagon and FBI reports that started the whole brewhaha, Traveler? Too inconvenient?

Rhinehold said “continually calling for a ‘special proscutor’ for every perceived wrongdoing

So if I understand you, you think it’s wrong to call a special prosecutor to investigate this. Did you have a problem that Ken Starr spent $30 million dollars investigating the President’s sex life?

So if I understand you, you think it’s wrong to call a special prosecutor to investigate this. Did you have a problem that Ken Starr spent $30 million dollars investigating the President’s sex life?

No, because that’s not what Ken Starr did, despite the constant attempts at revisionism.

Ken Starr discovered the the president lied under oath in a sexual harassment case. I’m sorry, but I find sexual harassment a very serious issue. So did President Clinton when he signed into law the ability for prosecutors to ask suspected sexual harassers about their previous sex life, the very area he lied to under oath to cover up. He was trying to get around his own law.

And yes, denying a woman her right to a fair trial concerning sexual harassment by purgering yourself is a very serious thing indeed. And I would hope you agree as well, unless you don’t feel that sexual harassment is a serious issue?

Rhinehold

Who’s being a revisionist? Ken Starr did spend $30 million dollars, and he did investigate President Clinton’s sex life. you can try to put whatever spin you want onto it, but those are facts.

Clinton lied about his sex life. He embarassed himself, his family, and his country. But at least nobody died.

Lol, the ‘nobody died when Clinton lied’ nonsense. talk about spin…

So you are saying then that sexual harassment isn’t an important issue? Good to know where you stand on the issues.

Me, I take a different view on sexual harassment, I find it reprehensible and a felony. Those currently locked up for it will be glad to know they have an advocate in you.

It’s amusing how Rhinehold ignores the other issues raised. I’m sure we all agree here that what Clinton did was wrong, and that sexual harassment is very serious: but it simply cannot compare to thousands of deaths. I’m also sure that Rhinehold knows what Elliottbay is really saying, but pretends that Elliottbay is saying something he can caricature.

What really amuses me, however, is that we even continue to attempt dialogue; it becomes increasingly clear that everyone “fixes” the facts to support their own point of view, and no one ever really convinces anyone else of anything! Or to put another way: everyone is trying to convince everyone else, at all costs; and what that fails they will settle for ridiculing them.

The reason for this is that we as a society do not value nuance: we prefer the stupid path, the spectacle of conflict.

UNITED WE STAND. I don’t think it’s wise to have any predetermined conclusions. There’s nothing funny. PERIOD. No one has to make Bush look bad or even put him down. Just by saying nothing at all, he does that for himself very well sometimes. We don’t care at this point about past sins and/or “who lied” or “why” someone lied; or at least it’s not on our “high priority list”. Hell, we all screw up. Make wrong choices and even deceive one another if we ourself can either make a fool of someone else or benefit in some way for our own self…WHATEVER…The real question is What is our war plan and strategies NOW. What is in our country’s best interest?!. How do we support our troops and find a way to stand UNITED again? Maybe Bush is trying to figure it all out? Maybe he’ll shock all of us and even walk down his driveway and hold a grieving mother and ask her to come in and say whatever it is that she needs to say. I keep wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt in one moment and than hate this war the next.
When asked on Tuesday about a possible exit strategy for American troops, Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters it depended on many “variables,” including:
“What are the Iranians doing? Are they going to be helpful or unhelpful? And if they’re increasingly unhelpful, then obviously the conditions on the ground are less advantageous. Same thing with the Syrians.”
Got that?
Statements like this bother me the most. I don’t think I stand alone when I admit to you that my knowledge of politics and policies totally suck; but I don’t expect those in charge of our country to “make statements that suck” - hey, I’m not running the country - so sometimes it’s best that “I say nothing at all.” And let the other voices speak out for me or find the words to say what I can’t better express myself. And we are all still learning “every day.”
The most frightening aspect of this whole scenario may be that President Bush may have no idea what Ms. Sheehan is so upset about.
Kenneth Berger
Englewood, N.J., Aug. 10, 2005
To the Editor:
As I read Maureen Dowd’s column describing the insular tendencies of the administration, I was reminded of a picture that I have of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
In the photo, President Roosevelt is listening to a man who is a laborer, who is dressed like a miner. Roosevelt is dressed very elegantly and is leaning on his cane while the man is dirty from his work and is talking very animatedly. It is a very impressive picture.
It’s obvious that Roosevelt knew the value of the American worker, and of Americans in general, and was willing to stop on the street to lend an ear.
I suppose that if we want to see an example of leadership from Washington for the time being, we’ll have to resort to sepia-colored pictures.
Carol Lucas
Portland, Ore., Aug. 10, 2005
On the other hand, I understand how difficult the President’s position is. I wouldn’t want his job. I’m old enough to know that no one else know’s how difficult someone else’s position is until they walk in their shoes. It would take more than a man to walk down that driveway to Mrs. Sheehan. I think she really wants to know when our troops are coming home because every night at home watching the news she sees her 24 yr old son Casey. I saw his picture last night and many young boys, most of them were 20 to 24 yrs old, the they‘re gone and WHY, what excuse will we be given next?. I’ve read the stories from those lucky enough to express it and I’ve informed myself about WHAT IS GOING ON for them “our troops” - who live to tell their stories.
WHAT I don’t understand is “What Mr. Bush is going on with our country?” What have you done for your country and how the majority of us feel NOW. And please no more half truths…or seeing how you can help the republican party in the coming election. All we want is to support our troops and even you, our president, for now. It really all begins with you Mr. Bush. Maybe you should start by taking that walk down your drive way - we all have to start somewhere. Annie

Andre:

My old friend….Haven’t we been probed enough during this administration. Personally I,d prefer getting at least a hug if not a kiss, before being probed again.
Butt that’s just my opinion.

Just Passing Gas.

As Always,
Wayne

I do apologize for the lengthy post. And to all the Ms Schwamp’s out there please read my last post to the “Negotiate or Fight” blog before responding. Thanks Annie

AP,

It’s interesting that Blix would write what he did in his book, written long after the war, when when he gave his report to the UN he stated that the Iraqi leadership was still preventing them from areas of access and withholing information that they needed, and that they still didn’t ‘get it’.

If you’ll recall, many people agreed with you that we needed to seriously find out what happened to Iraq’s stockpiles. So these people (Democrats, Europeans, the U.N., nearly the entire world community) simply asked that we not rush into Iraq until the arms inspectors were finished with their work.

Which would have been? Blix would not say. He could not say. He did say that he was not getting the required access and documents. Remember, 1441 required IMMEDIATE response and Blix was forced to admit that he wasn’t getting it.

So, while we are killing thousands of Iraqis though the sanctions that they had been under because of the Saddam’s refusal for 12 years to do what he agreed to do in 3 months, we should sit and wait for some undetermined date to act?

I don’t support the current ‘we’ll leave when we are ready’ without a clearly defined goal and I didn’t support it then. Saddam was trying to stretch out what he could for his own personal reasons, shooting at our countrymen in the process and supporting international terrorism in the meantime. All the time torturing and killing thousands of political dissidents in the process.

We should have acted stronger in 1998, we didn’t. We should have supported the Iraqi revolution before that and we didn’t. Our inaction caused the situation and to not clean it up at the time was simply wrong. To say we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq because doing so would cause a mess what the hell do you think the country was then? A utopia? Please, some perspective is nice, the real criminals are the ones who supported containment for a dozen years while we sat in our comfortable homes watching innocent people starve to death.

Very compassionate.

The mess (the one WE created and supported) needed to be dealt with and Bush appears to have been the only one with enough guts to do it. For that I am grateful for him. I disagree with our still being there (and a variety of other things I don’t like including running up a debt like a drunken liberal) but putting an end to one of the most murderous and brutal regeimes in the world as well as a major supporter of international terrorism after 9/11 isn’t one of them.

First of all I want to apologize for getting too ‘emotional’ previously. It is something I have a very deep feeling for.

However, I do want to ask a question of those that feel that we shouldn’t have invaded.

Ok.

Let’s say that we did wait. And let’s say that Blix DID come back in 3 months and say ‘We can say, with definite certainty, that there are no WMDs anywhere in Iraq.’ Note, this is a big if, I doubt anyone at that time could have said for ceratin there were no WMD, possibly programs, but weapons themselves…

But, we are hypotheticalizing, aren’t we?

So, there are no WMD. What would have happened next? Would we have eliminated the sanctions, the only reason they were there was to get him to hand over his WMD. If they were gone there were no need for the sanctions, right? So there would be no need for the no fly zones anymore, which would remove the firing at our countrymen, which would have been nice. And of course, the sanctions on the country that were killing thousands of citizens every year would have been gone. Iraq would have gone on to sell oil like crazy to make a bunch of cash, lowering the price of oil back most likely into the 1.00 or less range. Sweet.

But, what about the international terrorist organizations? He was hosting several key terrorists in Iraq, giving them food, shelter and security, including an individual responsible for the first 9/11 attack. He had ties to many groups, even Al Qaeda, though we didn’t know to what extent. Hmmm, do we just ignore that after this point?

What about his treatment of his own citizens? Well, they aren’t US citizens so I guess that many people wouldn’t care if they were getting tortured, murdered and terrorized into submission. After all, we left them out to dry a decade before when they tried to overthrow Saddam then, why would we care now?

And of course, we know that he would not have built up his weapons again to try to take over Kuwait, or Iran, again. He was a peaceful dictator now, mellowed into a cowering mass by a few cruise missles, according to Stephen.

Would any of his new wealth from selling oil have made it’s way to Al Qaeda? Don’t know. We know that they did have some sort of allegance, but don’t know the extent. They did erect a monument to the collapse of the WTC, but that probably doesn’t mean anything.

So, my question is, to all of you, what do you think would have been the situation in Iraq in 2005?

Rhinehold,

A quote from Mr. Blix’s report to the UN in 2003:

“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”

If you have some quotes from Blix that back up your assertion that:

when when he gave his report to the UN he stated that the Iraqi leadership was still preventing them from areas of access and withholing information that they needed

I’m sure we’d all love to see it. Until then, you might want to cease making baseless claims.

“What did the president know, and when did he know it?”

It would be a surprise to many on the Right that the man who said this was one of their own, and he was trying to help Nixon, not sink him. It only became a catchphrase for culpability after the accumulated evidence indicated that Nixon had tried to cover up wrongdoing in the White House.

The first questions that Republicans should ask is whether the evidence points towards the accusations being true. Republicans enjoyed poking fun at Clinton’s Fleetwood Mac anthem, sequeing into The Who’s lyric of “We won’t get fooled again”, but they should take heed of the other lyric: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”

Bush has kept many secrets from Republican voters, and it’s time they start demanding to know, if only so they can stand with their president in a state of informed consent.

But hey, I’m the enemy, you don’t have to listen to me. Just take it from somebody who’s president once had him defending him on less than the full truth.

RE: Why is this a logical step for a Senate committee? They determined that the intelligence had problems and that Bush acted on this intelligence. As a leader, the President had to make his decision based on the information he had. You can argue that he his decision was not good, but there is no reason to investigate it.

This information actually supports the President and detracts from the ?he lied? argument. The President acted on the intelligence he had available
————————-

This is an EXCUSE. This President does whatever is necessary to keep the buck from landing in the White House. Remember that a fish stinks from the head down.

We were in NO immediate danger of seeing SCUD missles in DC or NY. My heart goes out to the soldiers and their families who are paying with blood for Bush’s kill first, dodge questions later policies.

Why didn’t he act after the “Bin Laden determined to strike the US” memo???
Seems to me that this was intelligence to be acted upon.

oh…there was brush to cut in Crawford

….sick

Stephen,

Mr. President, Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programs. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections. It was a disappointment that Iraq’s declaration of the 7th of December did not bring new documentary evidence.

One can hardly avoid the impression that after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there’s been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January. This is welcome. But the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out.

This is not yet clear.

Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated, “immediately, unconditionally and actively,” with UNMOVIC, as is required under Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441. The answers can be seen from the factor descriptions that I have provided.

So yes, they did start to cooperate with inspectors (not fully, as was noted by you, 1 failure is a failure) but continued to not provide the documentation required or cooperate fully and immediately, as required.

Again, it seems that we are willing to accept less than required, the pattern of twelve years with the Saddam regeime. Iraq was in violation of 1441, reluctantly admitted to by Blix, but he wanted to ignore the requirements laid out by the UN Security Council and suggest further investigation.

How long? Not days, not years, but months. How many? No idea. Could have been 15, could have been 3. But no where was Blix able to pin down how long he would need to determine Iraq’s FULL and IMMEDIATE cooperation, which did not come.

To continue with the quote, since I did cut Mr. Blix off…

However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following: The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. It has not, however, so far persisted in this or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that while the numerous initiatives which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some longstanding, open disarmament issues can be seen as active or even proactive, these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute immediate cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are, nevertheless, welcome. And UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.

The public movement to impeach President Bush is characterized by growing public concerns for a host of issues, such as the Plame affair, the global war on terror, the Downing Street documents, the yellowcake forgery and the 2001 terrorist incidents known as “9/11” for September 11, 2001.
The Yellowcake forgery refers to a set of falsified documents which claimed that Iraq had attempted to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger to justify the impending 2003 invasion of Iraq. The IAEA had ruled the documents a forgery, and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson had criticised the George W. Bush administration as seeking to craft evidence to support a decision to invade Iraq, rather than to accept his judgement that the link was false.
There is some controversy regarding whether or not these documents formed the basis of a 2003 pre-Iraq War statement made by President Bush, which asserted a connection between Saddam Hussein and Africa. However, the Downing Street memo, and other reports by former officials Karen Kwiatkowski, Richard A Clarke, and others, implicates the Bush administration and UK, Tony Blair government, to having conspired to fabricate materials to support an earlier decision to invade Iraq.
An FBI investigation into the authorship of these documents is ongoing, though critics charge that the CIA was directed to produce the documents.

Cannistraro was asked by Ian Masters what he would say if it was asserted that the source of the forgery was former National Security Council and State Department consultant Michael Ledeen. (Ledeen had also allegedly been a liaison between the American Intelligence Community and SISMI two decades earlier.) Cannistraro answered by saying: “you’d be very close.

In an interview on July 26, 2005, Cannistraro’s business partner and columnist for the American Conservative magazine, former CIA counter terrorism officer Philip Giraldi confirmed to Scott Horton that the forgeries were produced by “a couple of former CIA officers who are familiar with that part of the world who are associated with a certain well-known neoconservative who has close connections with Italy.” When Horton said that must be Ledeen, he confirmed it, and added that the ex-CIA officers, “also had some equity interests,

In July 2003, conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan stated, “[T]he truth now, we know, is that a forgery was put together to get this country into a war with Iraq, that forgery found its way into our intelligence agencies, it found its way into the State of the Union, and the president of the United States should show more indignation and outrage that this was done.” Buchanan added, “Somebody in our own government knew very well that was a forgery, and they advanced it on up the line.”

So anyway, someone evidently to embarrass the president pushed this document up and it was taken too far and naturally no one will ever admit to falsification of these records that led to invading Iraq; so where does that leave us now?

Patrick Fitzgerald, the Special prosecutor investigating the Plame affair has subpoenaed phone records made from Air Force One, and the court filings in support of these subpoena’s have alleged “serious breaches of security.”
Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution says, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

AP with this trickle down of allegations to the Bush Administration, do you think anyone will formerly take it as far as impeachment proceedings? Annie

What’s this I’m hearing about an investigation into the 9/11 Commission? That they had glazed over evidence from the Clinton years that pointed towards all the breakdowns in our Intelligence gathering?

Someone on this site has questioned why the government spends money on pure research, amounts below.

That comes to $3,290,000 for research that most people do not see the ‘value ‘ and may never see it until a product comes along and people include what research lead them to to it - not always done, mind you. The public almost never sees the value of research spending.

So how much was spent to study the sex life of Bill Clinton? Why? Revenge.

$107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail.
$1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck.
$150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud.
$84,000 to study out why people fall in love.
$1 million to study why people don’t ride bikes to work.
$144,000 to study whether pigeons follow human economic laws.
$219,000 to study and teach college students how to watch television.
$160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest.
$100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft.
$16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument.
$10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull’s potency.
$100,000 to study soybean-based ink.

CIA and other intelligence agencies ‘product’ was not needed in its complete form. All that was required was info that could provide cover for the real reason behind this war: Get the man who tried to kill “Daddy” again: Revenge

One wonders what revenge was G H W Bush( Bush 1.0) was seeking in Panama? Also, was it a warm up to Iraq war I ? Did he know something about his ally?

Has anyone asked Tom Clancey his thoughts on Iraq War II and are there any parallels to his version of Iraq War II?

The GOP is always out for revenge as they have often been victims of dirty tricks, what 36 years ago when LBJ was in power? “Never let a good grudge die , feed it till it hurts you, then feed it some more!” - must be a GOP talking point .

Discerner,

There has been a report that CIA intelligence gathering group found that several Al Qaeda cells were operating in the US and were following Atta in the late 1990s. When they wanted to bring the information to the FBI, they were told on three seperate occasions that it would be politically unfeasable to do that at the time. The implication is that the Clinton administration and those he had running the intelligence departments didn’t want to deal with the information at the time become of ‘political concerns’.

I’ve not done enough of an investigation into the details, but the source seemed credible at the time and I am trying to find out more. Of course, this follows a pattern of the Clinton White House regarding terrorism.

Dear Rhinehold:

Ask for better talking points from your RNC handlers, you need them.

What does this have to do with “intel fixing” anyway?

RNC MO: Lie, Cheat, Steal, Betray, OBSFUCATE, disassemble. Anything to win, ANYTHING

Jim,

?????

I could be wrong and I’m bringing this up from memory, but wasn’t it Madelene Albright who stopped the military and law enforcement from sharing information?

No, tomd, I’m pretty sure it’s the Constitution that prohibits the US military from acting within the US.

Rhinehold, the 9/11 Commission knew about the Pentagon report. It was one of many examples of communication breakdowns between agencies, and they didn’t feel it was important enough to include in the report.

Let’s say that we did wait. And let’s say that Blix DID come back in 3 months and say ‘We can say, with definite certainty, that there are no WMDs anywhere in Iraq.’.. What would have happened next?

LOL! After Powell convinced President Bush to go for a second UN resolution, Cheney asked him that same question. That was a real fear that prompted the administration to drop it’s quest for UN support.

But to answer your question, President Bush would have had to come back with a legitimate reason to oust Saddam, wouldn’t he?

So yes, they did start to cooperate with inspectors (not fully, as was noted by you, 1 failure is a failure) but continued to not provide the documentation required or cooperate fully and immediately, as required.

We know now that they provided all the documentation they had. As brought before the UN Security Council by President Bush, the point was to force Saddam to disarm, not to use any nit-picky excuse to invade. Blix was happy with the level of cooperation. The IAEA cleared Iraq of a nuclear program, and Blix was weeks away from clearing them of other WMD programs.

But as you and Cheney point out, that would have kicked the legs out from under the pretext to invade.

Rhinehold,

I want you to show one instance in which I attacked republicans or democrats.
If you do that I will allow you call me partisan any time you please. I refer to Bush supporters not Reps. or Dems.
The reason the word partisan gets used so much by politicians is to avoid accountability.
When the people who support the president run out of twisted information that lacks half the facts the word partisan gets lobbed into the debate for similar purposes.
If I am partisan, what I or anyone who disagrees with this administration can be ignored. That is the purpose of the words recent popularity. It marks a trend in government to avoid accountability.
I really am O.K. with you not reding anything I post. I don’t post for any other reason than I want to write what I think, not what you’d be O.K. with.

Rhinehold,

You state: “A year ago Roberts committee concluded that CIA errors before the war fueled the erroneous belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.” Please show me where in the report it states that? I would be very interested in investigating that further.

Did you investigate further?
Did you read the Boston Globe or Washington Post articles in which he concludes the intell erroneous and his concern is not wanting the Dems to have a weapon against this administration?
Just curious.

AP,
“I could be wrong and I’m bringing this up from memory, but wasn’t it Madelene Albright who stopped the military and law enforcement from sharing information?

Posted by: tomd at August 12, 2005 05:43 AM
No, tomd, I’m pretty sure it’s the Constitution that prohibits the US military from acting within the US.”

From Newsmax.com

Thursday, Aug. 11, 2005 11:26 a.m. EDT
‘Jersey Girl’ Defends Jamie Gorelick

A member of the group the “Jersey Girls,” who lost her husband in the 9/11 attacks, is defending 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick against allegations that, as deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, she blocked critical intelligence that had identified the two 9/11 hijackers who destroyed the World Trade Center.

“Gorelick gets a bad rap with that whole, you know, ‘wall thing,’” Lorie Van Auken told WABC Radio’s John Gambling on Thursday - referring to Ms. Gorelick’s 1995 directive prohibiting intelligence agencies from sharing evidence on suspected terrorists with law enforcement.

Calling it instead “the Reno wall,” Van Auken insisted that its primary impact was limited to the investigation into so-called 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui, where investigators were prevented from searching Moussaoui’s computer until after the 9/11 attacks.
Van Auken offered no comment on reports that the Gorelick restrictions bottled up critical intelligence on 9/11 conspirators Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, whose hijacked planes destroyed the World Trade Center.

But Rep. Curt Weldon, who revealed earlier this week that military intelligence had identified Atta and al-Shehhi as terrorist threats operating inside the U.S. two years before the attacks, blamed the Clinton Justice Department’s “wall.”

“There was no reason not to share this information with the FBI,” he complained in a radio interview Wednesday night, “except that the firewalls that existed back then were so severe that they wouldn’t let these agencies talk to one another.”

tomd, the “Reno wall” refers to the restrictions on sharing info between the CIA and domestic law enforcement agencys.

The Atta thing involved the Defense Department, and DoD lawyers were afraid that sharing the info with the FBI would violate the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act forbidding the US military from operating as domestic law enforcement.

As I mentioned, the 9/11 Commission knew about it, and didn’t deem it worthy of inclusion in the report. It’s just another example of pre-9/11 communication problems between agencies. I believe the intelligence restructuring has taken care of both problems.