quote: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democrats forced the Senate into a closed session Tuesday to pressure the Republican majority into completing an investigation of the intelligence underpinning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Democrats demanded that Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts move forward on a promised investigation into how Bush administration officials handled prewar intelligence about Iraq's suspected weapons programs.
I wonder what happens in phase three?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
More delay in fear of finding grounds for impeachment. Which is why the Republicans have continued to delay phase II even after having already promised earlier in 2004 to speed up the process when the last national election was over.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We should also launch an investigation into John Kerry for his statement on January 23rd, 2003: "Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction." And also Bill Clinton for his statements on February 17th, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." How about these two statements from Al Gore in September 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." and "We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." We should also drag Robert Byrd into this and demand he explain this statement from October 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons." There are many more such quotes from Democrats and they must be brought to justice. We must get these war hungry Democrats under control and find out what they knew, when they knew it, and why they are obviously lying to the American public.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Albright and plenty of Dem's rode the bandwagon to remove Saddam from power when it suited their needs. Memories are short.
Posts: 117 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strangely enough, none of those were lies. They had all been told those things by intelligence reports.
Bush's administration was also told those things by intelligence reports, but it has come out that many of the more egregious assertions they made were also contradicted by intelligence reports they saw.
That's why there need to be investigations. Why did Bush administration officials keep spreading information as gospel that they had been told was almost certainly not true by experts?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both sides lose, but I see this as a last, almost desperate resort in their strategy. Nothing else they have tried has been successful anyway. Poor Bill Frist looked really hurt the other day, lol. I suppose that now he is actually getting to see the real Harry Reid, at his finest.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:We must get these war hungry Democrats under control and find out what they knew, when they knew it, and why they are obviously lying to the American public.
posted
The Democrats can be held accountable for caving to political pressure and perhaps for naivete in believing the current Administration's reports. But their errors are the kind that should be rectified by subsequent elections, if indeed they are guilty of those things.
However, if it is indeed found that Bush led us to war by knowingly lying about intelligence concerning Iraq's WMDs (and I don't hold out any hope that anything substantially damning will be found at this point), the way to rectify that would be impeachment. See the difference?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really, Dr. Evil, you have proof that these officials were also given intelligence reports which contradict the statements they made, similarly to how the Bush administration was?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: We should also launch an investigation into John Kerry
I agree wholeheartedly!
We should absolutely hold the loser of a Presidential election to the same standards as the real President. Especially considering they have the same power and authority to start wars...oh wait...
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, there is no difference between them at all. Well with the exception that it feels more like you want Bush impeached at any cost because he just has to be lying because he is Bush. I may be putting words in your post, so if I misinterperted that I do apologize. A few questions to ponder.... If all of the Iraqi WMD intelligence reports are looked show a long history stretching over 3 Administrations showing Iraq has WMDs (backed up by reports from England, France, Germany, and so on) with a few reports contradicting those claims, what should be done? Did Bush still lie? What if some of those reports are from earlier Administrations? Do we prosecute Clinton and Bush Sr. for lying? Since we didn't find any WMDs should we prosecute Clinton for all of the bombings he ordered? What about all the previous intelligence agencies who said Iraq had WMDs? Should we haul them all in for investigations too? Do we trust the few contradicting reports or the overwhelming majority of reports? Or do we use the few contradicting reports from people like Joe Wilson to impeach Bush?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if Bush lied, we don't have sufficient information. It is provable that Cheney lied, that Rice lied, I think also that Rumsfeld lied, and that Powell lied (except his lie could be mere equivocation under certain circumstances that have not yet been uncovered).
Note I've been saying Bush administration. Those are some pretty dang high up people in the Bush administration.
As for the reports that prove lies, I suggest you read news stories about the report made by the energy department, and endorsed by numerous nuclear experts within the department, on why the aluminum tubes that were presented as one of the primary "evidences" the Bush administration trumpeted for nuclear research in Iraq were clearly not such.
Choice observations include that we really should let Iraq use the tubes in centrifuges because that way they wouldn't be using the better methods they already had access to, and that the tubes would take many years even if they had thousands upon thousands of them operating. Or the other choice observation that these tubes happened to match the exact specifications of a tube used in one of Iraq's legal missiles. Of course, Cheney told us that the only use of these tubes was to refine uranium . . . well after he was sent and briefed on this report.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I left out one other alternative. It is possible these people did not lie, but were instead incredibly incompetent, ignoring or misunderstanding significant and clearly presented intelligence information that was presented to them through the appropriate channels. That would deserve an investigation as well.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or perhaps, blessed as we are with 20/20 hindsight, you want to crucify people for not having 20/20 foresight? Or maybe it's just for incredibly base, petty, contemptible partisan reasons. Toeing the party line, fugu?
Personally, I don't care who lied to who what where. Saddaam was a ruthless dictator, and he needed to be removed. No one was even thinking of denying that until someone actually had the balls to do it. Whatever ulterior motives the Bush administration actually may or may not have had is between them and God. The result has been good.
And don't you even think of starting to lay the blame of the present chaos on them. The US troops are not the ones bombing mosques and slaughering innocent Iraqis, it's other Iraqis and Arabs who are doing that.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saddaam was a ruthless dictator, and he needed to be removed. No one was even thinking of denying that until someone actually had the balls to do it.
I have a qualified denial. The "needed to be removed" isn't crystal clear to me. Then again, I think people are too casual with the term need.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He was slaughtering people. That justifies the need.
Of course, it would justify the need to remove countless other petty dictators. It's a sad reflection on our world that the invasion of Iraq was an exception, not the rule. Things have gone back to normal, and we've gone back to treating with dangerous madmen again.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Let's have a fair trial, and then execute him."
DK raises some good points. But I don't think any of them contradict the need to move forward with the investigation. We have conflicting stories about intelligence reports and who knew what when, and I think it's important to uncover the truth. If that means Bush committed impeachable offenses, then he should be impeached. If it means the intelligence community made huge mistakes, then that needs to be fixed (that may include firing some people, it depends on the nature of the mistakes). If it shows that members of Congress knew the intelligence was bad but voted for the war anyway, they should be held accountable (Can we impeach senators? I'm thinking it's more likely they'd just get voted out next time around.)
The debate should not be "We need an investigation so we can impeach Bush" vs "We can't have an investigation because Bush should stay in power." There should be an investigation because the American people should know what really happened in bringing us to this war.
quote:Of course, it would justify the need to remove countless other petty dictators. It's a sad reflection on our world that the invasion of Iraq was an exception, not the rule.
Heck, yeah! Let's go back to the days when the military superpowers of the world could smash whatever country they felt like, with no fear of reprisals, and with no good reasons! Sounds like a plan to me! This world could do with a few more countries under occupation.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or the fact that Saddam defied the UN with impunity for over a decade. Of course the head of the UN was getting rich along with Saddam with the Oil for Food program but no need to call for Annan's immediate resignation
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Whatever ulterior motives the Bush administration actually may or may not have had is between them and God. The result has been good.
So, since we have yet to see the final result in Iraq, your entire argument consists of "the middles justify the means?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Don't get me wrong. If the "people are leading", I'm going to try like heck to lead in a direction you wouldn't like. And I've been working hard to help with the spinal implants. I'm also a big fan of both my senators and my represenative.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or the expulsion of rogue states like Iran. No, let them continue to hijack the agenda of the UN. Or the PDC, as I call it. Petty Dictator's Club.
EDIT : Tom, Saddaam Hussein has been toppled, and terrorists and madman are now seeking to destroy the state rather than ruling it. That in and of itself is a worthy result, however the rest of it might play out. So don't say such idiotic things, you're disappointing me lately.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: No, there is no difference between them at all. Well with the exception that it feels more like you want Bush impeached at any cost because he just has to be lying because he is Bush. I may be putting words in your post, so if I misinterperted that I do apologize.
You do misinterpret and read a lot into my post that isn't there. I admit that I don't like Bush. I admit there is a petty part of me that would like to see him get the comeuppance I think he deserves. However, I do not want to see anyone get a comeuppance they don't deserve, so I'm withholding actually saying "Bush deserves to be impeached" until/unless something concrete is found.
However, if you really believe there is "no difference" between a liar and someone acting in good faith on a lie they have been told, or in re-iterating a lie they have been led to believe, then there's really no point in discussing this further with you.
I do admit that it's still a question if a lie was actually told, and if so, by whom. However, I don't trust Bush. I don't like his "my way or the highway" attitude, and I abhor his delusions of "political capital" just because he was able to squeak into office. I feel he has wantonly alienated a very large portion of the country to the core and has done more to kill any feelings of cooperation between the parties than any president I remember.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
KMB, I was thinking that is just a good line, and I can adapt that joke for a lot of situations independent of politics...
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: So don't say such idiotic things, you're disappointing me lately.
Only lately? When didn't I? I would genuinely love to hear what I've written that you deeply respected. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I realise why the Democrats feel the need to do this, but don't you think there's other, perhaps more pressing things they could be doing with whatever muscle they happen to have?
I mean, we know someone messed up somewhere but surely there are more important things?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
More important than discovering if the country was deceived into a war that has resulted in the deaths of over 2000 US servicemen and untold thousands of Iraqi citizens? God, I hope not.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Genocide is a great reason to do something. Wonder why we only worry about it countries that provide us with a lot of oil...hmm...
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly my point, Megan. You'd think that with that understood, we would be pushing for toppling even those other dicators. So why are you complaining that one of the most repulsive ones is gone for good? You'd think you'd be at least happy it was a step in the right direction.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Of course, if you don't consider genocide and other massacres as a good reason...
DH, you do get that the massacres were roughly 20 years ago? This does not mean that they were any less evil, but to use them to justify our current invasion is somewhat disingenuous. We (sadly) didn't have a problem with them at then time.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You'd think that with that understood, we would be pushing for toppling even those other dicators.
I suppose the logical question, dh, is how you recognize an evil dictator when you see one, and how you prioritize which ones need to be removed for the good of their people and which ones can be favored trading partners.
And you can also ask, I believe, why this conversation is not something the American people are not trusted to hear and understand, instead requiring that we be sold false bills of goods for such invasions instead. Is there a fear that the American public might not support the indiscriminate invasion of dozens of countries?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem I have with all of this is that some people in their posts are assuming that the Democrats will actually be fair. This isn't a 'let's find out the truth' scenario. Be honest with yourselves. This is political in nature. They are interested in finding the truth only as much as it can hurt their political opponents.
I really have a problem with it when such a group comes in with an agenda like this and people assume that they are going after the truth when that is simply not the case. They are going to try to find whatever they can that will be most politically damaging to Bush and the Republican party, much the same as the Republicans did with Clinton. Don't fool yourselves.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, if you really believe there is "no difference" between a liar and someone acting in good faith on a lie they have been told, or in re-iterating a lie they have been led to believe, then there's really no point in discussing this further with you.
Yes there is a complete difference between those types. I would add however instead of keeping the 'lie' in there that it could have read "someone acting in good faith on information that turned out to be false". Your statement (and I admit I am reading into it) has a subtle implication that Bush and the current Administration is guilty already of being liars, rather than people who acted in good faith on information that turned out to be false.
quote: I do admit that it's still a question if a lie was actually told, and if so, by whom.
quote: However, I don't trust Bush. I don't like his "my way or the highway" attitude, and I abhor his delusions of "political capital" just because he was able to squeak into office. I feel he has wantonly alienated a very large portion of the country to the core and has done more to kill any feelings of cooperation between the parties than any president I remember.
I separated those two because I am wondering if the latter is greatly influencing the former? If it turns out that the Administration acted on information that turned out to be false after they presented it the American people, would they still be liars?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Putting partisan politics aside, I believe that an impartial investigation needs to occur. The purpose shouldn't be about villifying or defending the Bush administration, it should be about discovering the truth.
As to toppling despots in other countries, well, what gives us the right to invade any country? What scale do we use to measure when we should act? Should we invest more effort in a country with assets that we need, or in a country that we have no long-term interest in? How do you prioritize who's worth saving?
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, I am fully supportive of investigations into the lead up to the Iraq war from the end of the first Gulf war up until today to see what we need to change about Intelligence gathering and the like.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: They are going to try to find whatever they can that will be most politically damaging to Bush and the Republican party, much the same as the Republicans did with Clinton. Don't fool yourselves.
Do you believe, therefore, that Clinton should not have been investigated? Or Nixon? Or Reagan? All of these investigations were politically motivated; does that mean they should never have occurred?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I agree that some of the motivation is political in nature, and it shouldn't be, but it is.
That's why it's all the more important that Republicans conduct this investigation in a fair and thorough manner. They shouldn't give Democrats an opportunity to take the high road away from them.
And speaking of the high road, let us not assume that the only motivation driving the Democrats is political in nature. This investigation could just as easily cripple the Democratic party as it could the Republican.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I separated those two because I am wondering if the latter is greatly influencing the former?
Actually, because I am willing to recognize that my dislike of Bush may hinder my abilities to be fully impartial, it should be to my credit that I am able to utter the "former". I haven't seen even the attempt at that from those wanting to counter-villify the "Democrats" as a whole in this thread.
quote:If it turns out that the Administration acted on information that turned out to be false after they presented it the American people, would they still be liars?
Well, no, that would mean they were mistaken. However, the purpose of an investigation, in part, would be to find out which of the two scenarios is the real one, no?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I, for one, don't really care why they are doing it, I just think it's about time.
My personal best guess is that Bush and Co. didn't lie so much as encourage and believe intelligence that suited their plans and confirmed what they already thought. I don't think this was, necessarily , deliberate or malicious. We all do this to one exent or another. It is hard to tell powerful people things they don't want to hear. And we have seen what happens to those folks who have done so with this administration (and, I'm sure, others).
I do think that we need this investigation in order to help make sure that intelligence gathering is not similarly skewed in the future.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, it is to your credit that you are able to utter former. Although I may have come across that way, I'm not trying to vilify Democrats as whole, although I readily admit that is being done in this thread. I've been trying to name names where appropriate and not do any 'lumping together'.
quote: Well, no, that would mean they were mistaken.
That statement is also to your credit. I do agree with you on what the investigation is for
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saddaam was a ruthless dictator, and he needed to be removed.
True, but was defiantly opposing the rest of the world the best way to do that?
If the rest of the world is wrong, the answer is obviously "yes."
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:Whatever ulterior motives the Bush administration actually may or may not have had is between them and God. The result has been good.
Well, that depends on where you are looking from.
No, it doesn't. It depends on what you are look at. Where you are looking from will determine if your perception is wrong or not, but it will not change the fundamental reality of the results.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
