Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on April 24, 2006, 06:22:59 PM
-
This certainly seems bothersome.... Bush getting a free pass on this one too?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml
According to Drumheller, CIA Director George Tenet delivered the news about the Iraqi foreign minister at a high-level meeting at the White House, including the president, the vice president and Secretary of State Rice.
At that meeting, Drumheller says, "They were enthusiastic because they said, they were excited that we had a high-level penetration of Iraqis."
What did this high-level source tell him?
"He told us that they had no active weapons of mass destruction program," says Drumheller.
"So in the fall of 2002, before going to war, we had it on good authority from a source within Saddam's inner circle that he didn't have an active program for weapons of mass destruction?" Bradley asked.
"Yes," Drumheller replied. He says there was doubt in his mind at all.
"It directly contradicts, though, what the president and his staff were telling us," Bradley remarked.
"The policy was set," Drumheller says. "The war in Iraq was coming. And they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."
Drumheller expected the White House to ask for more information from the Iraqi foreign minister.
But he says he was taken aback by what happened. "The group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they're no longer interested," Drumheller recalls. "And we said, 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said, 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.'"
"And if I understand you correctly, when the White House learned that you had this source from the inner circle of Saddam Hussein, they were thrilled with that," Bradley asked.
"The first we heard, they were. Yes," Drumheller replied.
Once they learned what it was the source had to say — that Saddam Hussein did not have the capability to wage nuclear war or have an active WMD program, Drumheller says, "They stopped being interested in the intelligence."
-
To simplify things, please feel free to pick one or more of the following and identify by letter.
A: Liberal Media
B: CBS making up stories again!
C: Bush never said we were going there ONLY to deal with WMDs
D: So what? Slick Willy was the biggest liar to ever occupy the office!
E: LOL LOL LOL
F: Libs showing their desparation yet again.
G: WHY DON'T YOU SUPPORT OUR TROOPS?!
H: What would the Iraqi Foriegn Minister know? Those WMDs were there, and now Syria has them.
I: Hillary is a potato!
J: All of the above.
-
I select A, H and I. :noid
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
This certainly seems bothersome.... Bush getting a free pass on this one too?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml
And a free pass on all of those documents and tapes they translated so far !
Documents
Saddam Hussein's regime was planning suicide attacks on U.S. interests six months before 9-11.
Saddam's regime was not only providing aid and support for terrorist organizations of other countries. It was also planning its own bombings directed at U.S. facilities and personnel.
Putin verified this in 2004 -
"Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received . . . information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the U.S. and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations."
Saddam's older son Uday ordered 50 members of the fanatical "Fedayeen Saddam" group to stage bombings and assassinations in Iraq and Europe — including London, where 10 people were assigned.
Ties to Al-Qaida
In a February 1995 meeting between Saddam's spies and Osama bin Laden. During that meeting, bin Laden offered to conduct "joint operations" with Iraq. Saddam subsequently ordered his aides to "develop the relationship" with the al-Qaida leader.
A fax, sent on June 6, 2001, shows conclusively that Saddam's government provided financial aid to Abu Sayyaf guerrillas in the Philippines. Abu Sayyaf is an al-Qaida offshoot co-founded by bin Laden's brother-in-law.
Tapes
on a 1997 tape Sadam's son-in-law — who was in charge of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction — gloats about lying to U.N. weapons inspectors to hide the extent of Iraq's WMD program.
Saddam, in a tape made in 2000, talks with Iraqi scientists about his plans to build a nuclear device. He discusses Iraq's plasma separation program — an advanced uranium-enrichment technique completely missed by U.N. inspectors.
-
K. since 1998 the policy of the United States, passed by congress and signed by the President, was to seek regime change in Iraq.
-
Since when is a "Foreign minister" Part of an inner circle with reguard to domestic military programs?
Isnt a "Foreign Minister" Basically a diplomat/Ambassador which is little more then a messenger boy for the government of his country?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
K. since 1998 the policy of the United States, passed by congress and signed by the President, was to seek regime change in Iraq.
Hmmm... I'm not sure it's worded that way.
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
-
support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq
seek regime change in Iraq.
One's passive the other proactive.
I'll choose proactive seeing how no one else wanted to step up to the plate.
-
Why would one "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq" if one were not seeking regime change?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Why would one "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq" if one were not seeking regime change?
Ummm... "We broke it, we bought it".
It would have been billions cheaper to pay someone else to break it.
-
Once they learned what it was the source had to say — that Saddam Hussein did not have the capability to wage nuclear war or have an active WMD program, Drumheller says, "They stopped being interested in the intelligence.
====
easy enough, the source doesnt tell you what you want to hear, you negate the source. Whats so hard to understand about that? Hussein had it coming in so many ways.....Im surprised you leftwobbles are still chewing on this rotten bone. Hussein had it coming and I hope he drops dead at the end of a rope.
-
Oh yeah... the bone is an old one, but the body bags are still coming in at Dover.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Oh yeah... the bone is an old one, but the body bags are still coming in at Dover.
Well, at least they stopped coming in at various land fills around Iraq before the war.
-
Whoopee.
-
Ok, all this stuff keeps trickling out.
The Dems are the opposition party. There are 231 Republicans and 201 Democrats with 1 Independent.
If there's fire under all this smoke, why isn't there some action? The Republicans don't have that much of a majority and I feel sure that some Republicans would be just as pissed as anyone else if there's substance to this stuff.
Again, Conyers can't get anything going towards an impeachment investigation/action. There's currently about 28 co-sponsors, ~ 14% of the Democrats.
Where's the opposition party?
-
There is nothing to be gained by impeachment.
-
The US war in Iraq is the most illegal, unjustified and corrupt war in world history. No other war in the history of earth has been this bad.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The Dems are the opposition party. There are 231 Republicans and 201 Democrats with 1 Independent.
If there's fire under all this smoke, why isn't there some action? The Republicans don't have that much of a majority
A majority, any majority, is enough of a majority. Republicans run the subcommittees. If ya don't run those, fahgeddaboudit. You can't move nuthin' up the hill. You can't investigate squat.
Give the Democrats a majority, however, and then the subcommittees will be run by Democrats, and then you might actually see something in the form of actual, you know, real oversight. The kind the founders intended.
That might sound like a threat to some people nowadays...
Boo hoo. The Republican Senate, the Republican Congress, whipped by the Republican Executive have done.................... nothing. Except rubber stamp themselves out of one jam after another.
Seriously. How could a political party who has nothing but contempt for government, be expected to actually govern? That's like hiring Pauly Shore as conductor of the Philharmonic. It's like hiring Streisand for head of the NRA.
Republicans, being the idiot self centered xenophobic frightened little salamanders that they are, are so FAR out of their league that, when put into positions of actual power, can't help but to make a complete and total mess out of every single thing that they touch.
"Government" - Bad
"Liberal media" - Bad
"Universities" - Bad
"Gays" - Bad
"Immigration" - Bad
"Gun control" - Bad
"Environmental checks" - Bad
"Hollywood" - Bad
"Sex" - Bad
Ya know what? Screw these people and the horse they rode in on.
Doofusus.....
They hate government. Always have. So no WONDER that they suck at it.
Toad says "The Republicans don't have that much of a majority....."
The problem is.... they have enough of a majority. And by majority we're talking an entire majority. So much of a majority that when Conyers actually does try to provide some oversight, they kick him down into a room in the basement and ignore the entire thing.
Until that flips and these underachieving *******s get sent packing, then it's gonna be nuthin' but the same crap from these same god fearing hypocritical sweetheartbags who never expected anything from you but your mouth-breathing unthinking complacency.
Maybe it's what you deserve. I think most folks deserve better.
-
The US war in Iraq is the most llegal, justified and necessary war in world history. No other war in the history of earth has been this important.
Oh dagummit, I fergot....its all about oil and haliburton :confused:
-
Nash, do you *really* think one party is much different than the other? They're both corrupt, self-serving, power-hungry, and out of touch with (and couldn't care less about) real America.
Have you ever read a Steinbeck story called, "The Pearl"? It's about poor pearl harvesters. They supposedly have several corporate buyers for the pearls they harvest, but in reality they only have one choice due to corruption within the system.
The major political parties in the USA are much the same--they give you two choices, but in reality there's only one choice. Whichever choice we pick, we're still voting for a corrupt lying corporate puppet.
Things will get worse before they get better.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
...Things will get worse before they get better....
they will?
darn.
i picked the wrong day to quit smoking.
-
"i picked the wrong day to quit smoking."
I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing gl.....aw, nevermind.
J_A_B
-
Nah.... bs.
Now. I aint so naive to think that everything is roses. I mean, we are talking about politicians afterall.
But this whole "lesser of two evils" thing drives me nuts. Because it's not that, and the only people that you hear that from nowadays are the people who are now just waking up from zombiedom and have decided to just throw their arms up into the air in some kind of spastic death throe.
The fact is that responsible, strong, compassionate, principled, respected and intelligent government actually can exist.
The kind of government that would make you proud again. In fact, there is quite a track record of it....
But.... instead.... you get a Frank Luntz induced mirror image of yourselves.
Oh! The horror...
Play time is over. So over. It's time that you snap out of it.
-
"But this whole 'lesser of two evils' thing drives me nuts. Because it's not that, and the only people that you hear that from nowadays are the people who are now just waking up from zombiedom "
Here we see the common leftist tactic of labeling anyone who disagrees with them stupid or ignorant. I've been called worse. I won't play that game--come up with something better.
I distrust Republicans in general as well as today's Democrats. "Lesser of two Evils" might not be totally accurate as they're increasingly as bad as each other. "Caught between a rock and a hard place" might be a better way to describe how I feel. I can either vote for one candidate I dislike, vote for a second candide I dislike, or vote for some other guy who has utterly no chance of victory. What kind of choice is that!?!?
"The fact is that responsible, strong, compassionate, principled, respected and intelligent government actually can exist."
Not in a country dominated by out-of-control unregulated corporate entities it can't. Many of our founders didn't trust them, and it's easy to see why their distrust wasn't unwarranted. Washington also didn't much like political parties.
The pendulum of power will eventually swing back away from corporate america, but it'll take a major social problem (such as the great depression) first. As Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, "...all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed"
J_A_B
-
Well, let's see how it works from a practical point of view.
The President is responsible for the safety of the nation, and he's allowed to send our military to war for 90 days on just his opinion, if he determines that it's necessary.
After 90 days, congress has the ability to cut off the military activities with a simple vote. Beyond this, congress is also responsible for funding the military so they have a very real ability to directly control what the military does, by directly controlling the military budget.
If the people of the US don't like what the President does, they can elect another one after 4 years. If they don't like what their congressional reps do in terms of controlling the military, they can elect new reps every 2 years.
Let's see what really happened.
Congress voted to allow the war to continue beyond 90 days, and has not held a single vote to overturn this decision.
Every 6 months since the war started, congress has passed budgetary measures to fund the war. This includes the full annual budget which includes specific pots of money for equipment, homeland, and expeditionary operations, plus mid-year budget supplementals with specific funding for wartime operational budget shortfalls.
Congress has also not seriously considered any censure or impeachment measures.
The people... Congressional incumbency is near all-time highs with the balance of power being roughly the same as it was 12 years ago, indicating the vast majority of citizens, both democrat and republican, approve of their congressional representation.
The president won his re-election bid.
So the answer to your question is yes, the President gets a pass, because he acted fully within his constitutionally and legally defined powers, the governmental body responsible for providing a direct check on presidential power has not made a SINGLE real challenge to the president's decisions, and the American citizens have voiced their approval of both the President and their Congressional representatives by voting to keep nearly all of them in office throughout the conflict.
Is that clear enough?
-
Sure is Eagl. The majority of Americans are idiots for re-electing the ******s in congress, and re-electing captain ******. EDIT : Can't say bellybutton hat?
-
Originally posted by SOB
To simplify things, please feel free to pick one or more of the following and identify by letter.
E: LOL LOL LOL
E for Eagler - thanks! :)
-
Oh, BS Nash.
You act as if the Congress is divided into two monolithic blocks that always vote the straight party line. As if there is NO issue that can make them rise above the party pettiness.
You act as if House Democrats are totally powerless.
You really believe that if all 201 Democats co-sponsored Conyer's bill that nothing would happen? That no spotlight would be turned more closely on these issues? That the American people would remain as complacent and unaware of the issues that seem to consume you? That the media wouldn't make it the issue of the quarter?
"The people" aren't going to lead this issue. They don't have the "inside info", the intelligence resources or the money to dig this all out and get it to the front page. The Democrats do.
Yet..... yet..... Conyer's bill has 28 co-sponsors.
Why aren't the Democrats, the Opposition Party, all over this issue?
-
As for impeachment being pointless, I'm pretty certain that if impeachment can be justified for Bush due to the decision to go to war, Cheney will be in the exact same boat.
Dennis Hastert might be your next President.
-
Originally posted by Nash
The fact is that responsible, strong, compassionate, principled, respected and intelligent government actually can exist.
The kind of government that would make you proud again. In fact, there is quite a track record of it....
(http://mikewaltz.net/stuff/koolaid-large.jpg)
-
ALL politicians are scandalous thieves, and every single President & his staff scheme, lie, connive, coerce, cover up, and generally spew sorotte de burro out of their pie holes as long as their lips are moving.
That said, I'm going to the bathroom to take a Bush and wipe my Clinton.
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
The US war in Iraq is the most illegal, unjustified and corrupt war in world history. No other war in the history of earth has been this bad.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
If, I say again, IF this is your true thought and not simply a poorly thought out troll, you are lucky to know enough to even SPELL history as you certainly have no clue about what it means.
-
Toad, what do you think of what Drumheller says?
I know for me, I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt when he made the case that the invasion was due to Iraq's immediate threat to our security via their WMD's and WMD program.
As you know from our conversations at the time, I backed the action but stated he'd better be on the money with this. I look at this as squandering our projection of power, not enhancing it's affect as a political tool.
It's a big step to undertake regime change....and a huge difference to undertake regime change for security reasons to undertaking it because you want to.
You also know I agree with your holding Congress just as responsible, but at the end of the day, the initiative to regime change started and ended with the Administration....all the way from having Libby discredit sources of information that the Admin didn't like to outright disregarding information that did not fit their end purpose.
-
Funny stuff Toad.
If only those Democrats would act in unison, these things would improve.
LOL... Kinda like blaming the spectators for a lousy Superbowl.
-
If only congress would act like Americans instead of Dems and Repubs, then things might improve.
-
Last time I checked, regime change in Iraq was still underway....by that I mean it is still developing and has not failed yet, and I hope will not fail, although there are plenty of leftists in america who hope failure in Iraq does indeed occur.
Hussein needed to come down just as the leader of Iran will be coming down, one way or another. The Syrians thankfully are proving to be far more intelligent than the Iranians and dont appear to be too interested in bringing destruction on themselves...the Libyans figured it out....hopefully the North Koreans will implode and the South will retake what is rightfully theirs without a shot having to be fired.
The only caveat I see is some moronic democrat, like Kerry....getting elected and screwing the whole thing over........a likely scenario thanks to the ineptness of Bush at protecting his party from controversy.
-
If I recall correctly, Ahmadinejad was ELECTED as president of Iran.
If I also recall correctly, during the previous tenure of Mohammed Khatami, the U.S. increased economic sanctions and openly threatened military attack.
What a surprise... the Iranian people elected a president who is now telling the U.S. to go **** itself.
This just in... as nation builders, our record isn't all that keen.
-
If I recall correctly, Ahmadinejad was ELECTED as president of Iran.
====
and Hitler was elected Das Furher..........you support the Iranians pursuit of peacefull nuclear technologies? They only mean peacefull uses for their enriched uranium, dont you agree. Iran should have been liberated back in 1980 but our miserable pitiful disgrace of a president couldn't hardly wait to fail.
If I also recall correctly, during the previous tenure of Mohammed Khatami, the U.S. increased economic sanctions and openly threatened military attack. What a surprise... the Iranian people elected a president who is now telling the U.S. to go **** itself.
====
At least I will feel good knowing they are going to deserve whats coming to them if they continue going down the one way road they are on.
This just in... as nation builders, our record isn't all that keen.
====
I will take Japan and South Korea, Western Europe...and the eventual freedom of Eastern Europe as success stories and build upon those.
With any luck, Iraq will survive to be a free nation, wouldn't you like that.
-
So nash.... who should we support? I mean... you loved klinton.. is that your idea of an honest politician?
No? then who would you suggest? you say we shouldn't pick the lesser of two evils but.... yu have an anyone but republicans stance.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Yeager
With any luck, Iraq will survive to be a free nation, wouldn't you like that.
Don't bet on it. They've been in a state of civil war for decades.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
So nash.... who should we support? I mean... you loved klinton.. is that your idea of an honest politician?
No? then who would you suggest? you say we shouldn't pick the lesser of two evils but.... yu have an anyone but republicans stance.
lazs
Clinton... successful intervention in Yugoslavia (et.al.) total casualties... ZERO. Unsuccessful incursion into Somalia - 18 dead?
Bush.. well you know the story.
Yea, I'd pick Clinton.
-
Dont forget the 400,000 dead in Rwanda. I seem to recall the UN blaming Klinton for that :cry
And those poor old janitors in the bombed aspirn factory. throw them into the carcass pile :confused:
-
mt
slick would only have had about 20 dead in Iraq too as he'd yanked the troops out as soon as the first poll told him to ...
nov is right around the corner.. anyone care to place a wager?
-
Or better yet, maybe he wouldn't have even sent them.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Toad, what do you think of what Drumheller says?
[/b]
I think he needs to testify before Congress.
[
I know for me, I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt when he made the case that the invasion was due to Iraq's immediate threat to our security via their WMD's and WMD program.
As you know from our conversations at the time, I backed the action but stated he'd better be on the money with this. I look at this as squandering our projection of power, not enhancing it's affect as a political tool.
[/b]
Which is almost word for word for what I said at the time and I have quoted posts of mine on this very BBS during that time that show that.
It's a big step to undertake regime change....and a huge difference to undertake regime change for security reasons to undertaking it because you want to.
The point is it is long past time for the opposition party to pursue this. They have the power, the access to information, the ability to subpoena witnesses, the money and the motive.
I have said before.... long before... that if he led us into invading with no just cause under Just War Theory then he should be impeached.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Funny stuff Toad.
If only those Democrats would act in unison, these things would improve.
LOL... Kinda like blaming the spectators for a lousy Superbowl.
You miss the point. Again.
They are the opposition party; they're the ones that are SUPPOSED to keep the other side "honest".
If all this evidence is out there why aren't they doing something about it?
According to Nash, the whole Republican shebang is a clusterfox. We should be voting for the Democrats.
Well, to be voteworthy, they should be showing some leadership here. Instead, it looks like they're..... just about like the Republicans when it comes to "leadership".
-
Originally posted by eagl
The President is responsible for the safety of the nation, and he's allowed to send our military to war for 90 days on just his opinion, if he determines that it's necessary.
After 90 days, congress has the ability to cut off the military activities with a simple vote.
This has always baffled me. President starts a war and blows the **** out some country for three months. Heck it took less time than to boot out SH. Congress than votes against the war for whatever reason...what the heck happens next does the US send the country a card saying, "Sorry about the war! :) ",?
-
Well, they gave the President "War Powers" because you can launch and hit the US with an ICBM in far less time than it takes Congress to assemble.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
what the heck happens next does the US send the country a card saying, "Sorry about the war! :) ",?
It's a quite strikingly beautiful limited edition Hallmark. Very nice...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
...nov is right around the corner.. anyone care to place a wager?
wagering on politics, $500 max bet:
http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/
no vigorish
-
Originally posted by Eagler
nov is right around the corner.. anyone care to place a wager?
Well... I haven't had a good BBS wager since the presidential election. What you have in mind?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, they gave the President "War Powers" because you can launch and hit the US with an ICBM in far less time than it takes Congress to assemble.
I didn't realise that the US had to declare war even after an agressive attack.
-
As I understand it the War Powers act doesn't give the president anything, it was passed to limit the presidents use of the military so as to reserve the reponsibility of declaring war for congress.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I didn't realise that the US had to declare war even after an agressive attack.
I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly but in either case. The Congress has the responsibility to fund any and all Federal activities. The President can order the military to action based on his position of Commander in Chief. Congress has to allocate funds and authorize any actions longer than 90 days. If they don't there is no funding for continued action. Another check and ballance situation.