It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Dems Force Senate into Secret Session

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Funny Muaddib that you bring Clinton into this taking in consideration that Clinton never used his information that obviously he got in hand to invade Iraq.

Perhaps because he knew that it was not reliable?
..................


Marg....Clinton ordered missile attacks on Iraq because of the wmd, not only that, but before he finished his office, he set up a coalition of nations that were to use force against Iraq if Saddam did not give up his wmd/wmd programe.

I have given excerpts from Clinton's speech before on this same topic quite a few times.

I will see if i can dig it up again.

I am not trying to blame everything on Clinton either, what I have been trying to prove is that what some keep proclaiming "are lies only president Bush and his administration has given" is far from the truth. If all that information was only lies, then half, if not all, of the world lied too. But now everyone wants a scapegoat, and right now there is only one administration in power, so a lot of people, for political reasons, want to blame only that administration.

BTW, going back to the Plame topic. I am not saying that it is alright that a CIA operative's identity is made known by an administration official, if it is true that her identity was secret. What i think is happening is that the oposition is using this as another excuse to bash away at the present administration. As i said before, I don't even think Plame's role in the CIA was really that important, if it was she would have been wisked away for security reasons or by some of our enemies.

I have my doubts, but it could also be possible that the leak happened because of a grudge like some people are saying. But how do we know this for certain?


[edit on 2-11-2005 by Muaddib]




posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
This is not exactly the speech i had in mind, but this one talks about the use of force that Clinton ordered on Iraq by launching missiles to certain targets.


PRESIDENT CLINTON'S ADDRESS

December 16, 1998


PRESIDENT CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

...................
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction.

If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
............................


Excerpted from.
www.pbs.org...


I can't provide the entire content of the link because it is too long, but if you read it you will see that president Bush was not the only one to decide that enough was enough when dealing with Saddam.

You can see in the above excerpt that regime change was already a plan for Iraq, and the decision not only came from the US, or from the present administration.



[edit on 2-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Plame was "classified"? Is that the same as covert? To be considered covert, a person needs to meet certain criteria.


We don't know if Plame met the criteria specified by the US Code. If she was covert and/or classified, there would be aspects of her job which even now are still secret and can't be divulged. The only people who can comment on the matter are those who have access to the facts. (One reason no doubt the closed Senate hearing was a closed hearing.)

At this point it doesn't really matter, except in a legal sense. As far as that goes, the special prosecutor and the CIA's legal offices would know much more about the distinctions than any commentator, and they've found enough damage caused by the leak to indict with.


-koji K.

[edit on 2-11-2005 by koji_K]



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   
You know what muaddib I see not wrong with targeting certain areas in Iraq that was control, but invading Iraq is another thing and now even you have to be able to see it.

I am so tired of politics and political game at the expenses of the US citizens that is not funny I want accountability for so much death and destruction.

Somebody has to paid for the mistakes.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
You know what muaddib I see not wrong with targeting certain areas in Iraq that was control, but invading Iraq is another thing and now even you have to be able to see it.

I am so tired of politics and political game at the expenses of the US citizens that is not funny I want accountability for so much death and destruction.

Somebody has to paid for the mistakes.


Marg, do you know that according to Iraqi media the targets that were hit when Clinton gave this order were "supposedly" milk factories and schools or other public buildings? There were reports from the Iraqi media that several civilians died and were injured in that attack.

BTW, Clinton had plans also on attacking Iraq with ground forces Marg.

Marg, there is a lot that people are willing to forget, like where the blame really lies, as long as the blame falls on one group of people.... more so if those people never liked that other group.

I am not saying that the administration is immaculate, no administration has ever been immaculate. There have been mistakes done, and deals that profit certain groups more than others.

Let me give you another where Clinton talks about Iraq and the wmd.


Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for " in Iraq.

"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"

Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."


Excerpted from.
www.cnn.com...

In one of Clinton's statements, he is saying quite literally that a ground attack was not out of question if Saddam kept playing cat and mouse with the wmd issue.

Most democrats agreed with Clinton and president Bush, until they saw that they could use this to blame the Republican president for statements and intelligence that was gathered before and during president Bush's office.

BTW, even I am tired of death and destruction, but believe it or not, there are people, and groups/governments out there that are plotting against us, and Saddam was one of those people.

I wish if there was no need for war and everyone was happy Marg, but that's not the real world.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
Phoenix, I applaud your contributions to the pot of mindless cliches. Thank you.

Politics IS partisan. It always has been and always will be. The cries of "the evil democrats" are petty replies to this situation. A situation created by the Republican parties ability to move as fast as molasses when it comes to investigating faults committed on its watch.

Reid pulled a stunt in order to get answers. If he gets answers then that stunt will have been well worth it. And if he doesn't... at least the single party dominance can no longer go unchecked.



Thats the beauty of partisan politics. Once it gets started everyone wants to work together.




Be hoodwinked by the Plame blame game if you will



Along with all the rest of the clap-trap thats been attempted and failed over the last few years.

I agree about investigory mollasses but for very different reasons.

Let the investigations go forward - maybe I'll get answers on the National Archive scandel, the 9/11 commission cover-up and Able-Danger information suppression.

In my opinion Reids stunt was not to get answers - it was designed to distract the ill-informed away from a much greater conspiracy.

Nothing petty about wanting the truth rather than partisan smoke and mirrors.

Bush's great error was being conciliatory in not assigning fault after 9/11 to those most deserving.




posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Those liberal yahoos over at the National Review get it. Wouldn't you know that tree huggin' William F. Buckley just doesn't understand why it's the effectiveness of the crime that matters, not the intent or actual crime.


. . . [The focus should be on] the root cause of the disturbance. This had to do with revealing that Valerie Plame Wilson was secretly in the employ of the Central Intelligence Agency, using a cover employer to disguise her affiliation....

We have noticed that Valerie Plame Wilson has lived in Washington since 1997. Where she was before that is not disclosed by research facilities at my disposal.

But even if she was safe in Washington when the identity of her employer was given out, it does not mean that her outing was without consequence. We do not know what dealings she might have been engaging in which are now interrupted or even made impossible. We do not know whether the countries in which she worked before 1997 could accost her, if she were to visit any of them, confronting her with signed papers that gave untruthful reasons for her previous stay -- that she was there only as tourist, or working for a fictitious U.S. company. In my case, it was 15 years after reentry into the secular world before my secret career in Mexico was blown, harming no one except perhaps some who might have been put off by my deception.

The importance of the law against revealing the true professional identity of an agent is advertised by the draconian punishment, under the federal code, for violating it. In the swirl of the Libby affair, one loses sight of the real offense, and it becomes almost inapprehensible what it is that Cheney/Libby/Rove got themselves into. But the sacredness of the law against betraying a clandestine soldier of the republic cannot be slighted.


Not that the Plame case has anything to do with the Minorty Party making the Majority stonewallers accountable in the public eye to the Phase II investigation, but that seems to be what conservatives want to talk about since they know Iraq was a cherry picked intelligence debacle.



[edit on 2-11-2005 by RANT]



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I agree with Phoenix there, I also believe there is a deeper conspiracy that very few people seem to have noticed. Most people are just concerned with trying to blame the present administration. There is probably some blame in the present administration too, but the hole goes deeper than we can see, if you take my meaning.

All the events leading up to this secret meeting seem to be a very well planned game of chess, and it does seem that the last pieces are about to put us in check mate. Notice i said, "put us in check mate," people will think that only the present administration is going to be affected, but there is something going on in a much larger scale.

[edit on 2-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Wilson is using this as a tool for whatever agenda he has in mind, otherwise he would be presenting every piece of information about the intel leading up to the war in Iraq which involved every country and every political party.


Wilson's job wasn't to 'present every piece of info about the intel leading up to the war involving every country and every political party'.
He had one little task to do as requested by cheney, he went, he sought, he couldn't find, and he reported back to cheney. The 'forged' documents that he told cheney weren't possible or verifiable by the officials in niger (i recall one woman in Niger who told Wilson she thought she had already 'debunked those documents' to cheney.

It apparantly didn't matter what was to be said from officials in Niger or Wilson, Cheney wanted to invade Iraq, I don't know why, possibly to get those no bid contracts, who knows, thats the side issue right now.
Point is the intelligence was fixed around the motive, as mentioned in
the ds memo, that the mainstream news''' world is afraid to touch, as it might cost them their jobs as witnessed by aaron brown's being let go a day after mentioning them.

If you haven't noticed our foreign policy has also changed since this administration got into power. No longer do we go into countries that pose a direct threat to this country, but if they are acting obnoxious enough, or if the admin gets an itch or a bad feeling, it's justifiable.

Supreme law of the land, that being the constitution has taken a back seat to the supreme law of the pnac club's newly written laws.

Just an observation.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies

Wilson's job wasn't to 'present every piece of info about the intel leading up to the war involving every country and every political party'.
He had one little task to do as requested by cheney, he went, he sought, he couldn't find, and he reported back to cheney. The 'forged' documents that he told cheney weren't possible or verifiable by the officials in niger (i recall one woman in Niger who told Wilson she thought she had already 'debunked those documents' to cheney.


I also remember reading that all Wilson did was ask for documents from the government of Niger and he made his conclusion just by reading those documents he was given.... Was that really a full investigation into this case? What country do you think would willingly give evidence that they are doing illegal deals with another country?


Originally posted by TrueLies
...................
Point is the intelligence was fixed around the motive, as mentioned in
the ds memo, that the mainstream news''' world is afraid to touch, as it might cost them their jobs as witnessed by aaron brown's being let go a day after mentioning them.


Then my guess is that the intelligence from around the world was fixed to blame Saddam of possessing wmd....



Originally posted by TrueLies
If you haven't noticed our foreign policy has also changed since this administration got into power. No longer do we go into countries that pose a direct threat to this country, but if they are acting obnoxious enough, or if the admin gets an itch or a bad feeling, it's justifiable.


Clinton, and pretty much all democrats including Kerry, also thought that Saddam was a threat not only to the region but to the US....

As i presented already the past administration, Clinton's administration, was thinking not only on regime change for Iraq but was thinking on a ground war if Saddam kept playing cat and mouse with the wmd issue.



Originally posted by TrueLies
Supreme law of the land, that being the constitution has taken a back seat to the supreme law of the pnac club's newly written laws.
Just an observation.


Why is it that people try to keep blaming just this administration for what I think has been pretty much demonstrated was also the goal of the previous administration?... and for the "supposed lies" that the whole world seem to have accepted for years, not only from US intelligence but everyone's inteligence, when it came to Saddam's wmd?......

That is my observation.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Why is it that people try to keep blaming just this administration for what I think has been pretty much demonstrated was also the goal of the previous administration?... and for the "supposed lies" that the whole world seem to have accepted for years, not only from US intelligence but everyone's inteligence, when it came to Saddam's wmd?......

That is my observation.


The short answer is that people can soundbyte and quote all they want (I have some great ones from Colin Powell and Condi Rice in the Clinton-era saying we have no need to invade Iraq and doing so would be folly). The fact is that it was this administration, not any other, that decided to invade. Clinton kept up the rhetoric because Iraq was being contained and we needed to justify that containment, particularly during "Desert Fox."

Isn't the Republican party the one that speaks loudest about integrity? What happened to taking responsibility for your actions?


I don't doubt that the Dems have had some massive policy failures as regards unpopular wars, but today's situation in Iraq is a Republican creation. Myself, I blame neither the Republicans or the Dems for the war directly, I blame the Republicans for allowing the neo-cons (who are merely Republicans-by-convenience) for hijacking their party. During Kosovo, most of the people who are today's GOP were actually behind Clinton.

I can't speak for others, but the blame as I see it goes to those who always have been pushing for invading Iraq since as far back as Reagan. They weren't always Republicans necessarily. But they had far less to do with the Democrats. The people who control the Republican party today are not there because they are Republicans, they are there because they are hawks and found fertile ground for their thought amongst the Republican voter base and leadership.

-koji K.

[edit on 3-11-2005 by koji_K]



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

I also remember reading that all Wilson did was ask for documents from the government of Niger and he made his conclusion just by reading those documents he was given.... Was that really a full investigation into this case? What country do you think would willingly give evidence that they are doing illegal deals with another country?



If you remember Reading that I would recommend you not read that magazine/paper again... Talk about a half azz job at reporting.

From my understanding this is what he wrote about 'doing' while he was in Africa on that trip Cheney asked him to go on.

the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerien interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

Link


Originally posted by TrueLies
Then my guess is that the intelligence from around the world was fixed to blame Saddam of possessing wmd....


Guess all you want, but I cannot submit to just guessing and second hand news articles that don't fill us in on the 'whole story' as I believe they are but an arm to the pnac club's agenda of as much control as they can get a handle on. Not one news station has went into detail about the ds memo, nor have they even come close to criticizing cheney and rove when it comes to the Plame's cover being blown. Nor have they mentioned the fact that rove was fired by bush sr for the same thing he should be blamed for right now, but libby took the fall for him and cheney.




Originally posted by TrueLies
Clinton, and pretty much all democrats including Kerry, also thought that Saddam was a threat not only to the region but to the US....

As i presented already the past administration, Clinton's administration, was thinking not only on regime change for Iraq but was thinking on a ground war if Saddam kept playing cat and mouse with the wmd issue.


I don't care what Clinton and Kerry thought. That's a side issue.
These guys are on the same side Bush is on believe it or not. They come from the same elistist group in Washington, they are part of the secretive elitist group that is pulling at the very fabric of our republic.
Bush mentioned he didn't want to talk about that group because then it wouldn't be a secret anymore, remember that?
Anyway, back on topic.
The administration in government right now should of went and removed 'just sadam and his baath party', that shouldn't of cost us 250 billion dollars, it would of been a hell of a lot cheaper. But they gotta shock and awe us to death, make up stories about going into iraq when they could of just said he's pussy footing around with the wmd's therefore we have reason believe he has chemical weapons that he wants to use, so we need to remove him because of that. But then they wouldn't of gotten the no bid contracts to rebuild, it's all about monetary gain with these folks in this cabinet, they are business men and they are machiavellian business men without a care to US law, international law, and our constitution.


Originally posted by TrueLies
Why is it that people try to keep blaming just this administration for what I think has been pretty much demonstrated was also the goal of the previous administration?... and for the "supposed lies" that the whole world seem to have accepted for years, not only from US intelligence but everyone's inteligence, when it came to Saddam's wmd?......


Keep blaming? Did I even mention anything about clinton? If anybody is trying to blame anybody it's you. You dont want to blame this administration without blaming Clinton? Fine, i'm not about party loyalty, Clinton may have had a hand in it, but Bush is doing us a disservice by continuing and making it worse. Areyou denying the pnac group's role in creating this offensive foreign policy? You want to talk about 'supposed lies' i'll go down the list for you, i'm not going to get sources from second hand people in the media because they dont give us the whole story. And about Saddam's wmd, he did have chemical weapons and i'm not denying that, bush sr could of removed him during the gulf war when he had the chance, he used those weapons back then, why wait so long?

There was more proof back then about him having them but nobody seemed to care as much, rumsfeld was shaking his hand back then, despite his schitzo authorative iron fist.

Torture was prevelant back then, he gassed his people back then, but nobody in the us government cared. why care now? There is less room for a strong ppt presentation to present to us now, then back then.

[edit on 4-11-2005 by TrueLies]



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
There had to be some lies to get the American public and Congress to agree on 'anything' WE had to be overwhelmed with messages of WMD and imminent threat, and mushroom clouds. It was the only way it could be done. The Euro was about to become the oil standard monopoly money, and we needed bases in the Middle east because SAudi and eventually Turkey were not going to provide them anymore. The Hawks wanted their world arms to become powerful enough to 'rule the world' And so they are. Mission accomplished. What the neocons got- they wanted- democracy behind a loaded gun, missile, what-have -you. (while diluting real democracy here and destroying it elsewhere)

It's true the democrats also voted for war- (remember? Congress WAS lied to also!) so- relax for the next few years, there will be more wars, less prosperity, and terrible weather, whether you die from cancer or bird flu, we will have to see if the rules change and King George gets re-elected in 2008 because of 'National emergencies' and we will be unable to vote at all with all the multiple crisis going on.
The Latino revolution will cause rioting like you've never seen- even the Paris stuff looks less volatile than this. Food riots, like a certain
Schwarzenegger movie will become more frequent. And of course, we will all be slaves in corporations or prison- you choose.

But then this is all conjecture, I hope it all doesn't happen, and we go on believing all the advertisements that by drinking Busch Beer we will dance with the elk, and soar with the eagles in the mountains with all our favorite toys in the trunk



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by accountability
There had to be some lies to get the American public and Congress to agree on 'anything' WE had to be overwhelmed with messages of WMD and imminent threat, and mushroom clouds. It was the only way it could be done. The Euro was about to become the oil standard monopoly money, and we needed bases in the Middle east because SAudi and eventually Turkey were not going to provide them anymore. The Hawks wanted their world arms to become powerful enough to 'rule the world' And so they are. Mission accomplished. What the neocons got- they wanted- democracy behind a loaded gun, missile, what-have -you. (while diluting real democracy here and destroying it elsewhere)

It's true the democrats also voted for war- (remember? Congress WAS lied to also!) so- relax for the next few years, there will be more wars, less prosperity, and terrible weather, whether you die from cancer or bird flu, we will have to see if the rules change and King George gets re-elected in 2008 because of 'National emergencies' and we will be unable to vote at all with all the multiple crisis going on.
The Latino revolution will cause rioting like you've never seen- even the Paris stuff looks less volatile than this. Food riots, like a certain
Schwarzenegger movie will become more frequent. And of course, we will all be slaves in corporations or prison- you choose.

But then this is all conjecture, I hope it all doesn't happen, and we go on believing all the advertisements that by drinking Busch Beer we will dance with the elk, and soar with the eagles in the mountains with all our favorite toys in the trunk


The Democrats voted for war but I think something got mixed up because they actually didn't want to go to war but their little messenger got lost in translation.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   
"Sandy Burglar"??

I've learned that people who will create funny little nicknames for public figures they don't like can be safely ignored without missing out on anything important.

There's nothing hard to understand about Harry Reid taking the senate into private session. If he were to start asking about why Senator Roberts' inquiry into the intelligence cockup that led us into a ill-advised, poorly planned, poorly executed war hasn't gotten off the ground, Bill Frist would simply have silenced him by saying these things couldn't be discussed because of "National Security". By putting the matter in secret session, the supporters of the Bush Administration could not hide behind this screen.

The Bush Administration is the most secretive executive branch in the history of the United States, by a huge margin. The number of regular work-product documents that have become classified under Bush has increased by over 4000%. That's 40 times for all you Republicans out there. What are they hiding. One of the basic tenets of American life has always been that sunshine is good for government. When our leaders are unable to make decisions in the dark of night, things usually go horribly wrong, as they have in the last 5 years.

So here we are in 2005 and we have stories about the number of Americans WITHOUT ties to terror being covertly surveilled by the government has increased by an order of magnitude, thanks to the Patriot Act. We have secret airlines carrying secret prisoners to secret prisons in secret locations. At the same time, a government official who dares to disagree with the administration about the war in Iraq is marked for dirty tricks by a vice-president with ties to the very corporation that stands to make the most profit from the war in Iraq.

Those of you who work so diligently here at ATS to support this administration must at some level realize that the Bush Adminstration represents a new kind of ugly, corrupt philosophical bent in the history of American Presidency. Those of you who still have some tiny bits of patriotism left in your hearts, how can you be so willing to accept such a thorough corruption of the true ideals that have made our country great? Are you so readily willing to give up the best parts of the American Dream to an administration that so hates what this country stands for?



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06
The Democrats voted for war but I think something got mixed up because they actually didn't want to go to war but their little messenger got lost in translation.


Uh, because Bush told them Saddam had WMDs... You see, the republicans lied to the Dems and the UN about WMDs. The UN had their own information and knew the Republicans were lieing, the Dems however had the information given to them, which turns out the Republicans forged. That's why. So amazing how blind some people can be when they don't want to see.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join