America needs you to impeach the President

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
I have grown weary of your endless, mindless, truthless, fascist posts that have absolutely no value on either side of any debate. I will ask you - nicely this time - to please back up your assertions with links or facts that you have.

Same here with the weariness that all anti-Bush, propagandist pacifists post on the ATS forums.

I can back up my facts about my assertions is that there is no links that can truthfully tell the country that Bush has done anything wrong. The links you provide are all baseless lies, designed to put a self admitted baby-killer in the CIC's seat.

And I'll ask you nicely. Instead of bashing Bush. Is it possible to tell me what good will Kerry do for this country? If you can give me any credible answers to my question, then I may reconsider my vote on election day.

I'll be waiting.

"I'd like someone to explain something to me. The claim is being made that President Bush lied to the American people about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

Ok, let's examine what he said, and compare it with the interpretations of everybody else who'd seen some or all of the same intelligence.

www.mjmwired.net...

Thanks to Shawn McMahon for researching this stuff out and compiling it all together. So the question is who is lying? I don't see where the President lied or mislead anybody?? Sounds to me, that everyone was mislead or lied. How foolish it was for the President to trust the intelligence reports from our intelligence agencies and the rest of the world who's job it is to seek out this type of information. The President should of known better then to trust these people... Come on people. Anyone in the Presidents position, with this information would of came up with the same conclusion, at least these politicans did!


Note from mods: please don't wholesale copy someone's text (particularly when it says on the message that it's copyrighted by him. Leave a nice link, instead.

[edit on 8-10-2004 by Byrd]

www.rense.com...

Originally posted by oppodeldoc

Originally posted by vatar
I'm sorry, I don't see anything in there about what the Senators were briefed or not briefed on.

I wish you would just read the article. But if you won't, I'll clip some stuff for you. The senate got the CIA intelligence briefing. LATER, Tenet HIMSELF told the administration that there was evidence undermining the briefing that CONGRESS HAD. All this was in 2002. Read:

Mr. Tenet declined to be interviewed. But in a statement, he said he "made it clear" to the White House "that the case for a possible nuclear program in Iraq was weaker than that for chemical and biological weapons." Regarding the tubes, Mr. Tenet said "alternative views were shared" with the administration.

But check THIS out. Here the article describes very plainly that the Senate was not given the same information included in the classified briefings to the White House:

The C.I.A. has a distinct edge: "unique access to policy makers and unique control of intelligence reporting," the report found. The Presidential Daily Briefs, for example, are prepared and presented by agency analysts; the agency's director is the president's principal intelligence adviser. This allows agency analysts to control the presentation of information to policy makers "without having to explain dissenting views or defend their analysis from potential challenges," the committee's report said.

This problem, the report said, was "particularly evident" with the C.I.A.'s analysis of the tubes, when agency analysts "lost objectivity and in several cases took action that improperly excluded useful expertise from the intelligence debate." In interviews, Senate investigators said the agency's written assessments did a poor job of describing the debate over the intelligence.

So you see, unless the New York Times and their sources are all lying, It becomes evident that only the White House was truly aware how flimsy the argument for Saddam's Nuclear capability was. We are learning now that the argument was flimsy because it was basically MADE UP.

I ask you again to READ THE ARTICLE. Here it is, once again:

www.nytimes.com...

You are right, I haven't read the article becuase I refuse to subscribe to it. But I can tell you from my own experience in the intelligence community that isn't how it works. The CIA briefs the president. The CIA briefs congress. The president doesn't brief congress. Your "Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found" doesn't hold water; Bush doesn't decide what intelligence to give congress.

Wait, that Trent Lott conspired with Bush? No, Bush dismissed Trent Lott for he said that there were no WMDS! Only reports saying Saddam had WMDs came from Donald and the boys in the Pentagon. Trent Lott kept saying there were no WMDs, but his reports were thrown out, and the congress never saw them.

.
20,000 Iraqis and over 1000 American soldiers are DEAD Because of this fiasco in Iraq!
How can people treat this like some Trivial thing? Not only that, it has ALREADY cost us 120 BILLION dollars for this mistake.

We have turned a stable nation into a hotbed and sanctuary for terrorists.
You would have to be totally deranged to support this president.
.

The congress including John F. Kerry were NOT informed of STRONG DISSENT by the Energy department of the 'aluminum tube's' useability in a centrifuge.

The next day, Energy Department officials ticked off a long list of reasons why the tubes did not appear well suited for centrifuges. Simply put, the analysis concluded that the tubes were the wrong size - too narrow, too heavy, too long - to be of much practical use in a centrifuge.

The tubes now sought by Iraq had precisely the same dimensions - a perfect match [for combustion chambers for slim rockets fired from launcher pods.].

www.nytimes.com...

But several Congressional and intelligence officials with access to the 15 assessments said not one of them informed senior policy makers of the Energy Department's dissent [over usability of the 'aluminum tubes' for a centrifuge]

"They never lay out the other case," one Congressional official said of those C.I.A. assessments.

www.nytimes.com...

The Whitehouse had information THEY DID NOT SHARE with the congress.
.

This post has turned out to be a debate I am rather enjoying, keep it up with the fact based opinions.

Good post to get the fumes rising, even though I disagree with your opinion, I value it nonetheless.

Opplededoc I understand your point about the aluminum tubes however I think there are a few factors you have failed to take into account.
Just as a Prosecutor in a criminal trial does not present dissenting evidence I would not expect the president, in motivating the country to what he considers a just war, to present evidence which would weaken his case.
While the use of and importance of the aluminum tubes may have been highly questionable it was the presidents decision that an invasion of Irq was in the best interest of the country, as such it was his job to convince the rest of the US that his position was correct.
Allow me to put it another way, early in my carreer it was my job to advise my clients on the best course of action in relation to investing thier money, as such I would present them with facts that supported my argument. However the facts presented were not always those which I had made my decision based on, but usually those facts which were easiest for that client to understand.
For example had I been advising that a client purchase microsft I may have chosen to present it as a good investment becuse of a new product they had launched when the reason I had decided it was a good investment in the first place was becuase of a detailed fundamental analysis of the companies profit margins. Why emphasize the new product launce to a client rather than the profit margins? Because while very few people can understand the intricacies of a fundamental analysis anyone can understand what a product launch is.

In the same manner I believe that President Bush used WMD's to motivte the american populace because it was something they could understand, not because t was his primary reason for deciding that the invasion was necessary in the first place.

Having made the decision that an invason of Iraq was in the best interests of America it then became the adminstrations responsibillity to convince the american people to support said action. Because of the preponderance of intellgence from western intelligence agencies indicating that Iraq was attempting to devolp WMD (we now know that they were not but hndsight is 20/20 while intelligence is not) The argument that he was attempting to devolp WMD was not only valid (as we had no way of knowing then what we know now) but was also an easily understandable concept which any American could understand regardless of thier sophistication or lack thereof.

However though I will agree that he used the WMD intelligence to present his case I disagree that this qualifies as a lie. It is simply a matter of a selective reporting of facts to support a position which is something all humans do in alll walks of life.

The Whitehouse had information THEY DID NOT SHARE with the congress.

The CIA briefs the White House. The CIA briefs congress. The White House does not brief congress. What part of that do you not understand?

Excellent point Vadar and one that certainly a great majority here have forgotten and/or choose to forget. Or did they?

Irregardless, the Democratic chorus is crying that they were mislead, and misinformed....seemingly and interestingly, I am finding this to be quite hilarious. Think not: research what Kerry and 'those' Dem's claiming such now said prior to the war, after 9/11.....................

Good point again Vadar.



seekerof

The Whitehouse had information NOT shared with congress:

The Presidential Daily Briefs, for example, are prepared and presented by agency analysts; the agency's director is the president's principal intelligence adviser. This ALLOWS agency analysts to CONTROL THE PRESENTATION OF INFORMATION TO POLICY MAKERS "without having to explain dissenting views or defend their analysis from potential challenges," the committee's report said.

www.nytimes.com...

Bush is lying everytime he says the Congress had the same information He did.

Lies led us to war.
Bush and Cheney Lied to get us to attack a virtually weaponless country.
The Blood of 20,000 Iraqis and 1000 Americans is on their hands.
If you support them the blood is on your hands too.
.

Originally posted by vatar

The Whitehouse had information THEY DID NOT SHARE with the congress.

The CIA briefs the White House. The CIA briefs congress. The White House does not brief congress. What part of that do you not understand?

This is amazing. I just showed you a couple of MANY passages from a New York Times article, widely considered in spite of it's many faults to be the most reputable newspaper in the United States, which contradict your pigheaded statement. It doesn't matter who briefed congress, READ THE ARTICLE.

It's free to register for the NYT. Don't try to oppose my opinion here when you admit that you haven't read the article and have wilfully ignored a huge piece of evidence against your president. Sheesh.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Opplededoc I understand your point about the aluminum tubes however I think there are a few factors you have failed to take into account.
Just as a Prosecutor in a criminal trial does not present dissenting evidence I would not expect the president, in motivating the country to what he considers a just war, to present evidence which would weaken his case.

The thing is, your analogy to a criminal trial is totally ridiculous and shortsighted. You're basically justifying the president DELIBERATELY withholding conflicting information from the American people because you think there was some kind of "trial" here. If so, who got to argue the other side to congress and the people? It is sad that you support Bush so blindly that you will condone his lies by saying "he thought the war was justified, so fudging the facts is totally OK."

Allow me to put it another way, early in my carreer it was my job to advise my clients on the best course of action in relation to investing thier money, as such I would present them with facts that supported my argument. However the facts presented were not always those which I had made my decision based on, but usually those facts which were easiest for that client to understand.

See what I said above. This wasn't a trial. People died and they didn't have to. Lots of people.

In the same manner I believe that President Bush used WMD's to motivte the american populace because it was something they could understand, not because t was his primary reason for deciding that the invasion was necessary in the first place.

I can't believe what I'm hearing. Do you think Bush is God? How did come to the decision all on his own that this war was necessary? This is a blanket justification and I'd love to hear why you actually think we went to war. According to what you just wrote, the whole WMD thing was just a "motivational tool"!

Because of the preponderance of intellgence from western intelligence agencies indicating that Iraq was attempting to devolp WMD (we now know that they were not but hndsight is 20/20 while intelligence is not) The argument that he was attempting to devolp WMD was not only valid (as we had no way of knowing then what we know now)

THIS IS THE POINT!!! HE L I E D TO US ABOUT WMD AND THE IRAQ NUCLEAR PROGRAM!!! IT'S RIGHT THERE! WHY THE HELL IS THIS OK TO YOU?

(sorry for yelling)

I disagree that this qualifies as a lie. It is simply a matter of a selective reporting of facts to support a position.

I'll let that little statement speak for itself. It goes to show why I'm so confused. Even Bush supporters know that he hasn't been telling the truth, but you are all so scared of your own shadow you can't bring yourself to hold him accountable. I hope someone besides me will.

Originally posted by oppodeldoc

Originally posted by vatar

The Whitehouse had information THEY DID NOT SHARE with the congress.

The CIA briefs the White House. The CIA briefs congress. The White House does not brief congress. What part of that do you not understand?

This is amazing. I just showed you a couple of MANY passages from a New York Times article, widely considered in spite of it's many faults to be the most reputable newspaper in the United States, which contradict your pigheaded statement. It doesn't matter who briefed congress, READ THE ARTICLE.

It's free to register for the NYT. Don't try to oppose my opinion here when you admit that you haven't read the article and have wilfully ignored a huge piece of evidence against your president. Sheesh.

Ok, show me in your beloved article, or anywhere for that matter, where congress should have gotten that information directly from the White House. That is not how the flow of information is set up. If the NYT writer thinks it is, he is simply wrong, but I doubt if he even said anything like that.

Originally posted by vatar
Ok, show me in your beloved article, or anywhere for that matter, where congress should have gotten that information directly from the White House. That is not how the flow of information is set up. If the NYT writer thinks it is, he is simply wrong, but I doubt if he even said anything like that.

Are you daft, dude? Read what I've written. Look, my argument has nothing to do with who briefed who. There is no need to believe in a conspiracy or anything of the sort. The CIA was under extreme pressure from THE WHITE HOUSE to produce evidence that would support it's war. At the outset, the CIA delivered the famously false WMD reports to Congress. These were probably the same as in the White House briefings. Immediately therafter, it was determined that the Tube-Centrifuge theory was bunk because all the evidence that the CIA had on the tubes was written by a junior member of the intelligence agency. ("Joe" in the article.) The White House, and only the White House, was told that the information they were going to use was suspect and probably innacurate, but they went forward with it anyway.

I don't need to know jack sh*t about intelligence to know what the Bush Administration told ME before the war. They had "hard evidence" of WMDs and we needed to kick the inspectors out because Saddam's threat was IMMINENT. This article shows conclusively that they were LYING when they told me that. If you can read this article and come to a different conclusion, then I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, stop distorting the argument. I'll post this again, just for you:

The Senate report provides only a partial picture of the agency's communications with the White House... As a result, Senate investigators were not permitted to interview White House officials about what they knew of the tubes debate and when they knew it.

[edit on 8-10-2004 by oppodeldoc]

Originally posted by Simulacra
There were talks of impeachment when Bill Clinton got knob from an intern, but there is absolutely no talk of impeachment for a president invading a country for no reason?


People pay attention

Clinton did nothing that most other presidents didn't/haven't done.....he just got caught....somehow, that was a big deal..... but Bush!? Go figure I just sit back and watch.......

OMG, this is so ridiculous. Just last Week during the debate John Kerry said this.

LEHRER: Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?

KERRY: No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put -- that I'm offering.

I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence.

www.washingtonpost.com...

So then Kerry should be removed from Congress because he acted on the same intelligence that the President did using your logic. They both saw the same intelligence and acted accordingly the difference is Kerry changes his position on this every day.

Today in Englewood Colorado Kerry Said ----

In response, Kerry said, "You don't make up or find reasons to go to war after the fact.''

Kerry says the inspector's report does away with the chief justification used by the administration in advance of the war.

www.news8austin.com...

So I suppose the same is true for voting to use force in Iraq right Senator? But no, Kerry can do no wrong, the media is simply blind to Kerry�s inconsistencies.


[edit on 8-10-2004 by BlackJackal]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Excellent point Vadar and one that certainly a great majority here have forgotten and/or choose to forget. Or did they?

Irregardless, the Democratic chorus is crying that they were mislead, and misinformed....seemingly and interestingly, I am finding this to be quite hilarious. Think not: research what Kerry and 'those' Dem's claiming such now said prior to the war, after 9/11.....................

Good point again Vadar.

Seeker, when you and Vatar are done making out, could you respond to the links that I posted or possibly contribute something of substance to this argument?

Actually, the Bush administration didn't just lie to the Democratic chorus, they lied to CONGRESS. They lied to YOU. There are plenty of Republicans who are voicing their dissent and suspicion.

Here's yet more evidence of the Bush Administration DELIBERATELY witholding information from congress to cover up their lies:

www.truthout.org...

The new BIG LIE: "Congress had the same intelligence I did."

They lied to all of us. If that's OK with you, I just don't know what to say.

Originally posted by BlackJackal
So then Kerry should be removed from Congress because he acted on the same intelligence that the President did using your logic. They both saw the same intelligence and acted accordingly...

They didn't have the same intelligence. That's the point. Do you all know how to read? Read. My. Post.

It is basically a FACT that they didn't have the same intelligence. The Bush Administration ADMITS this by simply refusing to release any documentation about prewar intelligence to congress. If they all had the same intelligence, what are they hiding? Is the NYT lying? Give me a fooking break.

The Bush house of cards is collapsing and you are all getting very desperate. When you lie as much as him and his cronies, it's going to catch up with you sooner or later, and it is starting to just in time for elections. You all need to do some serious soul searching (and look at the title of this thread) and give me a single reason that there shouldn't be an independent investigation of the treasonous and dishonest actions of our government at the highest levels during the Bush presidency.