America needs you to impeach the President

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution reads:

�the President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and on conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.�

Well, in that case, EVERY United States president for the past couple decades should have been impeached. Executive Orders are unconstitutional, and give the president unlimited and unchallenged powers. Bill Clinton and the Martial Law EO's.. He shoulda even been impeached for NAFTA and the Clinton Gun Ban... The ban was treason against the US Constitution. "..the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Any gun law, is an infringement. Any regulation is an infringement. Also, the president does not have the power to write executive orders i believe, because of the 10th Amendment.. which "any powers not expressly delegated to the federal government, are to be reserved for the States." To my knowledge, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the president the power for executive orders. (I dont have the exact quotes at hand, but i remember close enough, you can check if you want, providing the liberals havnt censored the constitution yet.)

Clinton wasn't impeached. All of our recent presidents have been traitorous and treasonous to our country. But Bush isn't doing much more wrong than Clinton, and Clinton wasnt convicted and kicked out like he should have been! I will support Bush, because I do not like the rest of the alternatives to him. And it is not like Nader will win this election, so I have no choice to vote Bush since I can't, and will not support Kerry.

But, The best case against Bush that I have in favor of him being guilty of treason is this... He went to war without a congressional declaration of war, he passed the Patriot Act and the Dept. of Homeland Security (Which equates to Hitler's rough equivalent of the S.S. and Gestapo). He is hard at work to strip away essential civil liberties. But so is Kerry! Kerry wants our guns, Kerry is no doubt an environmentalist, Kerry says he supports a stronger homeland security and patriot act! America is dying because of too much liberalism. We have gone wayyyyyyyy too far to the left. Now, rivers have rights. Animals have rights. A man killing an animal and convicted can serve more time than a man that killed another person. Well, what if I believe that oxygen molecules have rights, and these liberals have the right to stop breathing! And the problem is, we have gone from a Republic to a Democracy... and as Thomas Jefferson said, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where %51 of the people can tell the other %49 what to do." Clearly not how it was intended. Our bill of rights states that "... we have certain inalienable rights..." inalienable rights. Rights that the government is not supposed to be able to put a lien on or take away. Yet both Bush, and Clinton, and doubtless Kerry will too... take away our "Inalienable" rights, which are disappearing every day.

I dont even remember what i just said... i got to rambling, but i better get off my soapbox for now. Thanks everyone, if you made it this far, for putting up with my jumble of statements.

Alright slank point by point here we go Do-Si-Do,

As for your first post I like context so lets bring your quote into Context shall we? Your quote comes from the beginning of the NYT article which outlines the rest of the article.

Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.

The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.

Slank, there is not a single item in that quote that says only the White House got that information. Conversely, as I illustrated in my previous post the only thing this article successfully displayed is the intelligence failure. You are attempting to get something from nothing.

As for your second quote again context is a wonderful thing. Again I will bold your quote.

The tubes now sought by Iraq had precisely the same dimensions - a perfect match.

That finding was published May 9, 2001, in the Daily Intelligence Highlight, a secret Energy Department newsletter published on Intelink, a Web site for the intelligence community and the White House.

Joe and his Winpac colleagues at the C.I.A. were not persuaded. Yes, they conceded, the tubes could be used as rocket casings. But that made no sense, they argued in a new report, because Iraq wanted tubes made at tolerances that "far exceed any known conventional weapons." In other words, Iraq was demanding a level of precision craftsmanship unnecessary for ordinary mass-produced rockets.

More to the point, those analysts had hit on a competing theory: that the tubes' dimensions matched those used in an early uranium centrifuge developed in the 1950's by a German scientist, Gernot Zippe. Most centrifuge designs are highly classified; this one, though, was readily available in science reports.

Thus, well before Sept. 11, 2001, the debate within the intelligence community was already neatly framed: Were the tubes for rockets or centrifuges?

Again this quote is from an extremely early stage in the article when the threat that the tubes posed was just beginning to be evaluated. The Energy Department stated clearly as I pointed out earlier that using the tubes for a centrifuge while unlikely was credible. So again you have two intelligence agencies saying that it was possible the tubes could be used to enrich uranium, undoubtedly one leaned more to that conclusion than the other yet they both left room for that possibility.

Originally posted by Slank
Selective truth telling = LIE

Do you consider taking quotes out of context to be selective truth? Well I sure do.

Oppledoc,

I think I have figured you out. You have only skimmed the article because if you read the thing you would know that the NYT�s meant by the title that the Bush administration and Congress embraced WINPACS theory of the aluminum tubes rather than the Energy Departments. Obviously atleast 77 other Senators did as well including democrats John Edwards and John Kerry. Selective reading at its best.

As for your first quote about Mr. Tenet read it a little closer. Incomplete intelligence from Tenet waiting for the issue to be joined. Oppledoc you are lost you have nothing to base your accusations on.

Your second quote let me put you to the same scrutiny that I put to slank, context.

Yet so far, Senate investigators say, they have found little evidence the White House tried to find out why so many experts disputed the C.I.A. tubes theory. If anything, administration officials minimized the divide.
On Sept. 13, The Times made the first public mention of the tubes debate in the sixth paragraph of an article on Page A13. In it an unidentified senior administration official dismissed the debate as a ''footnote, not a split.'' Citing another unidentified administration official, the story reported that the ''best technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the C.I.A. assessments.''
As a senior Oak Ridge official pointed out to the Intelligence Committee, ''the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts'' in the Energy Department's laboratories in fact disagreed with the agency. But on Sept. 13, the day the article appeared, the Energy Department sent a directive forbidding employees from discussing the subject with reporters.
The Energy Department, in a written statement, said that it was ''completely appropriate'' to remind employees of the need to protect nuclear secrets and that it had made no effort ''to quash dissent.''
In closed hearings that month, though, Congress began to hear testimony about the debate. Several Democrats said in interviews that secrecy rules had prevented them from speaking out about the gap between the administration's view of the tubes and the more benign explanations described in classified testimony.
One senior C.I.A. official recalled cautioning members of Congress in a closed session not to speak publicly about the possibility that the tubes were for rockets. ''If people start talking about that and the Iraqis see that people are saying rocket bodies, that will automatically become their explanation whenever anyone goes to Iraq,'' the official said in an interview.
So while administration officials spoke freely about the agency's theory, the evidence that best challenged this view remained almost entirely off limits for public debate.

Oh my dear God you mean Congress was briefed on the dissenting information!!! Say it isn�t so, oppledoc can�t be wrong Bush must have coerced the NYT writers to add that to the article. Come on Oppledoc get off your high horse you have no case Bush did not keep any information from Congress or John Kerry.

As for minimizing the divide, the NYT article offers no proof the administration did any such thing. What it does point out is the language Bush used to persuade the country to invade Iraq.

''Facing clear evidence of peril,'' the president concluded, ''we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.''

Notice he never said we have definitive proof he only said we cannot wait for it. Intelligence is never definitive and never paints the full picture so Bush erred on the side of caution because both reports said there was a possibility for Iraq to use the tubes for Nuclear weapons, which in a post-9/11 world is justified.

The point that the CIA would not allow Congress to talk publicly about the dissenting information is disturbing. This is just another example of the failure of the intelligence agencies here in the US. If this is true, which it may not be because it is all based off the anonymous CIA officials the NYT used for this article (I can�t find anything where Congress verifies this claim) it is truly disturbing of the power the CIA has.

Your third quote about Mr. Ryder. Who is Thomas S. Ryders boss, I don�t know and you don�t either. You are attempting to draw conclusions where the facts do not allow it. Actually your quote does illustrate the confused intelligence that both Congress and the White House received. The Energy department stated that while it disagreed with the tube evidence it did concur that Iraq was reviving its nuclear program. The intelligence community is at fault here not the White House as you conclude incorrectly.

As for Kerry and Edwards your quote is

''It is common knowledge that Congress does not have the same access as the executive branch,'' Brooke Anderson, a Kerry spokeswoman, said yesterday

Couple of things here. First this statement comes from a Kerry spokeswoman, enough said there. Secondly, according to your beloved article Congress got the same information the President did but Kerry did not read it. Got to love Kerry.

originally posted by oppledoc
The flow of intelligence was stunted and diverted and bastardized by Bush and his administration. He is not to be trusted, and deserves to be investigated, at the very least. That's the whole point of this thread

Again this conclusion is not supported in your references. This is your uncorroborated opinion, this is why this thread has no basis in the real world.

Next post same old selective reading and understanding.

Your post was:

But in interviews, C.I.A. and administration officials disclosed that the dissenting views were repeatedly discussed in meetings and telephone calls.

One senior official at the agency said its "fundamental approach" was to tell policy makers about dissenting views. Another senior official acknowledged that some of their agency's reports "weren't as well caveated as, in retrospect, they should have been." But he added, "There was certainly nothing that was hidden."

Four agency officials insisted that Winpac analysts repeatedly explained the contrasting assessments during briefings with senior National Security Council officials who dealt with nuclear proliferation issues. "We think we were reasonably clear about this," a senior C.I.A. official said.

Ok well allow me to remind you who the sources are for this article.

according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity.

So in effect if you filter out what the CIA and administration officials say you filter out the entire article.

Again I am not interested in your opinion I am interested in a reference that backs up your, up to now, unproven allegations.

In closed hearings that month, though, Congress began to hear testimony about the debate. Several Democrats said in interviews that secrecy rules had prevented them from speaking out about the gap between the administration's view of the tubes and the more benign explanations described in classified testimony.

Congress didn't know about the opposing viewpoints on the tubes...although they were holding hearings specifically on the matter and hearing testimony. I guess what the article fails to mention was that the members that showed up heard testimony; Kerry and Edwards did not.

Clinton wasn't impeached.

Umm...you might want to check again.

a secret Energy Department newsletter published on Intelink, a Web site for the intelligence community and the White House.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, if not the whole Senate, also has access to Intelink.

The Energy Department team concluded it was "unlikely that anyone" could build a centrifuge site capable of producing significant amounts of enriched uranium "based on these tubes." One analyst summed it up this way: the tubes were so poorly suited for centrifuges, he told Senate investigators, that if Iraq truly wanted to use them this way, "we should just give them the tubes."

But Senator Bob Graham, then chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said he voted against the resolution in part because of doubts about the tubes. "It reinforced in my mind pre-existing questions I had about the unreliability of the intelligence community, especially the C.I.A.," Mr. Graham, a Florida Democrat, said in an interview.

Bob Graham, a Democrat Senator, knew about the doubts about the tubes. Why didn't Kerry, on the same comittee, know about the doubts about the tubes? I think that is more a question for Mr. Kerry than it is for Mr. Bush.

in October 2002, when the Senate voted on Iraq, Mr. Kerry had not read the National Intelligence Estimate

Again, this is Bush's fault??

Now you finally got what you were asking for, I read the article. And your argument actually looked a lot better before I did.

Virtually NO applicability as centrifuge tubes:

Likewise, Britain's experts believed the tubes would need "substantial re-engineering" to work in centrifuges, according to Britain's review of its prewar intelligence. Their experts found it "paradoxical" that Iraq would order such finely crafted tubes only to radically rebuild each one for a centrifuge. Yes, it was theoretically possible, but as an Energy Department analyst later told Senate investigators, it was also theoretically possible to "turn your new Yugo into a Cadillac."

Perfect applicability as rockets:

The tubes now sought by Iraq had precisely the same dimensions - a PERFECT MATCH [for SLIM ROCKETS fired from launcher pods.].

Why wasn't Irag getting ANY OTHER parts for a centrifuge?

What was more, the analysis reasoned, if the tubes were part of a secret, high-risk venture to build a nuclear bomb, why were the Iraqis haggling over prices with suppliers all around the world? And why weren't they shopping for all the other sensitive equipment needed for centrifuges?

This is sort of like someone buying ball bearings and extrapolating that they are building an automobile. It is a HUGE jump in logic.
The expert Energy department's dissent is EXCLUDED from CIA reports to intelligence committees OF CONGRESS:

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.

"THEY NEVER LAY OUT THE OTHER CASE," one Congressional official said of those C.I.A. assessments.

[for 'other' read the actual overwhelmingly likely case for use as rockets]
Cheney misrepresents the facts:

In his Nashville speech, Mr. Cheney had not mentioned the aluminum tubes or any other fresh intelligence when he said, ''We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.'' The one specific source he did cite was Hussein Kamel al-Majid, a son-in-law of Mr. Hussein's who defected in 1994 after running Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. But Mr. Majid told American intelligence officials in 1995 that Iraq's nuclear program HAD BEEN DISMANTLED.

Senate leader Daschle raises common sense questions:

Tom Daschle, the South Dakota Democrat and Senate majority leader, was more cautious. ''What has changed over the course of the last 10 years, that brings this country to the belief that it has to act in a pre-emptive fashion in invading Iraq?'' he asked.

THEN THE WHITEHOUSE GETS THE FLAT OUT LIE PUBLISHED IN THE NYTIMES:

A few days later, on Sept. 8., the lead article on Page 1 of The New York Times gave the first detailed account of the aluminum tubes. The article cited unidentified senior administration officials who insisted that the dimensions, specifications and numbers of tubes sought showed that they were intended for a nuclear weapons program.

This based on the information they had was a flat out lie. A lie used to convince sensible sceptics like Senator Tom Daschle AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.
Cheney lies again on TV show "Meet the Press":

Yet on this day, with a Gallup poll showing that 58 PERCENT OF AMERICANS DID NOT BELIEVE President Bush had done enough to explain why the United States should act against Iraq, . . . Not only did Mr. Cheney draw attention to the tubes; he did so with a certitude that COULD NOT be found in even the C.I.A.'s assessments. On ''Meet the Press,'' Mr. Cheney said he knew ''for sure'' and ''in fact'' and ''WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY'' that Mr. Hussein was buying equipment to build a nuclear weapon

The CIA covers the sh*t like a cat in a sand box:

As a senior Oak Ridge official pointed out to the Intelligence Committee, ''the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts'' . . . in fact disagreed with the [CIA]. But on Sept. 13, the day the article appeared, the Energy Department sent a directive forbidding employees from discussing the subject with reporters.

In other words making it politically IMPOSSIBLE for senators to disagree with the Whitehouse/CIA view by employing the FACTs from the Department of Energy. Here the Energy Department, despite the lack of evidence buckles to pressure and joins the chorus for WAR:

The Energy Department helped solve the problem. In meetings on the estimate, senior department intelligence officials said that while they still did not believe the tubes were for centrifuges, they nonetheless could agree that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons capability.

They must have pulled that opinion out of their *ss. It sure didn't come from the facts. So the fraudulent intelligence assessment is written into the report:

Nevertheless, the estimate's authors seized on the Energy Department's position to avoid the entire tubes debate, with written dissents relegated to a 10-page annex. The estimate would instead emphasize that the C.I.A. and the Energy Department both agreed that Mr. Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. Only the closest reader would see that each agency was basing its assessment in large measure on evidence the other considered suspect.

Here John F. Kerry MISTAKENLY relies on a verbal report from George Tenet instead of reading the 'National Intelligence Estimate':

. . .[I]n October 2002, when the Senate voted on Iraq, Mr. Kerry had not read the National Intelligence Estimate, but instead had relied on a briefing from Mr. Tenet, . . . ''According to the C.I.A.'s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons,'' Mr. Kerry said then, explaining his vote. ''There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons.''

Bush wanted to have a war in Iraq.
He twisted the truth until it was a lie.
He squelched the truthful dissent of DOE.
He presented this LIE to a sensibly sceptical American public to "suck them in".
America, did you enjoy being lied to? Were 1000 American deaths, 20,000 Iraqi deaths and 120 BILLION Dollars worth it?
.

Nevertheless, the estimate's authors seized on the Energy Department's position to avoid the entire tubes debate, with written dissents relegated to a 10-page annex

So now you are telling me that Kerry/Edwards and all the other Senators had a 10 page report detailing the theory that the tubes were not nuclear related, but didn't bother reading it before the vote. This just gets better and better.

I'm going to try and condense my point here, since it has been lost through fairly common and transparent tactics by those who oppose my viewpoint.

I used this article in support of my argument that there is sufficient evidence to begin an independent investigation of the Bush Administration about prewar intelligence that could lead to impeachment proceedings. I'm sure I'm not alone in this assertion. If one reads the New York Times article, regardless of what you may draw from a few paragraphs here and there taken out of context, two things become apparent:

1 - The Times writers believe that the Bush administration (this includes George Tenet) significantly downplayed opposing viewpoints to its view that Iraq was using those tubes for a nuclear program. I never said congress didn't know there were opposing viewpoints. They certainly did, but had to struggle to learn the extent of that opposition, and even then did not get the full story until after the vote for war had taken place. Simply put, no matter how many ways you slice up this article, the end result is clear and simple:

If the New York Times is trusted on this story, congress did NOT have the same intelligence presented to the Bush White House. I refuse to argue this point any more, as its ridiculous to claim otherwise.

As I said before (on page one):

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.

2 - If one lends any merit to these assertions, then I can't see any justification NOT to have an independent investigation. This might be only the tip of the iceberg. If it turned out that the president lied about this (and various other lies given to us as "hard evidence") to send us to war, there can be no doubt that this is an impeachable defense.

Now, say what you want about my arguments. They are rock solid, though you may try to convince folks that I skimmed this article or otherwise have no idea what I'm talking about. I didn't write it, however, and you are free to take whatever you do away from it. I haven't quoted out of context or read anything wrong. It is a balanced news story with differing opinions and sources included. Blackjack, you are straight lying to those who haven't read the story when you post that this article was derived entirely from CIA and Administration officials. Don't do that:

"Yet the tale of the tubes, pieced together through records and interviews with senior intelligence officers, nuclear experts, administration officials and Congressional investigators, reveals a different failure."

A balanced article, which after 15 pages of copy comes to Powell's unsuccessful speech to the U.N. (and the world) where the writers show a damning quote from the Secretary of State, working under the pressure of his president and vice president to garner support for a doomed resolution. It was very much a lie, if you believe the Times:

"'By now,'' he said, ''just about everyone has heard of these tubes, and we all know there are differences of opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Other experts and the Iraqis themselves argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher.''

But Mr. Powell did not acknowledge that those ''other experts'' included many of the nation's most authoritative nuclear experts, some of whom said in interviews that they were offended to find themselves now lumped in with a reviled government.

Even here, we see the acknowledgement of differences in opinion. That's important. Nobody except this administration knew how truly false his claims were. Now, we do.

If you continue to contest my assertions, then you are saying that you don't believe that Bush lied and distorted the truth to gain support for this war. I don't think I need to tell you that, as more information comes out like this, your naiive belief in Bush is becoming a lonelier position by the day.

Some here claims Bush has done nothing wrong. But to give your friends buisness opportunities that no one else are allowed to be a part of is corruption (enron/halliburton wich Bush favors) in all western countries.

So search for 'Bush enron halliburton' and also do search on the following

1. Bush Administration Manipulates Science and Censors Scientists

2. english.aljazeera.net... Iraqis may sue US over invasion

3. EXTREME BIRTH DEFORMITIES pictures;
www.xs4all.nl... and scroll down.
And at www.benjaminforiraq.org...
www.projectcensored.org...
'High Uranium Levels Found in Troops and Civilians'

4. Wealth Inequality in 21st Century Threatens Economy and Democracy

5. 9/11 Commission Report Confirms Key Fahrenheit 9/11 Facts


As Bush do what he want and not what is best for US or its population it is obvious he is closer to following anarchy rather than democracy.

[edit on 9-10-2004 by Ghaele]

That's rediculous..I like President Bush and I would never vote to have him impeached.

The best example I can find of sophistry is you oppledoc. You put together this elaborate argument to why Bush should be investigated and gambled that no one would read the article you provided. Maybe you truly thought the article backed up you stance I don�t know but what I do know is that as it stands right now its all just your opinion.

Originally posted by oppledoc
I used this article in support of my argument that there is sufficient evidence to begin an independent investigation of the Bush Administration about prewar intelligence that could lead to impeachment proceedings.

Again I ask you oppledoc, where in this confounded article is your opinion backed up. I have now read the article 4 times and as of yet I do not see any proof that the authors believe Bush withheld information. The point of the article is that there were two theories on the table about the aluminum tubes. Both theories stated it was possible the tubes could be used in a 1950�s style Zippe centrifuge. The difference is one said that it was likely and the other said it was credible but unlikely. One more time where does this document support you opinion?

Originally posted by oppledoc
I'm sure I'm not alone in this assertion. If one reads the New York Times article, regardless of what you may draw from a few paragraphs here and there taken out of context, two things become apparent:

The only person taking anything out of context is you and slank. If anyone reads this post in its entirety they will surely notice that your so called proof is full of one liners and single paragraphs. Go back and look at my posts and look at what I quoted from the article and you will find I quoted much larger portions of the article than you oppledoc.

Originally posted by oppledoc
Times writers believe that the Bush administration (this includes George Tenet) significantly downplayed opposing viewpoints to its view that Iraq was using those tubes for a nuclear program.

The first true thing that you have posted Congratulations! The times writers do indeed think the Bush administration downplayed the dissenting information this was the whole point of the article, hence the title �How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence�. This is of course the Times writers opinion and they backed up their opinion with plenty of facts, you could learn a thing or two from them.

My personal opinion on the matter is that the White House had two pieces of intelligence, one that said the tubes posed a significant threat and one that they posed a minimal threat. The White House saw Iraq with a gun pointed right at the US. We invaded to disarm Iraq only to find out the gun was unloaded. But we would never have known if the gun was truly unloaded unless we invaded. So my opinion is that the White House made the right decision on the matter and again that is my opinion

Originally posted by oppledoc
I never said congress didn't know there were opposing viewpoints. They certainly did, but had to struggle to learn the extent of that opposition, and even then did not get the full story until after the vote for war had taken place.

OMG oppledoc you are John Kerry Jr. You most certainly did say that Congress did not know about the opposing viewpoints your even said the White House kept it from them. Let me see if I can�t dig up some quotes you posted. Just one sec��

Originally posted by oppledoc
This is why I get so pissed when the president says of John Kerry �He looked at the same intelligence I did.� Actually, he and the rest of congress only looked at what Bush wanted him to see. He didn�t get to look at all the reports that the evidence presented was suspect. So that, in itself, is a lie.

Originally posted by oppledoc
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.

At this point I have to point out something else oppledoc. This quote was taken out of context itself. Allow me to present the full context so that ATS member get the full picture.

Originally posted in the NYT article
As the Senate Intelligence Committee report made clear, the American intelligence community "is not a level playing field when it comes to the competition of ideas in intelligence analysis."

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.

From April 2001 to September 2002, the agency wrote at least 15 reports on the tubes. Many were sent only to high-level policy makers, including President Bush, and did not circulate to other intelligence agencies. None have been released, though some were described in the Senate's report.

Several senior C.I.A. officials insisted that those reports did describe at least in general terms the intelligence debate. "You don't go into all that detail but you do try to evince it when you write your current product," one agency official said.

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. They described a series of reports, some with ominous titles, that failed to convey either the existence or the substance of the intensifying debate.

Notice how the times authors mention several times that the Senate had access to the information. What the Times authors are trying to bring to light in this piece is simple; The CIA had an upper hand on all other intelligence agencies so the intelligence suggesting the tubes were more likely going to be used for uranium enrichment rather than conventional rockets. This is a notation of intelligence failures not of Bush hiding anything.

Originally posted by oppledoc
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."

Originally posted by oppledoc
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.

Originally posted by oppledoc
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.

Originally posted by oppledoc

Originally posted by BlackJacka
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

I could go on but needless to say, yes you did say Congress didn�t know the opposing viewpoints but you went as far to say that the White House withheld the information, a comprehensive lie.

Originally posted by oppledoc
If the New York Times is trusted on this story, congress did NOT have the same intelligence presented to the Bush White House. I refuse to argue this point any more, as its ridiculous to claim otherwise.

As I said before (on page one):

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.

2 - If one lends any merit to these assertions, then I can't see any justification NOT to have an independent investigation. This might be only the tip of the iceberg. If it turned out that the president lied about this (and various other lies given to us as "hard evidence") to send us to war, there can be no doubt that this is an impeachable defense.

Now, say what you want about my arguments. They are rock solid, though you may try to convince folks that I skimmed this article or otherwise have no idea what I'm talking about. I didn't write it, however, and you are free to take whatever you do away from it. I haven't quoted out of context or read anything wrong. It is a balanced news story with differing opinions and sources included. Blackjack, you are straight lying to those who haven't read the story when you post that this article was derived entirely from CIA and Administration officials. Don't do that:

John Kerry Jr. part II. In your last sentence you claimed that you never claimed Congress did not have access to the opposing views but here you say they did not. So you have in effect in the space of two sentences contradicted yourself and as I have shown this statement is a blatant lie

Oppledoc, simple question for you if you truly believe that Congress did not know anything about the dissenting information. How did Senator Graham know about the dissenting information, Why did the article say Senator Edwards could have asked the hard questions but did not and explain this quote from the article to me.

Originally from NYT article.
In closed hearings that month, though, Congress began to hear testimony about the debate. Several Democrats said in interviews that secrecy rules had prevented them from speaking out about the gap between the administration's view of the tubes and the more benign explanations described in classified testimony.

One senior C.I.A. official recalled cautioning members of Congress in a closed session not to speak publicly about the possibility that the tubes were for rockets. ''If people start talking about that and the Iraqis see that people are saying rocket bodies, that will automatically become their explanation whenever anyone goes to Iraq,'' the official said in an interview.

So while administration officials spoke freely about the agency's theory, the evidence that best challenged this view remained almost entirely off limits for public debate.

OMG!!!! Congress heard about the dissenting information but still voted 77-23 to go to war. So oppledoc again I ask you where in that annoying article do you see Congress was not given the information and for that matter where does it say they had to work hard to get the information.

Originally posted by oppledoc
A balanced article, which after 15 pages of copy comes to Powell's unsuccessful speech to the U.N. (and the world) where the writers show a damning quote from the Secretary of State, working under the pressure of his president and vice president to garner support for a doomed resolution. It was very much a lie, if you believe the Times:

First and foremost I don�t believe anything at face value, I demand proof which is what I have been asking you for. Secondly, Show me where in that article that Powell was under pressure from Bush and Cheney when he made his speech at the UN. As I said previously what the NYT writers wished to prove was that Washington lawmakers, White House and Congress alike, used the wrong set of intelligence. That is their opinion, I have told you mine previously in this post but you Oppledoc, you are out in left field with some unsubstantiated drivel. One more time show me where this article backs up any of your eccentric claims.

I think it's about time that this thread come back to life. Let's impeach, how can I help?

NO!!!

That would mean...gulp....

President Cheney!!!

Ya, right......

We're farther away from this than we were before this elections, I believe....didn't the republicans gain seats in both the house and senate....

the only way anything like that would happen would be for them to find a reason to press criminal charges against them concerning the actions they've taken while in office. That might work....but, well.....if you believe what they say about the Iran-Contra deal, well, they should have pressed charges then, they didn't think it wise to press charges against the president, so they didn't....it would be more unwise now, since if you managed to convict bush....more than likely, you would also be opening up the door to convict the US in a world court.

No need to impeach the little bastard.

We do, have, after all.............the Zero year curse that might save us......................

Is it possible to impeach a president for something done in his previous term after he is "elected" again?

I've been pondering this and I don't think it is a feasable option. Bush clearly will be the winner again and now I think he is untouchable unless he has another major screwup in his next term.

Clinton's impeachment process was pretty much halted when he started throwing Barry Seal's name around. Do you smell that?

Perhaps this court case will get somewhere down this road, or at least lead to some more information. Maybe it will help to put the conspiracies to rest as well. Does anyone know anything about this case?
A quick note: I'm posting information to see what others think, not because I'm endorsing it, or think that the allegations are accurate.
Main web site: 911 For The Truth

Asked why he decided to bring this controversial lawsuit, Rodriguez explains that, having survived the World Trade Center disaster when so many did not, he feels he must learn the truth of what happened on that day. �If what the government has told us about 9-11 is a lie,� he says, �somebody has to take action to reveal the truth. Since that plane hit the North Tower on 9-11, like it or not my life�s meaning has become to reduce the number of victims, and the amount of suffering from those attacks. If suing President Bush is what I have to do to accomplish that, so be it.�

Rodriguez notes that the events of 9-11 are directly related to the deaths of thousands of people in two ongoing wars, attacks on Constitutional liberties in the United States, the abuse and torture of detainees around the world, and the use by the United States of depleted uranium and other weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Admitting the obvious � that his client�s legal fight against powerful government figures is of the �David versus Goliath� variety � Berg, a former deputy attorney general in Pennsylvania, invites both financial support for his efforts, as well as assistance from volunteer attorneys.

The action, filed in the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, is Rodriguez v. Bush, et al., Civil Action No. 04 cv 4952.

The link for the press release is broken, but you can find them here:
Press Release for suit representing World Trade Center Hero William Rodriguez
This of course is the same lawyer that filed the suit for Ellen Mariani:
Press release for suit filed representing Ellen Mariani

One interesting shake-down on the other suit filed by berg for Ellen Mariani:
911 Lawsuit is a booby trap