| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"WeThePeople" |
| Date: |
06 Feb 2004 11:45:52 AM |
| Object: |
Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
If it smells rotten, it usually is.
-------------------------------------------------
Bush Expected to Name Intelligence Panel
Feb. 6, 2004 - 31 minutes ago
By KEN GUGGENHEIM
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - President Bush met on Friday with the new head of the search
for weapons in Iraq before his expected announcement to name a commission to
examine intelligence failures involving Iraq.
Bush met with Charles Duelfer, who is taking over the weapons search in
Iraq, and told him that he "wants him to find the truth ... it is important
that we know all the facts," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
On Thursday, CIA Director George Tenet said intelligence analysts gave the
White House an objective view of the threat posed by Iraq. But Tenet didn't
answer a question emerging as a top campaign issue: Did the Bush
administration accurately describe that intelligence in making the case for
war?
Tenet offered a forceful defense of prewar intelligence in a speech at
Georgetown University on Thursday, one day before President Bush had been
expected to name a commission to examine intelligence failures in Iraq and
elsewhere. Final details of the commission were still being worked out
Friday morning, McClellan said, and it was not clear when an announcement
would be made.
Sensing a campaign issue in this election year, Democrats have been
clamoring to find out whether the White House pressured analysts or
manipulated intelligence, but it's not clear whether the commission will
address those areas.
Democrats have questioned the independence of the commission, since all nine
members will be named by Bush. McClellan said "I think you can expect that
the president will appoint highly qualified individuals with integrity who
have a lot of experience to bring to the table."
Administration officials say that in addition to assessing how well U.S.
intelligence did in determining the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction, the commission also will look at the bigger picture of fighting
terrorism and monitoring U.S. adversaries, such as those in Iran and North
Korea.
The White House has yet to reveal the names of any of the commission
members, but an administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity,
said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would be one.
David Kay, the former CIA adviser for the Iraqi weapons search, said
Thursday that the commission should look into whether political leaders
manipulated intelligence data.
"I think that is an important question that needs to be understood," he said
at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Kay repeated statements made last week that he doesn't believe analysts were
pressured to make the case for war.
It was Kay's criticism of prewar intelligence since resigning two weeks ago
that built momentum for an independent commission. Kay said intelligence
agencies wrongly concluded that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons because they had too little human intelligence and
overanalyzed the data in hand.
But Tenet said the intelligence was mostly on target, especially as it
applied to Iraq's nuclear, missile and unmanned aerial vehicle programs. He
said the analyses were reasonable given the information available to the
United States and other nations.
"Based on an assessment of the data we collected over the past 10 years, it
would have been difficult for analysts to come to any different conclusions
than the ones reached in October of 2002," when a comprehensive intelligence
estimate was prepared.
He made clear that analysts differed on important aspects of Saddam
Hussein's chemical, biological and nuclear programs and spelled out those
disputes in the intelligence estimate.
Analysts "never said there was an imminent threat," Tenet said. "Rather,
they painted an objective assessment for our policy makers of a brutal
dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that
might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests."
Agreeing with Kay, Tenet said, "No one told us what to say or how to say
it."
He also didn't rule out that weapons still could be found.
Speaking in Charleston, S.C., Bush defended the decision to go to war.
"Knowing what I knew then and knowing what I know today, America did the
right thing in Iraq," the president said.
McClellan said Bush very much appreciates the hard work of the men and women
in the intelligence community, including Tenet.
"What we have learned on the ground since the war only reconfirms what we
learned before the war, that Iraq was a gathering threat," he said.
But Democratic presidential candidates said Tenet's speech showed that Bush
misled Americans.
Democratic front-runner Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said Bush and other
officials "were playing politics with our national security." Retired Gen.
Wesley Clark said, "The question now is: What did (Bush) know at the time?"
Before the war, Bush and his senior advisers made clear they viewed the
threat from Saddam as urgent. On Sept. 13, 2002, Bush said of Saddam, "He's
a threat we must deal with as quickly as possible." The next month, he said
"the danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time."
White House aides have pointed out that Bush, while he cited the urgency of
stopping Saddam, never called the threat "imminent."
The question of whether intelligence was manipulated has deeply divided the
Senate Intelligence Committee, which is completing its own inquiry.
Committee members reviewed a classified draft report Thursday that is
believed to be critical of U.S. intelligence agencies' work. But Democrats
have said the inquiry was too narrow because it didn't examine how the
administration used the intelligence. Both parties have accused each other
of trying to use the investigation for political purposes.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040206/ap_on_go_pr_wh/iraq_intelligence&cid=544&ncid=1480
.
|
|
| User: "Mr. N" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
06 Feb 2004 02:35:07 PM |
|
|
"Johnny Bravo" <tullum@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:NYRUb.21921$4X.408427@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Holy *****! John Kerry is Herman Munster!!
Nope. But G.W. Bush is Eddie Munster.
--
-My Real Name
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DDB" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
06 Feb 2004 01:40:50 PM |
|
|
"WeThePeople" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40227bc0_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
If it smells rotten, it usually is.
It probably would have help emmencly if hte Democrats on the 9-11
investigation hadn't planned to embarasss the president closer to elect.
There was Democrat memo to that affect.
-------------------------------------------------
Bush Expected to Name Intelligence Panel
Feb. 6, 2004 - 31 minutes ago
By KEN GUGGENHEIM
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - President Bush met on Friday with the new head of the search
for weapons in Iraq before his expected announcement to name a commission
to
examine intelligence failures involving Iraq.
Bush met with Charles Duelfer, who is taking over the weapons search in
Iraq, and told him that he "wants him to find the truth ... it is
important
that we know all the facts," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
On Thursday, CIA Director George Tenet said intelligence analysts gave the
White House an objective view of the threat posed by Iraq. But Tenet
didn't
answer a question emerging as a top campaign issue: Did the Bush
administration accurately describe that intelligence in making the case
for
war?
Tenet offered a forceful defense of prewar intelligence in a speech at
Georgetown University on Thursday, one day before President Bush had been
expected to name a commission to examine intelligence failures in Iraq and
elsewhere. Final details of the commission were still being worked out
Friday morning, McClellan said, and it was not clear when an announcement
would be made.
Sensing a campaign issue in this election year, Democrats have been
clamoring to find out whether the White House pressured analysts or
manipulated intelligence, but it's not clear whether the commission will
address those areas.
Democrats have questioned the independence of the commission, since all
nine
members will be named by Bush. McClellan said "I think you can expect that
the president will appoint highly qualified individuals with integrity who
have a lot of experience to bring to the table."
Administration officials say that in addition to assessing how well U.S.
intelligence did in determining the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction, the commission also will look at the bigger picture of
fighting
terrorism and monitoring U.S. adversaries, such as those in Iran and North
Korea.
The White House has yet to reveal the names of any of the commission
members, but an administration official, speaking on condition of
anonymity,
said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would be one.
David Kay, the former CIA adviser for the Iraqi weapons search, said
Thursday that the commission should look into whether political leaders
manipulated intelligence data.
"I think that is an important question that needs to be understood," he
said
at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Kay repeated statements made last week that he doesn't believe analysts
were
pressured to make the case for war.
It was Kay's criticism of prewar intelligence since resigning two weeks
ago
that built momentum for an independent commission. Kay said intelligence
agencies wrongly concluded that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons because they had too little human intelligence and
overanalyzed the data in hand.
But Tenet said the intelligence was mostly on target, especially as it
applied to Iraq's nuclear, missile and unmanned aerial vehicle programs.
He
said the analyses were reasonable given the information available to the
United States and other nations.
"Based on an assessment of the data we collected over the past 10 years,
it
would have been difficult for analysts to come to any different
conclusions
than the ones reached in October of 2002," when a comprehensive
intelligence
estimate was prepared.
He made clear that analysts differed on important aspects of Saddam
Hussein's chemical, biological and nuclear programs and spelled out those
disputes in the intelligence estimate.
Analysts "never said there was an imminent threat," Tenet said. "Rather,
they painted an objective assessment for our policy makers of a brutal
dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that
might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests."
Agreeing with Kay, Tenet said, "No one told us what to say or how to say
it."
He also didn't rule out that weapons still could be found.
Speaking in Charleston, S.C., Bush defended the decision to go to war.
"Knowing what I knew then and knowing what I know today, America did the
right thing in Iraq," the president said.
McClellan said Bush very much appreciates the hard work of the men and
women
in the intelligence community, including Tenet.
"What we have learned on the ground since the war only reconfirms what we
learned before the war, that Iraq was a gathering threat," he said.
But Democratic presidential candidates said Tenet's speech showed that
Bush
misled Americans.
Democratic front-runner Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said Bush and
other
officials "were playing politics with our national security." Retired Gen.
Wesley Clark said, "The question now is: What did (Bush) know at the
time?"
Before the war, Bush and his senior advisers made clear they viewed the
threat from Saddam as urgent. On Sept. 13, 2002, Bush said of Saddam,
"He's
a threat we must deal with as quickly as possible." The next month, he
said
"the danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time."
White House aides have pointed out that Bush, while he cited the urgency
of
stopping Saddam, never called the threat "imminent."
The question of whether intelligence was manipulated has deeply divided
the
Senate Intelligence Committee, which is completing its own inquiry.
Committee members reviewed a classified draft report Thursday that is
believed to be critical of U.S. intelligence agencies' work. But Democrats
have said the inquiry was too narrow because it didn't examine how the
administration used the intelligence. Both parties have accused each other
of trying to use the investigation for political purposes.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040206/ap_on_go_pr_wh/iraq_intelligence&cid=544&ncid=1480
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. N" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
06 Feb 2004 02:35:44 PM |
|
|
"DDB" <IHatNoOne@Fakecomcast.net> wrote in message
news:ou6dnZjODaRacL7dRVn-jA@comcast.com...
It probably would have help emmencly if hte Democrats on the 9-11
investigation hadn't planned to embarasss the president closer to elect.
There was Democrat memo to that affect.
If the truth proves embarassing - then so be it, this is as it should be.
--
-My Real Name
.
|
|
|
| User: "DDB" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
06 Feb 2004 02:47:07 PM |
|
|
"Mr. N" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1027ul1kq9l7ndf@news.supernews.com...
"DDB" <IHatNoOne@Fakecomcast.net> wrote in message
news:ou6dnZjODaRacL7dRVn-jA@comcast.com...
It probably would have help emmencly if hte Democrats on the 9-11
investigation hadn't planned to embarasss the president closer to elect.
There was Democrat memo to that affect.
If the truth proves embarassing - then so be it, this is as it should be.
No I disagree it should be that those who hold office should do their job
for the benefit of the American people not their own. When the Democrat memo
was found where they explained their plans to slow down the 9-11
investigation until it was appropriately timely to embarrass the president
that sent a clear message, they are not interested in national security they
are interested in obtaining power at all cost. I is not a new tactic all one
has to do is remember the embarking situation in California when the
democrats planned to make Californians suffer as a means of getting their
way e.g. raising taxes, you'll recall they didn't know they left the
Microphone on and broadcast their plan to the entire building. Long gone are
the days that these elected officials regulated for their constituents or
for that matter with respect to California, within the limits of the laws or
if you like, with in the limits of the people choice.
--
-My Real Name
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. N" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
06 Feb 2004 03:08:20 PM |
|
|
"DDB" <IHatNoOne@Fakecomcast.net> wrote in message
news:ycOdneVO2IXMYL7dRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
If the truth proves embarassing - then so be it, this is as it should
be.
No I disagree it should be that those who hold office should do their job
for the benefit of the American people not their own.
Then we don't disagree.
--
-My Real Name
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "King Pineapple" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
06 Feb 2004 05:10:21 PM |
|
|
Clueless Leftist "Mr. N" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1027ul1kq9l7ndf@news.supernews.com...
"DDB" <IHatNoOne@Fakecomcast.net> wrote in message
news:ou6dnZjODaRacL7dRVn-jA@comcast.com...
It probably would have help emmencly if hte Democrats on the 9-11
investigation hadn't planned to embarasss the president closer to elect.
There was Democrat memo to that affect.
If the truth proves embarassing - then so be it, this is as it should be.
The problem is that Democrats have a historical reputation of IGNORING the
truth when it proves embarrassing, as evidenced by their wholesale refusal
to examine ANY of the physical evidence accumulated against Bill Clinton
during the impeachment trial.
Why do we american keep get the most idiotic canidates to chosen from?
DNC Deep Thought "xombi13"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
06 Feb 2004 12:17:47 PM |
|
|
"WeThePeople" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40227bc0_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
If it smells rotten, it usually is.
That is just your lower lip you're smelling... just close the mouth and the
smell quickly goes away.
Do you think democrats in an election year would be 'objective?' If you
believe that - especially based on the bs being slung about right now - then
YOU must be a typical partisan democrat.
Fortunately Bush didn't just get off the banana boat. AFTER the election is
the 'time' to have a bipartisan look at 'Iraq intelligence' (for the sake of
intelligence and real security). If Bushites did all the evil things you
guys claim then you can still impeach him... most Repubs would help if you
got real proof.
Bets are democrats will NOT care after the election - primarily because they
already KNOW the charges are bs and just election year opportunism. None of
them just got off the banana boat either.
John
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "WeThePeople" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
06 Feb 2004 01:08:56 PM |
|
|
"John" <John@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fTQUb.20232$CE5.6744@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
"WeThePeople" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40227bc0_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
If it smells rotten, it usually is.
That is just your lower lip you're smelling... just close the mouth and
the
smell quickly goes away.
I expect this level of maturity from those more interested in hiding from
the light of day rather than knowing the truth.
Do you think democrats in an election year would be 'objective?'
Congress is controlled by the GOP.
If you
believe that - especially based on the bs being slung about right now -
then
YOU must be a typical partisan democrat.
Irrelevant.
Fortunately Bush didn't just get off the banana boat. AFTER the election
is
the 'time' to have a bipartisan look at 'Iraq intelligence' (for the sake
of
intelligence and real security). If Bushites did all the evil things you
guys claim then you can still impeach him... most Repubs would help if you
got real proof.
The public should know the facts before the election, not after.
Bets are democrats will NOT care after the election - primarily because
they
already KNOW the charges are bs and just election year opportunism. None
of
them just got off the banana boat either.
If the "charges" are bs, what are you afraid of? If the Bush administration
is innocent, let the whole world know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
06 Feb 2004 02:18:49 PM |
|
|
"WeThePeople" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40228f44_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
"John" <John@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fTQUb.20232$CE5.6744@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
"WeThePeople" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40227bc0_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
If it smells rotten, it usually is.
That is just your lower lip you're smelling... just close the mouth and
the
smell quickly goes away.
I expect this level of maturity from those more interested in hiding from
the light of day rather than knowing the truth.
Do you think democrats in an election year would be 'objective?'
Congress is controlled by the GOP.
Oh I get it... we don't 'trust' the GOP to be objective but we do the
democrats... right?? LOL
If you
believe that - especially based on the bs being slung about right now -
then
YOU must be a typical partisan democrat.
Irrelevant.
No it is not irrelevant... you're more living proof.
Fortunately Bush didn't just get off the banana boat. AFTER the election
is
the 'time' to have a bipartisan look at 'Iraq intelligence' (for the
sake
of
intelligence and real security). If Bushites did all the evil things you
guys claim then you can still impeach him... most Repubs would help if
you
got real proof.
The public should know the facts before the election, not after.
Tenet gave you 'facts' yesterday... a whole lot of them... did you believe
him? Kay? Both swore that the admin did NOT pressure them or any other
intelligence agent into changing any intelligence assessments. In fact no
one has claimed it so except partisan attack dogs. And why would Bushites
knowingly and forcefully 'lie' about wmds *IF* they did not believe them and
they knew their lies would eventually be exposed and threaten their
re-election?
See... you can NOT answer that obvious question... nor will you even try
without looking foolish.
Bets are democrats will NOT care after the election - primarily because
they
already KNOW the charges are bs and just election year opportunism. None
of
them just got off the banana boat either.
If the "charges" are bs, what are you afraid of? If the Bush
administration
is innocent, let the whole world know.
Why? Ted Kennedy already got up on the floor of the US Senate and directly
accused the Prez of the US of treason - and every American enemy (and
friend) in the world heard those comments too. So why bother with an
investigation? You guys are phonies... you don't want a real investigation
and YOU KNOW IT. You don't believe Tenet... you don't believe Kay... so you
won't believe ANY panel that does not find exactly what you already have
convicted him of.... and along with Ted Kennedy and several other democrat
phonies - including 'yes' on Iraq and the Patriot Act Mr Kerry.
John
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. N" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
06 Feb 2004 01:12:36 PM |
|
|
"John" <John@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fTQUb.20232$CE5.6744@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
Fortunately Bush didn't just get off the banana boat. AFTER the election
is
the 'time' to have a bipartisan look at 'Iraq intelligence' (for the sake
of
intelligence and real security). If Bushites did all the evil things you
guys claim then you can still impeach him... most Repubs would help if you
got real proof.
Kind of hard to gather proof when the man being investigated is the man
hiring the investigators.
Sheesh.
--
-My Real Name
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
06 Feb 2004 02:21:00 PM |
|
|
"Mr. N" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1027pp5a43dnj1a@news.supernews.com...
"John" <John@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fTQUb.20232$CE5.6744@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
Fortunately Bush didn't just get off the banana boat. AFTER the election
is
the 'time' to have a bipartisan look at 'Iraq intelligence' (for the
sake
of
intelligence and real security). If Bushites did all the evil things you
guys claim then you can still impeach him... most Repubs would help if
you
got real proof.
Kind of hard to gather proof when the man being investigated is the man
hiring the investigators.
Sheesh.
No... I have no problem with a 'bipartisan' inquiry AFTER the election and a
really objective 'conclusion' can be reached. That can not happen in this
partisan atmosphere and you know it.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. N" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
06 Feb 2004 02:34:48 PM |
|
|
"John" <John@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MGSUb.15477$9a7.483@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
No... I have no problem with a 'bipartisan' inquiry AFTER the election and
a
really objective 'conclusion' can be reached.
Which is about as unAmerican as you can get. If there was wrongdoing, then
people damn well deserve that information BEFORE the election. The only
reason for supporting waiting until after the election would be that you
fear information would be used against George W. Bush, and this scares you.
That can not happen in this partisan atmosphere and you know it.
It SHOULD NOT HAPPEN period. There is nothing wrong with a "partisan
atmosphere", nor is such avoidable, nor SHOULD IT BE AVOIDABLE.
People deserve the truth. Let them (us) have it. It would be a refreshing
change.
--
-My Real Name
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
06 Feb 2004 03:14:27 PM |
|
|
"Mr. N" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1027uj92s09u565@news.supernews.com...
"John" <John@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MGSUb.15477$9a7.483@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
No... I have no problem with a 'bipartisan' inquiry AFTER the election
and
a
really objective 'conclusion' can be reached.
Which is about as unAmerican as you can get. If there was wrongdoing,
then
people damn well deserve that information BEFORE the election. The only
reason for supporting waiting until after the election would be that you
fear information would be used against George W. Bush, and this scares
you.
I have NO FEAR at all... Tenet dispelled any doubts I had yesterday with
HARD facts. But it did NOT stop the partisan attacks and continued efforts
to paint Bush a liar and a traitor (along with many others). That FACT is
what 'scares' me... denial and lying for partisan political gain does indeed
make me wonder how far we've gone past ANY possibilty of agreeing on much of
anything (or finding 'truth' in a partisan environment like this).
That can not happen in this partisan atmosphere and you know it.
It SHOULD NOT HAPPEN period. There is nothing wrong with a "partisan
atmosphere", nor is such avoidable, nor SHOULD IT BE AVOIDABLE.
People deserve the truth. Let them (us) have it. It would be a
refreshing
change.
You don't want the truth or you would have accepted what many have already
said. Are you suggesting the entire CIA and hundreds of gov employees are in
on this giant conspiracy?? Did Tenet fabricate all that testimony yesterday?
Kay? It seems to me you are very HARD to convince... so please tell me what
you think another intelligence panel will find before the election (besides
the 9-11 commission, and already proven to be partisan in motive by secret
dem memorandums already exposed)???
Sorry guy... I do not buy your arguments at all... your motives are way too
obvious... and it has little to do with 'truth' in MHO.
John
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "King Pineapple" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
06 Feb 2004 05:07:44 PM |
|
|
Paid Political Hack "John" <John@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:TsTUb.15490$9a7.918@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Sorry guy... I do not buy your arguments at all... your motives are way
too
obvious... and it has little to do with 'truth' in MHO.
Hell, he's a college kid from Seattle. What did you expect? That's Anarchy
City.
"I worked for years to get bin Laden and almost did"
Bill Clinton
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "InsuranceBroker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
06 Feb 2004 02:38:09 PM |
|
|
Subject: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD
commission?
From: "Mr. N"
Date: 2/6/2004 3:34 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <1027uj92s09u565@news.supernews.com>
"John" <John@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MGSUb.15477$9a7.483@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
No... I have no problem with a 'bipartisan' inquiry AFTER the election and
a
really objective 'conclusion' can be reached.
Which is about as unAmerican as you can get. If there was wrongdoing, then
people damn well deserve that information BEFORE the election
Why would it matter. There is a reason why Bush picked two REpublicans. When
the report is released it will say Bush was provided bad information. They
should put Senator Spector on the panel because he is the author of the magic
bullet that killed Kennedy. I suspect bush will need a magic bullet.
.. The only
reason for supporting waiting until after the election would be that you
fear information would be used against George W. Bush, and this scares you.
That can not happen in this partisan atmosphere and you know it.
It SHOULD NOT HAPPEN period. There is nothing wrong with a "partisan
atmosphere", nor is such avoidable, nor SHOULD IT BE AVOIDABLE.
People deserve the truth. Let them (us) have it. It would be a refreshing
change.
--
-My Real Name
Doing Insurance business in the Garden State
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "King Pineapple" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
06 Feb 2004 05:05:15 PM |
|
|
Clueless Leftist College Dweeb "Mr. N" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:1027pp5a43dnj1a@news.supernews.com...
Kind of hard to gather proof when the man being investigated is the man
hiring the investigators.
Clinton had final approval on Ken Starr.
Sheesh.
"Was he (Clinton) trying to mislead the Paula Jones lawyers?"
"Absolutely"-David Kendall, the Clintons' (pro bono) legal mouthpiece
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ulTRAX" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
06 Feb 2004 06:02:16 PM |
|
|
"John" <John@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<fTQUb.20232$CE5.6744@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
"WeThePeople" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40227bc0_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
If it smells rotten, it usually is.
That is just your lower lip you're smelling... just close the mouth and the
smell quickly goes away.
Do you think democrats in an election year would be 'objective?' If you
believe that - especially based on the bs being slung about right now - then
YOU must be a typical partisan democrat.
Fortunately Bush didn't just get off the banana boat. AFTER the election is
the 'time' to have a bipartisan look at 'Iraq intelligence' (for the sake of
intelligence and real security).
ROTF... Not if Bush has something to hide that would affect his
chances of being reelected.
If Bushites did all the evil things you
guys claim then you can still impeach him... most Repubs would help if you
got real proof.
Why not let the truth come out before the election and let the PEOPLE
decide if Bush is trustworthy?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Litvintchouk" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
06 Feb 2004 12:49:47 PM |
|
|
John wrote:
"WeThePeople" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40227bc0_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
If it smells rotten, it usually is.
That is just your lower lip you're smelling... just close the mouth and the
smell quickly goes away.
Do you think democrats in an election year would be 'objective?' If you
believe that - especially based on the bs being slung about right now - then
YOU must be a typical partisan democrat.
Fortunately Bush didn't just get off the banana boat. AFTER the election is
the 'time' to have a bipartisan look at 'Iraq intelligence' (for the sake of
intelligence and real security). If Bushites did all the evil things you
guys claim then you can still impeach him... most Repubs would help if you
got real proof.
Bets are democrats will NOT care after the election - primarily because they
already KNOW the charges are bs and just election year opportunism.
The proof of that is that the Dems attacked Bush for not giving the 9-11
commission more time (they were originally supposed to wrap up in May).
And then they attacked Bush for giving the WMD commission enough time
that they won't finish their work before the November election.
What the Dems really want, of course, is two hatchet jobs they can
employ for maximum effect in September-October. That means a
Procrustean adjustment of the schedules--give the 9-11 commission more
time and give the WMD commission less time.
-- Steven L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "senhor san" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
06 Feb 2004 04:52:54 PM |
|
|
"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:flRUb.12914$jH6.439@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
John wrote:
"WeThePeople" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40227bc0_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
If it smells rotten, it usually is.
That is just your lower lip you're smelling... just close the mouth and
the
smell quickly goes away.
Do you think democrats in an election year would be 'objective?' If you
believe that - especially based on the bs being slung about right now -
then
YOU must be a typical partisan democrat.
Fortunately Bush didn't just get off the banana boat. AFTER the election
is
the 'time' to have a bipartisan look at 'Iraq intelligence' (for the
sake of
intelligence and real security). If Bushites did all the evil things you
guys claim then you can still impeach him... most Repubs would help if
you
got real proof.
Bets are democrats will NOT care after the election - primarily because
they
already KNOW the charges are bs and just election year opportunism.
The proof of that is that the Dems attacked Bush for not giving the 9-11
commission more time (they were originally supposed to wrap up in May).
And then they attacked Bush for giving the WMD commission enough time
that they won't finish their work before the November election.
What the Dems really want, of course, is two hatchet jobs they can
employ for maximum effect in September-October. That means a
Procrustean adjustment of the schedules--give the 9-11 commission more
time and give the WMD commission less time.
Isn't the real story that the Democrats are not opposing the war -- even
though
privately most have them are familiar with the evidence proving that
the Pentagon was not hit by the Boeing.
Security camera shows the wrong plane, the wrong explosion and
the anamolous trail of a missile.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagonconspiracy/message/4
Disparate Approach Paths
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagonconspiracy/message/1
The wrong imprint.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagonconspiracy/message/3
Democratic leadership (liberal or not, it doesn't matter) do not want to
change the entitre political universe by acknowedging this evidence and the
unmistakable implications.
Senhor San
LOVE ALL GOD'S CREATION
When I began to pray with the heart, everything around me became
transformed and I saw it in a new and delightful way. The trees, the
grass, the earth, the air, the light, and everything seemed to be
saying to me that it exists to witness to God's love for man and
that it prays and sings of God's glory. Now I understood
..how it was possible to communicate with God's creation.
(Christian, `The Way of a Pilgrim')
Long before I ever heard of Christ or saw a white man, I had learned
the essence of morality. With the help of dear Nature herself, my
grandmother taught me things simple but of mighty import. I knew
God. I perceived what goodness is. I saw and loved what is really
beautiful.I lived the natural life.Any pretty pebble was
valuable to me then; every growing tree an object of reverence.
(Ohiyesa, Charles Alexander Eastman, `The Soul of an Indian')
Love all God's creation, the whole and every grain of sand in it.
Love every leaf, every ray of God's light. Love the animals,
love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will
perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you
will begin to comprehend it better every day.
(Fyodor Dostoyevsky, from `The Catholic Digest')
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ulTRAX" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
06 Feb 2004 06:09:28 PM |
|
|
Steven Litvintchouk <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message news:<flRUb.12914$jH6.439@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
The proof of that is that the Dems attacked Bush for not giving the 9-11
commission more time (they were originally supposed to wrap up in May).
And then they attacked Bush for giving the WMD commission enough time
that they won't finish their work before the November election.
What the Dems really want, of course, is two hatchet jobs they can
employ for maximum effect in September-October. That means a
Procrustean adjustment of the schedules--give the 9-11 commission more
time and give the WMD commission less time.
What YOU apparently want is to keep the truth come being aired before
the election. There would be plenty of time to get to the IMPORTANT
issues if Bush had not broadened the scope of his WMD Whitewash
Committee. Come to think of it, the most IMPORTANT issue is whether
the Bush Junta misled the American People to get us into an illegal
war of aggression... and that's not even something Bush wants them to
investigate.
I personally believe that this farce of a investigation should be
boycotted by all who have any personal integrity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
06 Feb 2004 07:23:32 PM |
|
|
"ulTRAX" <ulTRAX@arabia.com> wrote in message
news:3513d8b1.0402061609.6eb1c8f6@posting.google.com...
Steven Litvintchouk <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:<flRUb.12914$jH6.439@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
The proof of that is that the Dems attacked Bush for not giving the 9-11
commission more time (they were originally supposed to wrap up in May).
And then they attacked Bush for giving the WMD commission enough time
that they won't finish their work before the November election.
What the Dems really want, of course, is two hatchet jobs they can
employ for maximum effect in September-October. That means a
Procrustean adjustment of the schedules--give the 9-11 commission more
time and give the WMD commission less time.
What YOU apparently want is to keep the truth come being aired before
the election. There would be plenty of time to get to the IMPORTANT
issues if Bush had not broadened the scope of his WMD Whitewash
Committee. Come to think of it, the most IMPORTANT issue is whether
the Bush Junta misled the American People to get us into an illegal
war of aggression... and that's not even something Bush wants them to
investigate.
I personally believe that this farce of a investigation should be
boycotted by all who have any personal integrity.
And your comments PROVE exactly what Steven pointed out. Most partisan dems
think just like you. You have made up your mind already so why do you need
an investigation? Just jump to the hanging... it saves everyone a lot of
time - not to mention much boring pretension and hot air talking about
'wanting the truth'... lol.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
07 Feb 2004 04:41:55 AM |
|
|
"John" <John@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:o6XUb.20481$EH5.15973@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"ulTRAX" <ulTRAX@arabia.com> wrote in message
news:3513d8b1.0402061609.6eb1c8f6@posting.google.com...
Steven Litvintchouk <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:<flRUb.12914$jH6.439@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
The proof of that is that the Dems attacked Bush for not giving the
9-11
commission more time (they were originally supposed to wrap up in
May).
And then they attacked Bush for giving the WMD commission enough
time
that they won't finish their work before the November election.
What the Dems really want, of course, is two hatchet jobs they can
employ for maximum effect in September-October. That means a
Procrustean adjustment of the schedules--give the 9-11 commission more
time and give the WMD commission less time.
What YOU apparently want is to keep the truth come being aired before
the election. There would be plenty of time to get to the IMPORTANT
issues if Bush had not broadened the scope of his WMD Whitewash
Committee. Come to think of it, the most IMPORTANT issue is whether
the Bush Junta misled the American People to get us into an illegal
war of aggression... and that's not even something Bush wants them to
investigate.
I personally believe that this farce of a investigation should be
boycotted by all who have any personal integrity.
And your comments PROVE exactly what Steven pointed out. Most partisan
dems
think just like you. You have made up your mind already so why do you need
an investigation? Just jump to the hanging... it saves everyone a lot of
time - not to mention much boring pretension and hot air talking about
'wanting the truth'... lol.
John
The truth must be heard BEFORE the election.
The people should have the truth so they can judge Bush before they choose
to vote for him.
Let me remind you that hundreds of American troops have died and thousands
injured.
Why should Bush not be judged on whether these deaths were lost because he
lied.
The electorate must be given all of the information about their candidates
BEFORE they cast their votes, not after.
I have no doubt that the Republicans will attempt to rake up as many dirty
facts about Kerry before the election, yet you don't believe that Bush
should be judged on his record in the last 3-4 years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
07 Feb 2004 07:59:16 AM |
|
|
"Gaza" <gary.humble&@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:c02fd1$11bs3i$1@ID-25439.news.uni-berlin.de...
"John" <John@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:o6XUb.20481$EH5.15973@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"ulTRAX" <ulTRAX@arabia.com> wrote in message
news:3513d8b1.0402061609.6eb1c8f6@posting.google.com...
Steven Litvintchouk <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:<flRUb.12914$jH6.439@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
The proof of that is that the Dems attacked Bush for not giving the
9-11
commission more time (they were originally supposed to wrap up in
May).
And then they attacked Bush for giving the WMD commission enough
time
that they won't finish their work before the November election.
What the Dems really want, of course, is two hatchet jobs they can
employ for maximum effect in September-October. That means a
Procrustean adjustment of the schedules--give the 9-11 commission
more
time and give the WMD commission less time.
What YOU apparently want is to keep the truth come being aired before
the election. There would be plenty of time to get to the IMPORTANT
issues if Bush had not broadened the scope of his WMD Whitewash
Committee. Come to think of it, the most IMPORTANT issue is whether
the Bush Junta misled the American People to get us into an illegal
war of aggression... and that's not even something Bush wants them to
investigate.
I personally believe that this farce of a investigation should be
boycotted by all who have any personal integrity.
And your comments PROVE exactly what Steven pointed out. Most partisan
dems
think just like you. You have made up your mind already so why do you
need
an investigation? Just jump to the hanging... it saves everyone a lot of
time - not to mention much boring pretension and hot air talking about
'wanting the truth'... lol.
John
The truth must be heard BEFORE the election.
The people should have the truth so they can judge Bush before they choose
to vote for him.
Let me remind you that hundreds of American troops have died and thousands
injured.
Why should Bush not be judged on whether these deaths were lost because he
lied.
The electorate must be given all of the information about their candidates
BEFORE they cast their votes, not after.
Give it a rest Gaza. Tenet and Kay already gave the 'truth'... you just
refuse to accept it for some reason. Be specific instead of all the
pretentious bs. What is it you want investigated.... the intelligence
reports in general ...or whether Tenet and Kay's 'facts' are lying or
inaccurate? Or do you want to rehash the congressional debate about whether
we should have invaded Iraq in the first place? Too late... they already
voted... including Mr Kerry... :)
I have no doubt that the Republicans will attempt to rake up as many dirty
facts about Kerry before the election, yet you don't believe that Bush
should be judged on his record in the last 3-4 years.
I doubt they need to 'make anything up'... Kerry's long voting record is
plenty of ammo in MHO.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
07 Feb 2004 11:48:22 AM |
|
|
"John" <John@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ua6Vb.18746$9a7.16753@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
"Gaza" <gary.humble&@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:c02fd1$11bs3i$1@ID-25439.news.uni-berlin.de...
"John" <John@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:o6XUb.20481$EH5.15973@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"ulTRAX" <ulTRAX@arabia.com> wrote in message
news:3513d8b1.0402061609.6eb1c8f6@posting.google.com...
Steven Litvintchouk <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:<flRUb.12914$jH6.439@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
The proof of that is that the Dems attacked Bush for not giving
the
9-11
commission more time (they were originally supposed to wrap up in
May).
And then they attacked Bush for giving the WMD commission enough
time
that they won't finish their work before the November election.
What the Dems really want, of course, is two hatchet jobs they can
employ for maximum effect in September-October. That means a
Procrustean adjustment of the schedules--give the 9-11 commission
more
time and give the WMD commission less time.
What YOU apparently want is to keep the truth come being aired
before
the election. There would be plenty of time to get to the IMPORTANT
issues if Bush had not broadened the scope of his WMD Whitewash
Committee. Come to think of it, the most IMPORTANT issue is whether
the Bush Junta misled the American People to get us into an illegal
war of aggression... and that's not even something Bush wants them
to
investigate.
I personally believe that this farce of a investigation should be
boycotted by all who have any personal integrity.
And your comments PROVE exactly what Steven pointed out. Most partisan
dems
think just like you. You have made up your mind already so why do you
need
an investigation? Just jump to the hanging... it saves everyone a lot
of
time - not to mention much boring pretension and hot air talking about
'wanting the truth'... lol.
John
The truth must be heard BEFORE the election.
The people should have the truth so they can judge Bush before they
choose
to vote for him.
Let me remind you that hundreds of American troops have died and
thousands
injured.
Why should Bush not be judged on whether these deaths were lost because
he
lied.
The electorate must be given all of the information about their
candidates
BEFORE they cast their votes, not after.
Give it a rest Gaza. Tenet and Kay already gave the 'truth'... you just
refuse to accept it for some reason. Be specific instead of all the
pretentious bs. What is it you want investigated.... the intelligence
reports in general ...or whether Tenet and Kay's 'facts' are lying or
inaccurate? Or do you want to rehash the congressional debate about
whether
we should have invaded Iraq in the first place? Too late... they already
voted... including Mr Kerry... :)
Give it a rest ????
American soldiers by the hundreds have died and thousands have have deen
injured and morons like you are not interested in wanting to why they ware
killed for nothing.
Neither Bush or Tenet have ever answered the question of why the most
reliable source available - Blix and the U.N. team were totally ignored.
Exactly why was this.
Blix and his team wanted more time to finish the job, and Bush built a case
that the urgency required and immediate invasion.
These were the experts on the ground who were checking the evidence, and to
simply dismiss their evidence because it is not what you want to hear is
plainly rediculous.
You are an idiot who is willing to accept every word and lie Bush tells you.
Just give this inquiry a couple of months, by which time we will start to
see the leak of documentation from the CIA which will show that Bush IS the
lying scumbag that every sensible, logical person already knows him to be.
Do you really believe that the individuals at the CIA are going to sit back
and allow Bush to attempt to pass the entire blame onto them.
THAT is why this inquiry is needed.
I have no doubt that the Republicans will attempt to rake up as many
dirty
facts about Kerry before the election, yet you don't believe that Bush
should be judged on his record in the last 3-4 years.
I doubt they need to 'make anything up'... Kerry's long voting record is
plenty of ammo in MHO.
It is not you limited oppinion which will matter in November and if this is
the best you have got, then Bush is definetely toast.
Bush has made the decisions which have screwed the finances of your country
and have put 3 million Americans on unemployment.
The bottom line with most people is finances. Any president who makes
Americans better off can be forgiven for practically all other
indescretions.
It a mecenary approach to life, but is explains the reason for Clinton's
populatity, and the reason why Bush is starting to lose major support in
America now.
I doubt that there is little you or the republicans can do short of getting
all of those unemployed back to work that will prevent Bush's downward
slide.
The chances of this are almost 3 million to one.
With congress and the whitehouse in republican control, they are going to
have one hell of a time trying to convince the American people that they can
be trusted more than the Dems to run America and make them better off.
Even you with your limited capacity to reason must be able to see that Bush
is screwed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
07 Feb 2004 02:33:22 PM |
|
|
"Gaza" <gary.humble&@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:c038ch$11v4gn$1@ID-25439.news.uni-berlin.de...
"John" <John@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ua6Vb.18746$9a7.16753@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
"Gaza" <gary.humble&@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:c02fd1$11bs3i$1@ID-25439.news.uni-berlin.de...
"John" <John@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:o6XUb.20481$EH5.15973@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"ulTRAX" <ulTRAX@arabia.com> wrote in message
news:3513d8b1.0402061609.6eb1c8f6@posting.google.com...
Steven Litvintchouk <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in
message
news:<flRUb.12914$jH6.439@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
The proof of that is that the Dems attacked Bush for not giving
<snip previous>
Give it a rest Gaza. Tenet and Kay already gave the 'truth'... you just
refuse to accept it for some reason. Be specific instead of all the
pretentious bs. What is it you want investigated.... the intelligence
reports in general ...or whether Tenet and Kay's 'facts' are lying or
inaccurate? Or do you want to rehash the congressional debate about
whether
we should have invaded Iraq in the first place? Too late... they already
voted... including Mr Kerry... :)
Give it a rest ????
American soldiers by the hundreds have died and thousands have have deen
injured and morons like you are not interested in wanting to why they ware
killed for nothing.
You are the one making that silly claim. Getting rid of Saddam is hardly
nothing. Most sane people are very glad that mass murdering SOB is gone,
including a huge majority of Iraqis. So are most in the region (save certain
extremist PA terrorist he was supporting or Syria maybe). Most others are
relieved, especially Kuwait.
And you still didn't answer the question. Investigate what specifically?
Neither Bush or Tenet have ever answered the question of why the most
reliable source available - Blix and the U.N. team were totally ignored.
Exactly why was this.
Because they were NOT the most reliable sources, and we didn't ignore them
either. We used the information from the inspectors/UNSCOM as well, which
included our own teams... and as Tenet pointed out. Of course none had been
there since 1998 so any information from those sources were dated.
Blix and his team wanted more time to finish the job, and Bush built a
case
that the urgency required and immediate invasion.
12 years is not urgent. Anything but. The US had lost ANY confidence that
Saddam would cooperate way before Bush even showed up, which is why they
passed the '1998 Iraqi Liberation Action' that supported regime change.
Saddam never cooperated. It was always 'cheat and retreat' with him. So...
they had EVERY reason to believe he would never cooperate fully. That is why
Clinton bombed him after the inspectors were forced out in '98. Saddam fired
at our planes enforcing the 'no fly' zone almost daily. And he NEVER gave a
full accounting of his wmd's, including right up until we invaded in March.
These were the experts on the ground who were checking the evidence, and
to
simply dismiss their evidence because it is not what you want to hear is
plainly rediculous.
Your facts are wrong again. We had loads of evidence from UNSCOM (and our
own intelligence), which in 98 had concluded Saddam NEVER accounted for all
wmds. The primary 'evidence' we had was he always did every thing he could
to NOT cooperate.
You are an idiot who is willing to accept every word and lie Bush tells
you.
Who said anything about Bush? I mentioned the very detailed reports of Kay
and Tenet. Do you think they lied too?
Just give this inquiry a couple of months, by which time we will start to
see the leak of documentation from the CIA which will show that Bush IS
the
lying scumbag that every sensible, logical person already knows him to be.
You are the one that is dense. The CIA just gave a very detailed report...
much of which is backed up by other HARD facts, including the details of the
2000 report that many in congress had already seen. Do you think Tenet would
present a report like that unless it was true? There are literally hundreds
of people involved in the 2000 assessment they made - including
congressional people/staff on the variouis intelligence committees (from
both political parties). Personally, I do NOT believe in massive
conspiracies that include that many people. It's ludicrous since any one of
them could blow the whistle anonmously if they chose, not to mention the
opposition party themselves since many of them saw the same data. *****
Gephardt said so himself.
Do you really believe that the individuals at the CIA are going to sit
back
and allow Bush to attempt to pass the entire blame onto them.
THAT is why this inquiry is needed.
Bush never once 'blamed' the CIA. The only one that I know of that has
called for Tenent's resignation is Joe Lieberman.
The major accusation made was that Bushites 'pressured the CIA to change
previous assessments." But both Tenet and Kay adamantly denied that
happened. Kay said he interviewed MANY CIA analyst and not a single one of
them claimed to have been pressured by the admin, only that most of them
were 'upset that they had got it so wrong.' Tenet said exactly the same
thing in his report.
So... I repeat... inquire into what? Maybe you ought to actually read
Tenet's report:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2004/tenet_georgetownspeech_02052004.html
I have no doubt that the Republicans will attempt to rake up as many
dirty
facts about Kerry before the election, yet you don't believe that Bush
should be judged on his record in the last 3-4 years.
I doubt they need to 'make anything up'... Kerry's long voting record is
plenty of ammo in MHO.
It is not you limited oppinion which will matter in November and if this
is
the best you have got, then Bush is definetely toast.
Really? Do you do fortune telling too?
Bush has made the decisions which have screwed the finances of your
country
and have put 3 million Americans on unemployment.
Actually the economy is doing quiet well, and getting better every month.
Unemployment is only 5.6%, which many would consider almost full employment
and about half of what it is in Germany and France. The markets have
recovered over 50% in just the last year. It's Europe that is still pretty
much in the crapper. They have many fundamental problems they need to
solve - especially Germany and France.
The bottom line with most people is finances. Any president who makes
Americans better off can be forgiven for practically all other
indescretions.
I agree with that in general, and I think the economy will be in great shape
by next fall (I hope). It is already pretty good in much of the country (few
exceptions).
It a mecenary approach to life, but is explains the reason for Clinton's
populatity, and the reason why Bush is starting to lose major support in
America now.
Yeah... that's right too. Like I said the economy looks to be recovering
nicely from the Clinton recession Bush inherited... thanks much to the tax
cuts in 2001... lol. The deficit is a problem, but that should continue
improve as the economy picks up - assuming they can get other spending back
to a sane level. Either way... democrats are generally worse when it comes
to new spending. So don't expect any democrat - including Kerry - to run as
a spending cutter... that does NOT sell to the dem base... they want MORE...
not less. They want MORE taxes too... which is a real vote killer for them
(in general).
I doubt that there is little you or the republicans can do short of
getting
all of those unemployed back to work that will prevent Bush's downward
slide.
You keep mentioning all those unemployed. You listen to too much bs instead
of real facts. Most countries would kill for a 5.6% unemployement rate. The
latest report (Jan) showed 112,000 net new jobs created. That ain't a barn
burner, but it's not bad either. I suspect that trend will continue to
improve based on the other good numbers coming in.
The chances of this are almost 3 million to one.
Care to document that number? No... you can't. Quit repeating democrat
campaign slogans. They are very out of date. I don't know exactly what the
latest real number is... but it is way below 3 million (which was compared
to a boom time and pretty irrelevant anyway). We went through a recession
and have been slowly recovering for over a year. Not that complicated. New
job creation should continue to improve based on the strong GDP growth and
lower dollar.
With congress and the whitehouse in republican control, they are going to
have one hell of a time trying to convince the American people that they
can
be trusted more than the Dems to run America and make them better off.
Even you with your limited capacity to reason must be able to see that
Bush
is screwed.
Well... we'll see soon enough. Bush has not even started to campaign yet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Bush and not Congress picking an independent WMD commission? |
08 Feb 2004 03:51:29 AM |
|
|
"John" <John@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mYbVb.403$4e3.73@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
"Gaza" <gary.humble&@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:c038ch$11v4gn$1@ID-25439.news.uni-berlin.de...
"John" <John@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ua6Vb.18746$9a7.16753@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
"Gaza" <gary.humble&@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:c02fd1$11bs3i$1@ID-25439.news.uni-berlin.de...
"John" <John@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:o6XUb.20481$EH5.15973@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"ulTRAX" <ulTRAX@arabia.com> wrote in message
news:3513d8b1.0402061609.6eb1c8f6@posting.google.com...
Steven Litvintchouk <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in
message
news:<flRUb.12914$jH6.439@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
The proof of that is that the Dems attacked Bush for not
giving
<snip previous>
Give it a rest Gaza. Tenet and Kay already gave the 'truth'... you
just
refuse to accept it for some reason. Be specific instead of all the
pretentious bs. What is it you want investigated.... the intelligence
reports in general ...or whether Tenet and Kay's 'facts' are lying or
inaccurate? Or do you want to rehash the congressional debate about
whether
we should have invaded Iraq in the first place? Too late... they
already
voted... including Mr Kerry... :)
Give it a rest ????
American soldiers by the hundreds have died and thousands have have deen
injured and morons like you are not interested in wanting to why they
ware
killed for nothing.
You are the one making that silly claim. Getting rid of Saddam is hardly
nothing. Most sane people are very glad that mass murdering SOB is gone,
including a huge majority of Iraqis. So are most in the region (save
certain
extremist PA terrorist he was supporting or Syria maybe). Most others are
relieved, especially Kuwait.
Saddam was nothing.
He was totally contained and the U.N. weapons inspectors were crawling all
over Iraq unrestricted.
Overthowing Iraq took a mere few weeks and resulted in the deaths of less
than 3 hundred soldiers.
This is proof enough that his military had been desimated by 13 years of
sanctions.
So yes, without WMD these soldiers did die for nothing.
And you still didn't answer the question. Investigate what specifically?
Investigate why Bush chose to ignore the ONLY reliable source of
information.
ie Blix and his team.
Neither Bush or Tenet have ever answered the question of why the most
reliable source available - Blix and the U.N. team were totally ignored.
Exactly why was this.
Because they were NOT the most reliable sources, and we didn't ignore them
either. We used the information from the inspectors/UNSCOM as well, which
included our own teams... and as Tenet pointed out. Of course none had
been
there since 1998 so any information from those sources were dated.
No - Bush simply ignored them.
Blix asked for more time and Bush ignored them.
Blix had full and unrestricted access to Iraq and Bush lied about this too.
He told you all that Saddam was not cooperation with the U.N. when clearly
he was.
Blix and his team wanted more time to finish the job, and Bush built a
case
that the urgency required and immediate invasion.
12 years is not urgent. Anything but. The US had lost ANY confidence that
Saddam would cooperate way before Bush even showed up, which is why they
passed the '1998 Iraqi Liberation Action' that supported regime change.
Saddam never cooperated. It was always 'cheat and retreat' with him. So...
they had EVERY reason to believe he would never cooperate fully. That is
why
Clinton bombed him after the inspectors were forced out in '98. Saddam
fired
at our planes enforcing the 'no fly' zone almost daily. And he NEVER gave
a
full accounting of his wmd's, including right up until we invaded in
March.
So you now ignore the fact that Blix had full and unrestricted access to
anywhere in Iraq.
Or are you simply a partisan liar.
These were the experts on the ground who were checking the evidence, and
to
simply dismiss their evidence because it is not what you want to hear is
plainly rediculous.
Your facts are wrong again. We had loads of evidence from UNSCOM (and our
own intelligence), which in 98 had concluded Saddam NEVER accounted for
all
wmds. The primary 'evidence' we had was he always did every thing he could
to NOT cooperate.
1998.
Blix had no evidence that warrented any urgency for pre-emptive invasion,
and his reports were a ***** load more recent than 1998.
You are an idiot who is willing to accept every word and lie Bush tells
you.
Who said anything about Bush? I mentioned the very detailed reports of Kay
and Tenet. Do you think they lied too?
What about David Kay and Blix.
Tenet has been bought by Bush and considering the supposed intelligence
failure of 9/11, his word cannot be trusted any more than Bush's.
Once the inquiry gets into it's stride, you will begin to see all kinds of
reports come in from disgruntled intelligence operatives who are pissed that
Bush is attempting to lay the blame at they feet.
Just give this inquiry a couple of months, by which time we will start
to
see the leak of documentation from the CIA which will show that Bush IS
the
lying scumbag that every sensible, logical person already knows him to
be.
You are the one that is dense. The CIA just gave a very detailed report...
much of which is backed up by other HARD facts, including the details of
the
2000 report that many in congress had already seen. Do you think Tenet
would
present a report like that unless it was true? There are literally
hundreds
of people involved in the 2000 assessment they made - including
congressional people/staff on the variouis intelligence committees (from
both political parties). Personally, I do NOT believe in massive
conspiracies that include that many people. It's ludicrous since any one
of
them could blow the whistle anonmously if they chose, not to mention the
opposition party themselves since many of them saw the same data. *****
Gephardt said so himself.
How can these facts be hard when that totally contradicts the reality of the
situation.
There are no WMD, therefore these facts cannot be HARD.
The real facts about Bush's lies will come out soon enough.
Be patient, but accept the reality that either the intelligence was
seriously flawed or Bush lied.
Considering that many of these intelligence operatatives have probably been
in the business for years, and that Bush is an habitial liar, what is the
likelyhood that the intelligence was flawed.
You need to get a grasp on reality.
I doubt that Bush will ever do jail time for his part in the murder of
thousands of innocent Iraqi's, but the world will be shown what a lying
scumbag he is.
Do you really believe that the individuals at the CIA are going to sit
back
and allow Bush to attempt to pass the entire blame onto them.
THAT is why this inquiry is needed.
Bush never once 'blamed' the CIA. The only one that I know of that has
called for Tenent's resignation is Joe Lieberman.
Yet he is trying to restrict the inquiry to only investigate the
intelligence failures.
It will soon become impossible for this restriction to prevent an
investigation of how Bush abused the information.
It only takes one or 2 disgruntled CIA operatives to release information
about how they told Bush that there was no proof of Saddam still having WMD
and Bush will have to explain where he got information from that he did.
We have an interesting time ahead of us.
Whatever happens, Bush's junta is through.
The major accusation made was that Bushites 'pressured the CIA to change
previous assessments." But both Tenet and Kay adamantly denied that
happened. Kay said he interviewed MANY CIA analyst and not a single one of
them claimed to have been pressured by the admin, only that most of them
were 'upset that they had got it so wrong.' Tenet said exactly the same
thing in his report.
So... I repeat... inquire into what? Maybe you ought to actually read
Tenet's report:
Tenet is a traitorous scumbag who is only interested in protection his
position as head of the CIA.
His report is based soley on self interest and he has been vunerable since
9/11.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2004/tenet_georgetownspeech_0
2052004.html
I have no doubt that the Republicans will attempt to rake up as many
dirty
facts about Kerry before the election, yet you don't believe that
Bush
should be judged on his record in the last 3-4 years.
I doubt they need to 'make anything up'... Kerry's long voting record
is
plenty of ammo in MHO.
It is not you limited oppinion which will matter in November and if this
is
the best you have got, then Bush is definetely toast.
Really? Do you do fortune telling too?
No - but it does not take much intelligence to come to make this guess.
It is a pity you lack such intelligence.
I do not put much store on polls, but when so many of them are predicting
his downfall, then they become hard to ignore.
It is now apparent that the Iraq war which Bush was depending on to save his
skin has become one of the major obstacles to his re-election.
Bush has made the decisions which have screwed the finances of your
country
and have put 3 million Americans on unemployment.
Actually the economy is doing quiet well, and getting better every month.
Unemployment is only 5.6%, which many would consider almost full
employment
and about half of what it is in Germany and France. The markets have
recovered over 50% in just the last year. It's Europe that is still pretty
much in the crapper. They have many fundamental problems they need to
solve - especially Germany and France.
Now I know for certain that you are living in Bush's fantasy world.
You need to read up on what will happen if OPEC decide to change their oil
trade to the Euro instead of the dollar.
Bush and his stupid invasion has created a de-stablisation in the value of
the dollar and now, many OPEC countries are disgusing the change.
If this happens, then the American economy will collapse almost overnight as
most of the industriallised countries scramble to offload they stockpiles of
dollars which the keep to trade for oil.
This is a crisis of Bush's making because he has destablised the dollar
withe his wars and record deficite.
The bottom line with most people is finances. Any president who makes
Americans better off can be forgiven for practically all other
indescretions.
I agree with that in general, and I think the economy will be in great
shape
by next fall (I hope). It is already pretty good in much of the country
(few
exceptions).
So you believe that 3 million unemployed Americans would agree with your
assessment of the American economy.
You actually believe that the economy is ok.
Have you been hibernating for the last 3 years.
It a mecenary approach to life, but is explains the reason for Clinton's
populatity, and the reason why Bush is starting to lose major support in
America now.
Yeah... that's right too. Like I said the economy looks to be recovering
nicely from the Clinton recession Bush inherited... thanks much to the tax
cuts in 2001... lol. The deficit is a problem, but that should continue
improve as the economy picks up - assuming they can get other spending
back
to a sane level. Either way... democrats are generally worse when it comes
to new spending. So don't expect any democrat - including Kerry - to run
as
a spending cutter... that does NOT sell to the dem base... they want
MORE...
not less. They want MORE taxes too... which is a real vote killer for them
(in general).
You truly are deluded.
Bush has put the American economy into freefall.
The stockmarket has dropped dramatically, wiping out the savings of many of
many small investors.
The dollar has been dramatically devalued and 3 million more Americans are
unemployed now tahn were when Bush was selected.
Bush is now trying to introduce an employment law which will wipe out the
right to overtime pay.
http://www.scfl.org/uln8-3.htm#miller
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/jobs/chi-0306150315jun15,0,6464906.
story?coll=chi-classifiedjobs-hed
How many working American people do you think will appreciate this abuse of
worker right.
In the current economic climate, just how many Americans who depend on
overtime will thank Bush for this one.
I doubt that there is little you or the republicans can do short of
getting
all of those unemployed back to work that will prevent Bush's downward
slide.
You keep mentioning all those unemployed. You listen to too much bs
instead
of real facts. Most countries would kill for a 5.6% unemployement rate.
The
latest report (Jan) showed 112,000 net new jobs created. That ain't a barn
burner, but it's not bad either. I suspect that trend will continue to
improve based on the other good numbers coming in.
The chances of this are almost 3 million to one.
Care to document that number? No... you can't. Quit repeating democrat
campaign slogans. They are very out of date. I don't know exactly what the
latest real number is... but it is way below 3 million (which was compared
to a boom time and pretty irrelevant anyway). We went through a recession
and have been slowly recovering for over a year. Not that complicated. New
job creation should continue to improve based on the strong GDP growth and
lower dollar.
Kerry has been using this claim as part of his election campaign and since
Bush has yet to call him on it, one can only assume it is true.
Bush and his republican crew would have called him a liar long ago if it
were not.
Now if you care to call him on it, be my guest, but I doubt you can.
With congress and the whitehouse in republican control, they are going
to
have one hell of a time trying to convince the American people that they
can
be trusted more than the Dems to run America and make them better off.
Even you with your limited capacity to reason must be able to see that
Bush
is screwed.
Well... we'll see soon enough. Bush has not even started to campaign yet.
Why would you think that.
Most political commentators believed that the SOTU speech was nothing less
than a campaign speech.
It is real funny that the Bush campaign cannot find anything of substance to
use against Kerry and have resorted to calling him a Massachusetts Democrat,
echoing an earlier campaign.
Bush, who has more skeletons in his cupboard than any other president, has
done more damage to America than any other president in history and actually
thi | | | | | | | | | |
