Originally Posted By woody "Post 15 blamed Eisner for trying to get yellow cake." "The sky is falling"... Chicken Little.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Woody, could you please cite the web address where you got that quote? It's all well and good to quote somebody but if you can't back it up with a citation...well, you know.
Originally Posted By woody I do think the Democrats are a participants and main driver in the divisive politics, but I also think this is payback for the Republican actions during the Clinton years. Funny thing is I'm not sure it is working. Bush is messing up in many areas, but I'm sure he can fix it. I'm not sure if the Democrats can win on their invective because there is no real message. Reaction is not a strategy.
Originally Posted By woody "Woody, could you please cite the web address where you got that quote? It's all well and good to quote somebody but if you can't back it up with a citation...well, you know." Here it is. <a href="http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/chicken_little/" target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/trailers/ disney/chicken_little/</a>
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Nice try, but that's a known toon-rights site operated by animated characters who voted for Foghorn Leghorn in the last Barnyard Primaries! Let's try for a more unbiased source for quotes next time!
Originally Posted By Beaumandy The local paper the Oregonian sounds exactly like my good friend Gadzuux. It's all Bush is bad all the time... These people need to relaize that Bush is not running again, the polls are wighted with democrats, Bush never lied about anything regarding Iraq, and if you ask who the democrats would put in place of Bush ( after the impeachment! ) that the military would rally around... you get a big stupid blank stare... because they have NOTHING in the way of ideas or people to help the country. Hold on.. Cindy Sheehan keeps coming up as their 08 candidate. when they lose in 06 and 08 they are really going to wonder what the hell happened.
Originally Posted By patrickegan Those are some unbiased sources you got there fella. The first one is probably the most nonpartisan I’ve seen in awhile. The red background before the content loaded gave away the leanings but I was tempted to order the CHEney T-shirt. The later makes the former look like the Nation Review online! Now that I mention NRO Here is the vice president: If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people. So this is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world. Here’s the hitch: That was Clinton and Gore in 1998, not Bush and Dick Cheney in 2002. President Clinton offered his assessment in February 1998. Gore made his observations the following December, defending the military strikes Clinton had ordered against Iraq. These were not off-the-cuff remarks but vetted statements by the two highest officials of the United States. Clinton and Gore were not alone in their conviction that Saddam had WMDs. France thought so, too, as did Israel, China, Russia, Britain, the United Nations, the CIA and the entire national security team of the Democratic administration. The Germans believed Saddam would have a nuclear weapon within 36 months. Robert Einhorn, Clinton’s deputy assistant secretary of state, told the Senate Governmental Affairs committee in March 2002 that Saddam could have nukes and the missiles capable of striking Europe “within four to five years†and would be able to deliver nukes in America via “non-conventional means.†“If Iraq managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material,†he said, “these threats could arrive much earlier.†Sen. Jay Rockefeller — the ranking Democratic on the Senate intelligence committee and now a full member of the “Bush lied†chorus — echoed Einhorn’s assessment, adding, “I do believe that Iraq is an immediate threat†and “we can no longer afford to wait for a smoking gun.†Sens. Evan Bayh, Joseph Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards all voted for the war. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/ goldberg/goldberg.asp</a> Good stuff Jonah
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I don't think Bush lied. He was fed conflicting information by intelligence, and he believed what he wanted to believe. That makes him a damned poor president, but it doesn’t make him a liar. I'll give Dubya the benefit of the doubt and would oppose any move towards impeachment. The Republicans were absolutely disgusting in what they attempted to do to Clinton, and I would hope that Democrats would show a little more class when it comes to dealing with Bush. All that said... anyone who doesn't think the Democrats will make HUGE gains in 2006 has their eyes wide shut.
Originally Posted By patrickegan Especially with Dean, Franken and Sheehan (aka Kookla, Fran and Ollie) pitching for them.
Originally Posted By patrickegan But the Democrats will not allow for the possibility that the very same intelligence that prompted Clinton to bomb Iraq also informed Bush’s decision to topple Saddam. Another good point made by Goldberg
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<All that said... anyone who doesn't think the Democrats will make HUGE gains in 2006 has their eyes wide shut.>> Roadtrip, you know my answer to this so I won't bore you. ( But your not going to be happy in 06 ) Now, what is the deal with the Minnesota Vikings this year? What a train wreck. I'm betting AGAINST them every week from here on out.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But the Democrats will not allow for the possibility that the very same intelligence that prompted Clinton to bomb Iraq also informed Bush’s decision to topple Saddam.> This ignores the little fact that there were four+ years of MORE intelligence between the two, much of which (we now know) argued that the case for WMD was weak, which Bush ignored or discounted. Our intelligence was highly focused on Iraq, and it was better in 2002 than in 1998. And much of it said "wait a minute...there may not be WMD there after all." Bush didn't wait a minute.
Originally Posted By patrickegan Robert Einhorn, Clinton’s deputy assistant secretary of state, told the Senate Governmental Affairs committee in March 2002 that Saddam could have nukes and the missiles capable of striking Europe “within four to five years†and would be able to deliver nukes in America via “non-conventional means.†“If Iraq managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material,†he said, “these threats could arrive much earlier.†Sen. Jay Rockefeller — the ranking Democratic on the Senate intelligence committee and now a full member of the “Bush lied†chorus — echoed Einhorn’s assessment, adding, “I do believe that Iraq is an immediate threat†and “we can no longer afford to wait for a smoking gun.†Sens. Evan Bayh, Joseph Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards all voted for the war. Did you miss this???
Originally Posted By Dabob2 1). Did any of them call for invasion and occupation? That's a big difference right there. And actually, none of them voted "for the war." They voted to give the president authorization to go to war "as a last resort." They can be forgiven for later not believing that Bush's decision to invade WAS a last resort. They can not be forgiven so easily, IMO, for shirking their responsibility for war in the first place - which, contrary to what many Americans believe, is supposed to be declared by Congress. Along those lines... 2). In the case of some (all?) of those senators, I see their votes as craven attempts to not look "weak on defense" in the hysterical "dissent equals unpatriotic" atmosphere of 2002 when we were renaming French fries. 3). The Bush admin. was very careful how it doled out its information to other members of the government, including the Senate. (I posted this elsewhere but it bears repeating). The Oct '02 National Intelligence Estimate was presented to Congress the night before hearings began. The full NIE contained dissents and qualifiers. Members could only look at it onsite; they could not take a copy with them for review. What they COULD take with them to review was a white paper "summary" that removed the qualifiers and dissents - thus the "summary" was a distortion and manipulation of the full NIE. Moreover, this white paper was made public; the full report was not. Thus, any member of congress revealing those dissents would be revealing classified information.
Originally Posted By patrickegan 1.- Sen. Jay Rockefeller — the ranking Democratic on the Senate intelligence committee, “I do believe that Iraq is an immediate threat†and “we can no longer afford to wait for a smoking gun. That doesn’t sound like a let’s hang around and see what shakes out to me. 2. Boo hoo if the senators didn’t have the Aussie Nad’s to vote against something as important as an invasion then the people that voted for them don’t have a leg to whine on. (With the exception of Hillary cause she’s ready to kick @$$ and take names! Sorry Cindy) 3. Parts of that same intelligence was the stuff Clinton used to justify his missile attacks and “France thought so, as did Israel, China, Russia, Britain, the United Nations, the CIA and the entire national security team of the Democratic administration. The Germans believed Saddam would have a nuclear weapon within 36 months.†<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/ goldberg/goldberg.asp</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <This ignores the little fact that there were four+ years of MORE intelligence between the two, much of which (we now know) argued that the case for WMD was weak, which Bush ignored or discounted.> From what I've read, most of the intelligence from 1998 to 2002 continued to make the case that Saddam had WMD's. Information that contradicted that consensus was presented as sidebars or footnotes or afterwards. <And actually, none of them voted "for the war." They voted to give the president authorization to go to war "as a last resort."> That's not what the joint resolution said. It said: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." <The Bush admin. was very careful how it doled out its information to other members of the government, including the Senate.> My understanding is that members of the Senate Intelligence committee received the same reports as the President.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<This ignores the little fact that there were four+ years of MORE intelligence between the two, much of which (we now know) argued that the case for WMD was weak, which Bush ignored or discounted.>> <From what I've read, most of the intelligence from 1998 to 2002 continued to make the case that Saddam had WMD's. Information that contradicted that consensus was presented as sidebars or footnotes or afterwards.> Not always. And much of the intell wasn't as much "he definitely has it" as "we figure he MUST have it" (because, the reasoning went, he wanted it, he's not letting the inspectors see certain things, he's acting in a way consistent with trying to hide it, etc.) That's quite different from "we KNOW he has it" even though that's how many pols of both parties phrased it. And my position has always been that unless you KNOW for absolute sure, with no doubts and no nagging dissents from your own intell services, you don't take the extraordinary step of invading and occupying another country. <<And actually, none of them voted "for the war." They voted to give the president authorization to go to war "as a last resort.">> <That's not what the joint resolution said. It said: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."> You're quite right about the wording of the resolution. Bush's "last resort" was a verbal promise, not a written one, and I suppose we all should have known that a verbal promise isn't worth the paper it's written on. <<The Bush admin. was very careful how it doled out its information to other members of the government, including the Senate.>> <My understanding is that members of the Senate Intelligence committee received the same reports as the President. > See above. There were times when Congress was, for example, presented voluminous materials they could only read on site under security right then and there (that contained dissents and qualifiers) along with a handy dandy "summary" that omitted the dissents and qualifiers that they could take home with them. Human nature being what it is, most will opt for the summary. The few who read the whole thing and wanted to make the dissents public could not - it was classified information, while the summary that all pointed in one scary direction was not. How convenient.
