8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 04:07 pm
Another false political spin lie. Ask Hillary. She consulted all of the best experts besides Bush and voted for authorization. Did she also lie us into war? And I have pointed out numerous times now, one of the CIA's own experts thought there may be WMD in Iraq to be used on our soldiers, and this is the same woman that is the wife of the great Joseph Wilson that has claimed Bush lied us into war.

You need to go back to the barrel and scrape the bottom harder instead of repeating the same old made up lies over and over. Maybe you believe them if you repeat them enough, but not everyone does.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 04:13 pm
okie wrote:
Another false political spin lie. Ask Hillary. She consulted all of the best experts besides Bush and voted for authorization. Did she also lie us into war? And I have pointed out numerous times now, one of the CIA's own experts thought there may be WMD in Iraq to be used on our soldiers, and this is the same woman that is the wife of the great Joseph Wilson that has claimed Bush lied us into war.

You need to go back to the barrel and scrape the bottom harder instead of repeating the same old made up lies over and over. Maybe you believe them if you repeat them enough, but not everyone does.



I am sure that you have been told this a hundred times; but it just doesn't sink into your brain. Bush had intell that congress and everyone else didn't have. For instance, congress didn't know of Bush's info on Wilson's report about yellow cake, on the so-called nuke cylinders (that were really rocket casings), on the so-called portable WMD (which were really for launching weather balloons, etc.

Okie, people may think you are the biggest liar of all.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 04:56 pm
You are confusing a difference of opinion with lying, Advocate. Two people can look at a set of data and from it make two wholly honest opinions that differ. Is that lying? Maybe in your book, it is, but not mine. It all depends upon which evidence you tend to place larger credence or importance, and if you are honest, you would admit there was conflicting evidence concerning WMD. It all depended upon what any particular person or politician believed the preponderance of the evidence showed. And I don't know about you, but I don't think we yet know all there is to know for sure about the WMD issue in Iraq.

You are so much like alot of Bush haters. You want to hate Bush so bad that you will believe anything to support your position, but not the conflicting evidence.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 05:19 pm
Bush even lied about congress having the same intel.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 05:23 pm
Bush Resurrects False Claim That Congress Had "Same Intelligence" On Iraq
In his speech today, President Bush claimed that members of Congress who voted for the 2002 Iraq war resolution "had access to the same intelligence" as his administration. This is patently false.

Nevermind that much of the intelligence offered to the public and to Congress was inaccurate and misleading, or that according to the Downing Street memo and other documents, such intelligence was likely intentionally "fixed." It is simply not true to state that Congress received the "same intelligence" as the White House:



[S]everal Congressional and intelligence officials with access to the 15 assessments [of intel suggesting aluminum tubes showed Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program] 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." [NYT, 10/3/04]



"The claim that the White House and Congress saw the 'same intelligence' on Iraq is further undermined by the Bush administration's use of outside intelligence channels. For more than year prior to the war, the administration received intelligence assessments and analysis on Iraq directly from the Department of Defense's Office of Special Plans (OSP), run by then-undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas J. Feith, and the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a group of Iraqi exiles led by Ahmed Chalabi." [MediaMatters, 11/8/05]
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2007 04:27 pm
bm
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2007 04:42 pm
Quote:
And I don't know about you, but I don't think we yet know all there is to know for sure about the WMD issue in Iraq.


We don't know everything for sure about WW2, Vietnam, any war. We never get complete pictures of anything. All we can do is make our best judgements based upon information available at the time; and all available information currently points to a lack of there ever being a true WMD threat from Iraq, certainly not a threat to America.

I think an important thing to remember is that much of the intel which lead to the Iraq war came from Douglas Feith's office in the Pentagon - a office created specifically to start the war with Iraq and bring in independent streams of intel which were used to discredit other, more traditional intel streams; sources which did not support the case for war. Congress most certainly didn't have access to these guys in the way that Bush did.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2007 04:55 pm
To continue to question the aggression against Iraq based on WMDs is long past. Even Colin Powell admitted that his report to the UN was wrong; one of the few left with any credibility at the time of his speech that led more people to believe Saddam had WMDs.

That's long past, and all the subsequent info that have come out confirm Saddam didn't have any WMDs. When we first invaded Iraq, our soldiers spent a good part of their time looking for those WMDs where Powell claimed they were located. None were found.

Why do people continue to believe in the fairy tales to support our aggression against Iraq?

Most of us now realize our aggression was a crime against a sovereign nation.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2007 06:47 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Most of us now realize our aggression was a crime against a sovereign nation.


Our "aggression" was long overdue, and fully justified, regardless of whether WMD were found.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2007 06:54 pm
Only if you have a twisted definition of 'justified.'

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2007 07:22 pm
There is a sufficient legal reason for the war, thus it is justified.

Pretty standard definition, I'd say.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2007 07:47 pm
Assuming there was no WMD, which we still can't be sure of, the analogy goes like this. A known criminal is threatening the neighbor while the sheriff tells him to drop his weapon. The criminal has been known to have very dangerous weapons in the past and has known to have killed many. He instead continues to wave a shiny object around and points it at various people, the sheriff shoots him, removes him from the scene, treats his injuries, and throws him in jail to await trial. Then all that is found is a pocket knife instead of a gun. It is not the Sheriff's fault in my opinion. And the jury of his peers convicts the man of such serious crimes that he is put to death. It seems to me that his peers and the Sheriff and other law abiding citizens are better off with him gone so that he is no longer a threat to kill thousands or millions more as he had done in the past. And we still suspect the criminal may have given his weapons collection to a neighbor or friend.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2007 08:25 pm
So now, okie is judge, jury and executioner. No surprises there.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2007 09:39 pm
Judge, jury, and executioner were the Iraqis, not me, ci.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2007 10:22 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Most of us now realize our aggression was a crime against a sovereign nation.


Our "aggression" was long overdue, and fully justified, regardless of whether WMD were found.


A little man, mentally and physically, hiding behind the big guns. This is exactly the kind of stupidity which caused 9-11.

The USA has had no justification for any of its illegal, terrorist actions since its inception; it's all been simply a matter of personal greed.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2007 10:26 pm
okie wrote:
Assuming there was no WMD, which we still can't be sure of, the analogy goes like this. A known criminal is threatening the neighbor while the sheriff tells him to drop his weapon. The criminal has been known to have very dangerous weapons in the past and has known to have killed many. He instead continues to wave a shiny object around and points it at various people, the sheriff shoots him, removes him from the scene, treats his injuries, and throws him in jail to await trial. Then all that is found is a pocket knife instead of a gun. It is not the Sheriff's fault in my opinion. And the jury of his peers convicts the man of such serious crimes that he is put to death. It seems to me that his peers and the Sheriff and other law abiding citizens are better off with him gone so that he is no longer a threat to kill thousands or millions more as he had done in the past. And we still suspect the criminal may have given his weapons collection to a neighbor or friend.


You've got this SO FU*CKIN' ass backwards, Okiot.

Care to do a careful, FACTUAL count of the numbers murdered by Saddam versus the numbers murdered by the USA?

Care to do a careful, FACTUAL count of who possesses the largest number of WMDs in the world.

Care to do a careful, FACTUAL count of who has used, aided others to use these WMDs.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Dec, 2007 12:44 am
I'm not sure anything will come of this, but it's interesting at any rate.


Lawyers Stepping Up
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Dec, 2007 01:17 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
I'm not sure anything will come of this, but it's interesting at any rate.


What do you find interesting about it?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Dec, 2007 03:02 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Most of us now realize our aggression was a crime against a sovereign nation.
Who is this "us" you refer to? Most of us, who are even vaguely aware of the facts know that is utter nonsense. WMD is not now, nor was it ever, all there is to it. Refresh your memory, and stop bashing your country by attempting to rewrite history. (You should recognize this, without a source, my friend :wink: )

Quote:
<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ243.107]


[[Page 1497]]

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

[[Page 116 STAT. 1498]]

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

Joint Resolution



To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. <<NOTE>>

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace

[[Page 116 STAT. 1499]]

and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

[[Page 116 STAT. 1500]]

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress <<NOTE>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

[[Page 116 STAT. 1501]]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--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.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) <<NOTE>> Reports.--The President shall, at least
once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant
to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning
for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are
completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

[[Page 116 STAT. 1502]]

(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission
of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission
of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the
Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report
required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the
requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Approved October 16, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-721 (Comm. on International Relations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.
Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement.

<all>
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Dec, 2007 09:08 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Most of us now realize our aggression was a crime against a sovereign nation.
occom bill wrote:
Who is this "us" you refer to? Most of us, who are even vaguely aware of the facts know that is utter nonsense.



Since when does 24% equal "most?"
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 08:31:47