Democrats Have Proof Pre-War Intel Was Manipulated

BumbleBeeBoogie refences Bob Graham FORMER Senator from Florida.

If Graham is telling the truth he MUST, if he is a good American, instantly go to the House of Representatives and petition the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Sensenbrenner, to begin impeachment proceedings at once for President Bush.

Failing that, he must demand a full page spread in the New York Times.

Why haven't we been told about his startling revelations?

It is revealing that Graham tells us that Tenet, the former head of the CIA came to the conclusion in the NIE that Hussein was developing Nuclear Weapons.

The director of the CIA is, or perhaps. was supposed to be the expert on which the President and his cabinet relied in order to make decisions--UNLESS THERE IS A SMOKING GUN--YES A SMOKING GUN--A MEMO FROM BUSH? CHENEY? ROVE? saying- We don't want any information that will lead us to the conclusion that we must invade Iraq--Clinton's 1998 speech in which he said---"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region and THE SECURITY OF THE WORLD" NOTWITHSTANDING.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

Yes he did. And I'm glad he voted what he thought was the correct way to vote, after all, that is what we want.

But the whole explaination of why just strikes me as false. If he had data to come to the conclusion to vote no, why didn't he share it with others? Or maybe he did and they just ignored him?

Naw, something rings false on his explaination for his vote. He's trying to play politics and mold the current democrat line around his reasons for voting no. So if we take him at his word, the majority of democrats who voted to authorize the use of force were stupid and ignored evidence, in which case the people who elected them were very poorly served. Or he is lying about why he voted no.

Actually, I recall seeing interviews with him fairly early on, as in before the war or soon after invasion, and wishing that other senators had come to the same conclusion. In fact, almost all of them gave the reason "the president needs this power to negotiate" and not "saddam has wmd". I'm going to see if I can find an old transcript.

0 Replies

Ok, I'm late and this one isn't from before the war, but it is from the last campaign season.

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Bob_Graham_War_+_Peace.htm

Quote:

Do you believe that the president intentionally misled the American people?

GRAHAM: Yes. I have been a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee for 10 years, chairman the last two years during the investigation into 9/11. The president knew, or should have known, that the materials that he alleged were going to be used to rebuild Iraq's nuclear weaponry [were not]. The president knew or should have known that there was no relationship between 9/11, there was no relationship between "Osama bin forgotten" and Saddam Hussein. The president also abandoned the war on terror in the spring of 2001 by moving military and intelligence resources out of Afghanistan to begin the war on Iraq. I believe that the war in Iraq has been a distraction from winning the war on terror in Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Syria and the other places where it's yet to be fought. That's why I voted against the resolution.

After reading that whole article, I'm more convinced than ever that the Democratic party chose the wrong candidate for president.

0 Replies

Graham is a retired, possibly senile, former Senator, whose presidential aspirations were rebuffed and is therefore a poor source.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

Brandon, are you serious? Do you seriously believe that manipulation of evidence to make a case to convince a legislature to go to war (forget the finer points, this is essentially what happened) is acceptable in a democracy?

Following from that do you accept then that it's okay for an investigator to manipulate the evidence to make a case to convince a jury that someone really did commit the crime with which they are accused?

You apparently didn't understand what I said. No manipulation of evidence was necessary since even the superficial, public domain aspects of the situation, which no one challenges, were sufficient to warrant invasion. A blackly evil dictator had WMD and programs to perfect them. He had promised in his surrender in Gulf War 1 to destroy them and then had evaded inspections for years. In some cases even one single WMD could destroy an entire city and kill hundreds of thousand of people in one single blow. Just the surface facts of the case, which are in no doubt, warranted invasion.

Thus, you see, I did not say that it is okay to manipulate evidence. For my opinion on that different issue, you would have to describe exactly what you mean by "manipulate" and then prove, not merely claim, that it was done. That, however, has nothing whatever to do with the statement I made, reiterrated above.

0 Replies

Goodfielder speaks of "mainpulation of evidence". I have read that phrase often BUT I HAVE NEVER READ A SPECIFIC WELL THOUGHT OUT LIST OF THE MANIPULATIONS.

Was it MANIPULATIONS when the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, in which the collective views of the fifteen agencies involved in gathering evidence summarized with high confidence that:

Iraq is continuing, and in some areas, expanding its chemical. biological. nuclear, and missle programs contrary to UN resolutions

Was it MANIPULATIONS when the intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Isreal and even France, all agreed with the above judgment? If so, our present administration is far far more powerful than anyone has guessed.

Was it MANIPULATIONS when Hans Blix, head of the UN team of Inspectors, reported:

"The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rockets warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized, This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, AT A TIME WHEN IRAQ SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD SUCH MUNITIONS...They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. THE DISCOVERY OF A FEW ROCKETS DOES NOT RESOLVE BUT RATHER POINTS TO THE ISSUE OF SEVERAL THOUSANDS OF CHEMICAL ROCKETS THAT ARE UNACCOUNTED FOR."

Imagine that!!! Several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. Probably whisked away on a magic carpet or are somewhere in Alladin's cave.

0 Replies

Besides, the most brilliant president of the Twentieth Century, William Jefferson Clinton, told us and the world in Dec. 1998 that:

Saddam Hussein is a threat to his people, the region and a threat to the whole world"

Did we need more evidence?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

The decision to invade was correct, based even just on the superficial aspects of the situation (a madman who had had WMD and evaded inspections for years), whether or or not some bits of evidence were manipulated.

Brandon, You are willing to invade countries on "superficial aspects". There were active inspection teams on the ground in Iraq. WE forced them out, and invaded. Why attack on "superficial aspects" when you have active inspectors on the ground??

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

Besides, the most brilliant president of the Twentieth Century, William Jefferson Clinton, told us and the world in Dec. 1998 that:

Saddam Hussein is a threat to his people, the region and a threat to the whole world"

Did we need more evidence?

So what? He was wrong. That was in 1998, we attacked in 2003. How are those two related. There was 5 years to clarify whether there were truly weapons or not. There were inspectors on the ground finding out if that was true when we attacked.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

Don't you realize that Bill Clinton lowered the bar for all that come after him or are you going to hold the notion that Presidential tenures are somehow hermetically sealed from each other.

As the great jurist, Richard Posner has written:

quote

"For those who think that authority depends on mystery, the shattering of the Presidential Mystique has been a disaster for which Clinton ought of rights to have paid for with his job."

Enough said!!!

I like this part. So you're saying that because of what Clinton did, it justifys that Bush is a giant step down and is a lousy President.

0 Replies

I justify nothing.

Fact: Clinton was president from 1992 to 2000.

Fact: Clinton was president in 1994 when the Republicans took over as the majority of the House and Senate--Something that they have not had for decades.

Fact: Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives

FAct: Clinton took a plea bargain with the Special Prosecutor on Jan.19th 2001, his last day in office, in which he admitted lying, lost his law license for five years and paid a fine to the Arkansas law bar of $25,000.

Fact, Clinton was found in contempt of court by Judge Wright and was fined $80,000

Fact: George W. Bush was elected president in November 2000 and was officially installed by a vote of the electors before both houses of Congress.

Fact: The Republicans gained two seats in the Senate and 5 seats in the House in 2002 DESPITE THE FACT THAT NOT SINCE FDR HAS AN INCUMBENT PRESIDENT'S PARTY GAINED SEATS IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS IN HIS FIRST MIDTERM ELECTION.

Fact: George W. Bush was re-elected President in November 2004 and the GOP again gained seats in the Senate(3) and in the House(4)

Now, anyone is certainly entitled to hold a view that President Bush is a lousy president but when viewing the elections since 1994( which, of course, are crucial to determine which party will hold the majority in the House and Senate as well as the Presidency) President Bush sweeps Bill Clinton away.

0 Replies

Only in your exalted opinion.

0 Replies

rabel 22- I gave facts. Please be so good as to state which one of my facts are incorrect. Please give evidence as to why it is incorrect.

Thank you.

0 Replies

No one cares about your "facts" but you.

0 Replies

Since no one has rebutted my facts, then my facts STAND.

0 Replies

Mortkat, Like I said, noone gives a ****.

0 Replies

Stevepax
Debating with mokrat is a waste of time. The only facts he recognizes are his facts. Even if you post proven facts he will ignore them if they dont agree with his views. He is a waste of time.

0 Replies

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501813.html

Report: Bush Had More Prewar Intelligence Than Congress

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 16, 2005; A23

Quote:

A congressional report made public yesterday concluded that President Bush and his inner circle had access to more intelligence and reviewed more sensitive material than what was shared with Congress when it gave Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq.

Democrats said the 14-page report contradicts Bush's contention that lawmakers saw all the evidence before U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, stating that the president and a small number of advisers "have access to a far greater volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information."

The report does not cite examples of intelligence Bush reviewed that differed from what Congress saw. If such information is available, the report's authors do not have access to it. The Bush administration has routinely denied Congress access to documents, saying it would have a chilling effect on deliberations. The report, however, concludes that the Bush administration has been more restrictive than its predecessors in sharing intelligence with Congress.

0 Replies

Stevepax wrote:

No one cares about your "facts" but you.

Stevepax wrote:

Mortkat, Like I said, noone gives a ****.

Typical example of the best efforts at liberal refuting.

Why don't you try to refute his point instead of playing "I know you are, but what am I?"

Democrats have nothing. Proof that pre-war intel was manipulated, bovine excrement! They have nothing. No coherent voice, no reasonable alternate policy, no initiatives untainted by redundancy, or in the case of some far left-wing politicians, outrageous catering to the liberal left. No, the only thing Democrats have are incessant criticisms from small men and women who through their incapability to think of solutions can only posture and point fingers. (How ironic that when those fingers were voting they all voted for the Iraq war. Tsk.)

0 Replies

BUSH HAD MORE INTELLIGENCE THAN CONGRESS

Banner left-wing cry in feeble attempt to deceive America that that in itself should prove that Bush manipulated intelligence. The president should have more intelligence than Congress. If everyone saw the same data - with all the leaks, wannabe intelligence "players", and flapjaws that populate Capitol Hill we would all be up metaphorical creeks.

But allow me to remind all of you short-term memory deficient liberals out there - Clinton thought there were WMD in Iraq, Madaleine Albright thought there were WMD in Iraq, Hillary Clinton thought there were WMD in Iraq, Sandy Berger thought there were WMD in Iraq, and oh, that's right, that was year 2000. Manipulate that.

0 Replies

Democrats Have Proof Pre-War Intel Was Manipulated

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know