Apr 10 2008
Best Reason I’ve Seen For McCain As President And The GOP In Congress
One thing America is sick of is the use of the law to settle differences of opinion. And the cutthroat crap in DC has been debilitating to the functioning of our government and juvenile in its claims. And so when the wacky left remind us they have plans for payback for Clinton’s impeachment, they make the best case why not to vote dem this year:
War Crimes
09 Apr 2008 07:11 pm
A provocative headline, I know, perhaps needlessly so, but it remains one of those hidden secrets in Washington that a Democratic Justice Department is going to be very interested in figuring out whether there’s a case to be made that senior Bush Administration officials were guilty of war crimes.
If a democrat Justice Department is going to spend any time investigating the man who stood upon the rubble of the World Trade Center and promised the terrorists they would be hearing from all of us soon enough, and then did what he promised he would do with Congressional and public backing at the time he did it, then there is no better reason to make sure there is a GOP Justice Department in place come next January. And we might as well neuter any similar dumb ideas in Congress as well.
Note to Norm.
Budget amounts are estimated costs.
And even if you had said only a trillion, you’d still be way off. You must be reading Lancet crap again.
75,
The Guardian carries the 3 trillion number…but then I’m sure Norm thinks they’re a “conservative” paper!
Oh boy…
missed this one earlier…
“Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications technician, submitted an affidavit in support of the Electronic Fronteir Foundation’s FF’s lawsuit against AT&T. He testified that in 2003 he connected a “splitter†that sent a copy of Internet traffic and phone calls to a secure room that was operated by the NSA in the San Francisco office of AT&T. He heard from a co-worker that similar rooms were being constructed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego. From “Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Roomâ€, Wired News, 4/7/06 ”
I guess that one “Whisle-blower” unbelievable expert on the NSA program who heard someone who knew something is the TRUTH!
There is no chance at discussion with people who buy into this delusional stuff. With them there’s a conspiracy around every corner.
Norm
You wrote: ordi…maybe you should talk to the extremists on this site who use the word fascist for anyone who happens to disagree with them whether it applies or not. i was simply explaining the proper application of the term to someone who insisted on mis-using it.
No sorry you are wrong you used it on me – WHEN IT DID NOT apply.
You also wrote: sorry that response was meant for ivehadit
So in reference to you and I talking YOU were the one who used it NOT me. So don’t try to blame someone else for its use.
Like I said: for future reference using the word “fascist†in a debate is NOT a good idea. I don’t give a shit who used it first. it is bad form no matter who uses it.
NORM
Mark Klein was NOT spied on try again
name the american citizen(s) that has been spied on
go ahead we are STILL waiting………………
“Bresch, the only government entities with a history of abusing eaves dropping powers were the Cllinton administration.”
That is, without a doubt, the funniest thing I have ever read – ANYWHERE.
Umm… ya have heard of this guy “Nixon”, right? Used to be President? Did you just skip right over the URL to the Church Committee?
Tell ya what, here’s about a week’s worth of reading that would do you all some good, and maybe teach you what happens with the government is allowed to operate with no oversight whatsoever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee#Sections_of_the_Church_Committee_report
Whippet:
“specifically pages 40 to 44 for the intentionally misleading Joe Wilson and Pages 72-83 for the Niger conclusion.”
Thanks for that link – I hadn’t seen that report, and you’re right, some of it doesn’t make Wilson look very good. But if you continue on to page 45, you’ll find:
“An INR analsys said when he saw the report he believed that it corroborated the INR’s position, but said that the ‘report could be read in different ways.'”
And that’s how I feel – if you want to find something incriminating on Wilson, you’ll see it. But, if you think Wilson’s opinion the entire time was “there was no chance this might actually happen”, you’ll see that too. Personally, I don’t think it proves anything in-and-of itself.
See, that’s one of the differences between you and I – I think intelligent people can have differing opinions on a subject (even an important subject) without insulting or mocking the other person.
Also, please check page 73:
“Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador’s trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts’ assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal.”
So, to blame Wilson for those “16 words” in the speech seem somewhat dishonest.
The Macker:
“The Saddam/AlQaeda connections have been thoroughly discussed and documented here and elsewhere. The Saddam WMD PROGRAMS have been documented. The Saddam interrogations even revealed his intentions. Bush’s honesty has never been credibly challenged.”
Well, that’s one perspective, I guess. Can you please provide links for the above? Thanks.
Bresch,
From the report:
“(U) Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador’s trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts’ assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq. ”
First, I didn’t blame Wilson for the “16 words” in the speech. However he was up to his eyeballs in deception is his reporting back to the intelligence agencies about what he found.
You are being deceptive by linking only part of conclusion 13. The CIA (of which Valerie Plame was an employee and who suggested her husband for this little fact finding mission), are the very analysts that didn’t change their assessments on the uranium in question. To be more specific…they continued to accept that Iraq was probably trying to purchase uranium. It was the INR that felt Wilson’s report supported that there was no Iraq/uranium connection. Very convenient for the Wilson’s. He was playing both sides of the intelligence community and then turns around and blames Bush for his own failures(deceptions).
You said:
“[Wilson had] reported that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki had told him of a 1999 visit by the Iraqis to discuss ‘commercial relations’.â€
You didn’t add the part where Mayaki believed it to be uranium that Iraq was seeking.
Then you said:
“And none of this affects the fact that Bush was told months beforehand by his own intelligence community that it wasn’t true, and went forward with it anyway. This is what we in the reality-based community call “a lieâ€. ”
Yes, it was Wilson’s lie. Bush had conflicting information from the intelligence community, primarily because of Wilson and his CIA wife. And he ALSO had the corroborating UK assessments. The President had to err on the side of protecting America not risking it’s safety.
And finally, and I will try to be kind…
You said:
“Thanks for that link – I hadn’t seen that report, and you’re right, some of it doesn’t make Wilson look very good.”
Come on… How can you try to debate with any knowledge if you don’t read the actual report…? Don’t trust the soundbite, or the snippet of a quote…or someone else’s interpretation because it’s generally meant to deceive. Read, watch and listen to the whole of everything. That’s the reality.
Macker / Bresch,
Macker, If I may butt in and add a plethora of documentation for Bresch on your behalf.
http://www.floppingaces.net/category/the-iraqi-war/saddam-documents/
I’m telling you that we need NOT to answer norm/truthie/sooth. They are compiling our comments to prepare Obama for debates. They are taking what we write and composing their rebuttals.
We really need to stop giving them our ammo for November. Timing is everything. LOL!
But they are entertaining. And it is comical to call regular posters on this site “fringe”. They (norm/truthie) truly know not of whence they post.
Ivehadit,
Boy isn’t that the “truth!”
We’ve all pretty much found our common ground with them around though haven’t we? heehee
Well, I know that the Democrats have certainly managed to screw the economy up since they took Congress.
Crosspatch,
Remember all of the talk about gas prices before the last elections? It was all Bush’s and the Republican congress’ fault…and now look where we are. Of course when there’s a Rep. Congress it’s Bush’s fault and when there’s a Dem Congress it’s still Bush’s fault!
IVEHADIT:
“I’m telling you that we need NOT to answer norm/truthie/sooth. They are compiling our comments to prepare Obama for debates. They are taking what we write and composing their rebuttals.”
Uhhh.. ok. So, do you really think that Obama is preparing to rebut the following kind of statement in a Presidential debate?
“The Saddam/AlQaeda connections have been thoroughly discussed and documented here and elsewhere. The Saddam WMD PROGRAMS have been documented. The Saddam interrogations even revealed his intentions. Bush’s honesty has never been credibly challenged.”
Do you expect that to get even 5 seconds worth of coverage?
Self-inflate much?
Whippet:
Thanks, again, for the Flopping Aces link. He’s rather partisan, so I don’t usually surf that way. But, I’ll take a portion of tomorrow and go through what he has. (1600 pages from the Pentagon? Am I supposed to digest this tonight?)
And while I’m at it: thank you, all of you, for today’s debate. I like to pop over here on occasion to see what “the other side” thinks. And I do appreciate the effort made by those of you who decided to do more than just insult or dismiss me. Whippet – I disagree with almost everything you think concerning Bush and Iraq and everything surrounding it, but I would defend unto my death your right to say it, and I think that we can disagree on these issues and still respect each other as men.
Those of you who have cast aspersions with nothing to back them up: if you can, if it’s possible – try to wonder why, okay? And if you wonder if I’ve been “Living in a cave like OBL?” I’d appreciate if you’d ask yourself – do you think it’s possible for an American citizen to A) love America, and B) disagree with you? Or, alternately, B) disagree with the policies of the Bush Administration?
If not, then how are you possibly not falling into the definition of “Authoritarianism”? Is it possible for a human being to 1) Love this country, and 2) hate the President? If not, how do you explain how you all felt during Clinton’s run?
Whippet:
Tell ya what – I’ll give you a clean and complete victory:
Joe Wilson appears to be an asshole of the first degree. I wouldn’t trust a report coming from him about Iraq any more than I would my 5 year old when I ask “Did you eat that bag of Skittles”?
However, in an above comment, AJStrata states that we got this entire “Iran/Niger/uranium” story because of Joe Wilson. That is demonstrably false, since he was only contacted by the CIA (yes, because of his wife) because of the rumors of the yellowcake thing, *AFTER* we got reports from British intelligence (which is a whole other topic).
I would challenge that *that* hypothesis is completely false. If AJ thinks I am misquoting him, he can respond here. Nobody in the US formed their opinion on the Iraq/Niger link based upon Wilson’s report, which AJ outright stated with:
“And it was none other than Joe Wilson who investigated and reported back to the CIA on his first trip to Niger that Saddam’s reps were in that country.”
Do you agree with this statement, after reading the full report? Was Wilson the original (or sole) origin of this meme?
Whippet:
I would appreciate any links to where Democrats running for Congress in 2006 promised to lower gas prices.
Or, for that matter – where they promised to lower the deficit.
It is not enough to simply claim something, and proclaim that it is fact. One must prove it, if one expects to hold up under public scrutiny.
Don’t you think?
-Breschau
An d yes, I know I’ve provided the last 4 (now 5) comments, but I would like to point out that the blog owner is probably quite happy that this conversion is happening.
Comments on this article as of 1:00am: 79
Comments on the article before this: 3
Comments on the article after this: 36
Yowza.