Anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan gives up her protest

[Dos Equis]

Bump for getting some liberals in office to carry out the people's will.

Liberals already have a majority in both houses. 

[Dos Equis]

Blind allegiance to whoever is in power is nothing to be proud of.

I didn't say anything about "blind allegiance."  I don't support what I don't agree with. 

[Laughing Sam's Dice]

Liberals already have a majority in both houses. 

Democrats, not liberals, have the majority in both houses.

[Dos Equis]

Democrats, not liberals, have the majority in both houses.

I don't see a distinction here.   

[240 is Back]

damn.... policitcs is fvcking boring.

[Laughing Sam's Dice]

I don't see a distinction here.   

And you moderate a political board. 

[240 is Back]

the war, in the eyes of Americans, belongs to the republicans.

and if it didn't before, Bush vetoing that spending bill with withdraw deadlines did the trick.

in 2008, all you're going to hear is guys saying "I TRIED to stop it - bush vetoed it".

That veto is gonna bite your ass and cost you the 2008 election.

[Dos Equis]

And you moderate a political board. 

Get out.  Really?   

[The Coach]

Do you really expect anything different from Mr. Hate? He's the single most hate filled and propaganda fueled poster on this board, no one's even close. It doesn't matter who the person is, what they've been through or what they've accomplished, if they have a different opinion than Mr. Hate then he literally hates them with every fiber of his being and in many cases advocates for them to be killed.

 

Because I don't agree with YOUR propaganda makes be a hater? Ok dude, whatever

[The Coach]

Even if if you and i disagree on just about eveything involving politics maybe we can agree on this:


Both of those approval ratings is a strong indication our nation is sick of our politicians.

I do agree with this and I also think what Bush might do with immigration would be a disaster, so if any of you think that I agree with him on all issues, think again!

[ieffinhatecardio]

Because I don't agree with YOUR propaganda makes be a hater? Ok dude, whatever

Excellent post.

Care to point out any propaganda I've posted? No, I didn't think so.

I just posted two links to polls showing approval ratings of Bush and Congress.

Not surprisingly your assertion that Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush is not true and in fact his disapproval rating is much higher.

BTW, how's your "Enigma spammed my board with kiddie porn and he lied about being a doctor and serving in Iraq" investigation working out for you? Any new leads Columbo?

[240 is Back]

Sheehan made another announcement today.

[Decker]

Go back and read what Democrats had to say about Saddam from about 1998 through 2003 (they called him a threat and actually asked Bush to do something about it).  Look at the fact they passed at least two resolutions AFTER the war started that endorsed the war.  Then look how they ran a one-issue campaign against the war during the last election and when they took control of Congress they didn't do squat.  Now their approval ratings are as bad or worse than Dubya. 

After leading the American people to believe Saddam was a threat, essentially asking for war, endorsing the war after it started, and then running against the war, they are hypocrites and liars in my book.

Above all, they do not have the moral high ground in this matter.  No way. 

I support the troops.  I support my country.  I support the president, regardless of party.  That's the side I'm on. 

Part of being a good human being is acknowledging when mistakes are made and doing something to rectify the error.  The democrats that supported Bush at one time now acknowledge that the invasion was a mistake based on Bush's misuse of Congressional authority to use force in seeking Iraq's compliance for WMD inspections.

Frankly Beach Bum, I don't believe it was the democratic party that trotted up to the WhiteHouse to ask the President to do something about that US bound military/terrorist Comet known as Iraq.  That looks like revisionism to me.

After the democrats took Congress they tried to do something about the war in Iraq.  But they ran into procedural roadblocks put up by the republicans (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020801884_pf.html) and a hearty Veto from the President. 

The Democrats DO NOT have a veto-proof majority.  They might have a majority but they still lack power to do anything about the war.

If the Democrats do oppose the war, they do have the high moral ground b/c they are looking to save american and iraqi lives.  While the republicans stand for nothing but more death and destruction and failure--more of the same.

I don't support our troops.  I don't support our president.  He's set the US on a course of lawless violence and our troops are being used as muscle for this endeavor

But I do love my country and I support the US Constitution.

[Dos Equis]

Frankly Beach Bum, I don't believe it was the democratic party that trotted up to the WhiteHouse to ask the President to do something about that US bound military/terrorist Comet known as Iraq.  That looks like revisionism to me.

O Rly?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

[Decker]

O Rly?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Yeah really.

Bush was the man that first brought the “evidence” of Iraq’s reconstituted nuclear and biological programs, not the democrats.

Bush was the man that misused Congressional Authority in ordering the illegal invasion.

It was the Bush administration, not the democrats, that constantly tied Al Qaeda with Hussein to the extent that almost 70% of Americans thought that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Bush was the man that leaked 'cherry picked' information from a classified National Intelligence Estimate while excluding any oppositional evidence or opinion. Bush subsequently feigned ignorance of his involvement, keeping the public and the investigators from seeking accountability.

As for your letters from democrats based on cherry picked information, they mean little.

The 1998 letter was a different time.  In 1998 Hussein just got done booting the WMD inspectors and some people wanted them back in immediately.

Why don’t we look at Bob Graham’s opinion on the letter excerpt you posted:

...Yes, more than 100 Democrats voted to authorize him to take the nation to war. Most of them, though, like their Republican colleagues, did so in the legitimate belief that the president and his administration were truthful in their statements that Saddam Hussein was a gathering menace -- that if Hussein was not disarmed, the smoking gun would become a mushroom cloud.

I, too, presumed the president was being truthful -- until a series of events undercut that confidence.
At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. …. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared.

 His (Tenet’s) people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE.

… it (NIE) contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.

…Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." It represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version. Its conclusions, such as "If Baghdad acquired sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year," underscored the White House's claim that exactly such material was being provided from Africa to Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html


Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel

Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.

Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources.

… Although the Senate Intelligence Committee and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, commonly known as the 9/11 commission, ...(concluded) that, for the most part, the CIA and other agencies did indeed provide policy makers with accurate information regarding the lack of evidence of ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

But a comparison of public statements by the president, the vice president, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld show that in the days just before a congressional vote authorizing war, they professed to have been given information from U.S. intelligence assessments showing evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm

I apologize for the verbosity but it is necessary to deflate and explain your response.

[Dos Equis]

Yeah really.

Bush was the man that first brought the “evidence” of Iraq’s reconstituted nuclear and biological programs, not the democrats.

Bush was the man that misused Congressional Authority in ordering the illegal invasion.

It was the Bush administration, not the democrats, that constantly tied Al Qaeda with Hussein to the extent that almost 70% of Americans thought that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Bush was the man that leaked 'cherry picked' information from a classified National Intelligence Estimate while excluding any oppositional evidence or opinion. Bush subsequently feigned ignorance of his involvement, keeping the public and the investigators from seeking accountability.

As for your letters from democrats based on cherry picked information, they mean little.

The 1998 letter was a different time.  In 1998 Hussein just got done booting the WMD inspectors and some people wanted them back in immediately.

Why don’t we look at Bob Graham’s opinion on the letter excerpt you posted:

...Yes, more than 100 Democrats voted to authorize him to take the nation to war. Most of them, though, like their Republican colleagues, did so in the legitimate belief that the president and his administration were truthful in their statements that Saddam Hussein was a gathering menace -- that if Hussein was not disarmed, the smoking gun would become a mushroom cloud.

I, too, presumed the president was being truthful -- until a series of events undercut that confidence.
At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. …. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared.

 His (Tenet’s) people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE.

… it (NIE) contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.

…Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." It represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version. Its conclusions, such as "If Baghdad acquired sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year," underscored the White House's claim that exactly such material was being provided from Africa to Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html


Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel

Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.

Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources.

… Although the Senate Intelligence Committee and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, commonly known as the 9/11 commission, ...(concluded) that, for the most part, the CIA and other agencies did indeed provide policy makers with accurate information regarding the lack of evidence of ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

But a comparison of public statements by the president, the vice president, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld show that in the days just before a congressional vote authorizing war, they professed to have been given information from U.S. intelligence assessments showing evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm

I apologize for the verbosity but it is necessary to deflate and explain your response.

I see.  So when Democrats were trumpeting the Saddam/WMD threat in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 they were being misled by Bush (even though Clinton was president during part of that time).  And when John Kerry says on 23 Jan. 03 that "without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein," he was under some Bush spell.  And when they voted to endorse the war after it started, twice, they were still being fooled by Bush.  C'mon dude. 

There is an unbroken chain of statements and representations by Democrats covering two presidential administrations about the threat that Saddam posed.  I don't buy the "Democrats were fooled" argument for one second.  They believed what Republicans and much of the world believed.  They don't have clean hands at all in this mess.     

[Decker]

I see.  So when Democrats were trumpeting the Saddam/WMD threat in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 they were being misled by Bush (even though Clinton was president during part of that time).  And when John Kerry says on 23 Jan. 03 that "without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein," he was under some Bush spell.  And when they voted to endorse the war after it started, twice, they were still being fooled by Bush.  C'mon dude. 

There is an unbroken chain of statements and representations by Democrats covering two presidential administrations about the threat that Saddam posed.  I don't buy the "Democrats were fooled" argument for one second.  They believed what Republicans and much of the world believed.  They don't have clean hands at all in this mess.     

Is 2003 prior to 2004?  Then Edwards/Kerry did not see the countervailing evidence that Bush buried until 2004. And the war was well under way by then. 

Tomorrow I will list more evidence that our president buried from the Congress, b/c the above is just the tip of the iceberg.

Have a great night BeachBum.

[Dos Equis]

Is 2003 prior to 2004?  Then Edwards/Kerry did not see the countervailing evidence that Bush buried until 2004. And the war was well under way by then. 

Tomorrow I will list more evidence that our president buried from the Congress, b/c the above is just the tip of the iceberg.

Have a great night BeachBum.

Kerry's statement was 03.  The resolutions supporting the war, if I recall correctly, 04 or 05. 

Good talking to you Decker.   

[240 is Back]

Was Sen Kerry one of those 6 senators who bothered to read the national intel report on iraq, before voting to destroy their infrastructure and kill thousands?

[Dos Equis]

J. Kerry:  "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

[Hedgehog]

Whatever it is you just said there bears no relation the topic of the Iraq war.

He didn't say it.

It was a cut and paste.

-Hedge

[Decker]

Kerry's statement was 03.  The resolutions supporting the war, if I recall correctly, 04 or 05. 

Good talking to you Decker.   

I'm not trying to absolve all democrats of blame.  In fact, it was Bill Clinton that created much of the mess with Iraq in the 1990s.  It was Clinton that refused to remove the trade blockade with Iraq back in the late 1990s even though it was agreed that the sanctions would be lifted if Hussein complied with inspections.  Hussein did comply and Clinton reneged.  That's why Hussein kicked out the inspectors.  The US was acting in bad faith under UN resolutions.

But the case for manufacturing/cherry-picking information by the Bush administration is strong:

When Bush met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, both men referred to an apparently "new" report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that had found Mr. Hussein trying to rebuild, as Mr. Blair put it, at his "former nuclear-weapon sites." Mr. Bush elaborated, citing an IAEA report that Iraq was "six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."

The IAEA responded that not only was there no new report, "there's never been a report"… Gen. Colin L. Powell . . . acknowledged . . . that [Iraq's nuclear threat] is not any real threat -- in the short term or even medium term.

Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors. ... they were "obvious" fakes. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html
________________________ _______

CLAIM: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." President Bush, 1/28/03

FACT: On 7/8/03, the W. Post reported the Administration admitted the Iraq-Nuclear allegation was false. ?Revelations by officials at the CIA, the State Department, the UN, in Congress and elsewhere? made clear that the White House knew the claim was false before making the allegation [7/20/03]. In fact, ?CIA Director George Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have the reference? removed from a Bush speech in Oct. of 2002. [W. Post, 7/13/03]

CLAIM: "We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Vice President Cheney, 3/16/03
FACT: The UN reported on 9/8/03 that Iraq was not capable of pursuing an active nuclear weapons program after 1991. The report said "No indication of post-1991 weaponization activities was uncovered in Iraq.

FACT: Voice of America reported on 9/16/03 that, a senior official in Iraq's new science ministry says the country never revived its nuclear program after inspectors dismantled it in the 1990's. The scientist, now a member of the U.S.-backed administration in Iraq, says Iraqi scientists had no way to re-start the program because the inspectors took away all the necessary resources.

CLAIM: Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. - President Bush, 10/7/02

CLAIM: "[Saddam] is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time."- VP Cheney, 3/24/02

CLAIM: "We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." - VP Cheney, 3/16/03

CLAIM: "We do know that [Saddam] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon."- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 9/10/02

CLAIM: "Iraqis were actively trying to pursue a nuclear weapons program." - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 7/11/03

FACT: "We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material."

- Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

CLAIM: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."

-President Bush, on locating the mobile biological weapons labs, 5/29/03

CLAIM: "We know where the [WMD] are." - Don Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

CLAIM: "Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents - equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery."  President Bush, 2/8/03

CLAIM: "I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it now." - Colin Powell, 5/4/03

FACT:  "We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile biological weapons production effort?Technical limitations would prevent any of these processes from being ideally suited to these trailers."

- Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

CLAIM: "There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.  Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." Colin Powell, 2/5/03

CLAIM: "[Saddam has] amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas." --Don Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

CLAIM: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."  Vice President Cheney, 8/26/02

CLAIM: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons?And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes." President Bush, 9/26/02

CLAIM: "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."  President Bush, 1/28/03

CLAIM: "His regime has large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas; anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox -- and he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons." Don Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

FACT:  "Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991. Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new chemical weapon munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections."

- Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/priraqclaimfact1029.htm

Wow, talk about speaking with one deceptive voice.

The administration purposefully pushed the threat posed by Iraq even when it contradicted former statements made by the same officials and even when experts objected to the validity of Administration assertions.

The time after 9/11 left a populace ripe for the plucking, what with the shock of the attacks and all.  But I cannot forgive the democrats for being complicitous with the Bush Administration.  Political expediency is no defense.

Only one man from the democratic side of the aisle stood against Bush at every turn re the run up to war and that was Senator Russ Feingold.