The Grand Jury CIA Leak Investigation

11/02/2005 05:55:12 PM · #151

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
3. Bush used the phony uranium-sale claim in his State of the Union speech having known for a considerable period of time that the intelligence was no good.

That is incorrect. What he stated in the State of the Union adress was: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Sought, not bought. And, according to the Washington Post (and, by inference, the report):

"According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998."

So 1) you're accusation against Bush is false, and 2) Wilson's own words agree with the real statement in the SOTU address.

I meant to respond to your earlier post about this Washington Post article by Susan Schmidt. I understand that she (Susan Schmidt) mis-read the Senate Intelligence report (page 44) apparently reading "Iraq" rather than "Iran", which is what the passage in the report actually says.

"The intelligence report also said that Niger's former Minister for Energy and Mines, Mai Manga, stated that there were no sales outside of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) channels since the mid-1980s. He knew of no contracts signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of uranium. He said that an Iranian delegation was interested in purchasing 400 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1998, but said that no contract was ever signed with Iran. Mai Manga also described how the French mining consortium controls Nigerian uranium mining and keeps the uranium very tightly controlled from the time it is mined until the time it is loaded onto ships in Benin for transport overseas. Mai Manga believed it would be difficult, if not impossible, to arrange a special shipment of uranium to a pariah state given these controls."

The report goes on to say: "In an interview with Committee staff, the former ambassador was able to provide more information about the meeting between former Prime Minister Mayaki and the Iraqi delegation. The former ambassador said that Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation but never discussed what was meant by 'expanding commercial relations.' The former ambassador said that because Mayaki was wary of discussing any trade issues with a country under United Nations (UN) sanctions, he made a successful effort to steer the conversation away from a discussion of trade with the Iraqi delegation."

These two paragraphs appear on page 44 of the Senate report, so please go look for yourself. It seems the reporter on that Washington Post article made a huge error in misreading a report about Iran trying to buy the yellowcake, not Iraq.

I'll respond to your other points later.

Message edited by author 2005-11-02 17:57:48.

11/02/2005 09:08:32 PM · #152

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by ScottK:
And, according to the Washington Post (and, by inference, the report):

"According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998."

I meant to respond to your earlier post about this Washington Post article by Susan Schmidt. I understand that she (Susan Schmidt) mis-read the Senate Intelligence report (page 44) apparently reading "Iraq" rather than "Iran", which is what the passage in the report actually says.
...
It seems the reporter on that Washington Post article made a huge error in misreading a report about Iran trying to buy the yellowcake, not Iraq.

To be fair, Judith is correct in that the report says Iran, not Iraq. In fact The Washington Post issued a correction soon after the original article appeared. ( ref here)

And that's why I try, whenever possible, to quote and link the actual documents rather than someone else's reporting of what's in the documents - or what's NOT in the documents.

11/02/2005 09:30:27 PM · #153

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

3. Bush used the phony uranium-sale claim in his State of the Union speech having known for a considerable period of time that the intelligence was no good.

Originally posted by ScottK:

That is incorrect. What he stated in the State of the Union adress was: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Sought, not bought. And, according to the Washington Post (and, by inference, the report):

"According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998."

So 1) you're accusation against Bush is false, and 2) Wilson's own words agree with the real statement in the SOTU address.

As I said in my previous post, I believe the Washington Post article you cited is incorrect. I remember reading that article and the refutations of it at the time it was published. If the article is in fact incorrect and Wilson never reported any such efforts by Iraq to purchase uranium, then the president's statement in his State of the Union address was based on something else, and we know that something else was the forged documents that the Bush administration has now admitted were unreliable and that they claimed originated with British intelligence. I should say the Bush administration knew THEN, at the time of the State of the Union address, that the documents were unreliable.

So we're back to where we started.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Additionally, we now know that Wilson's wife didn't send him on the Niger trip, or arrange for him to be sent, and Wilson didn't mischaracterize her role in the trip.

Originally posted by ScottK:

We don't know this. We know what records document: that she was involved at some level with recommending him. And we know that he stands by his uncorroborated claim that she wasn't involved. That's what we know.

The only reason there is any doubt about Wilson's claims with respect to his wife's involvement in the matter is because the Republican spin machine has made unsubstantiated accusations, which have not been backed up with any evidence. In fact, if you read Wilson's letter that I posted earlier in this thread (Wilson's letter to Senate Intelligence staff), he does offer corroboration for his version of events. Please read his letter if you haven't already done so.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

If you want to talk about the truth, the truth is that high-ranking Bush administration officials leaked an important national security secret, and did so to punish a critic who was revealing another uncomfortable truth, that the Bush administration misled the country into war based on phony intelligence.

Originally posted by ScottK:

No truth has been established one way or the other. Everything you state is speculation - neither proven nor disproven. Nobody has, as of yet, been identified as (or even officially accused of being) the source of the leak. And if the basis of your charge that he "misled the country into war based on phony intelligence" is that "Bush used the phony uranium-sale claim in his State of the Union speech", then your just plain wrong, as I pointed out above.

We do know that Libby leaked the information to reporters, and also that Rove was another source for a reporter. And yes, part of the basis of my charge that Bush misled us into war is the bad intelligence with respect to the uranium sale to Iraq, which I've already talked about above.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

And you're making an argument that the story really is about a few statements made by Wilson that don't amount to a hill of beans????

Really???

Originally posted by ScottK:

There are more discrepencies than you picked out, and even with just those, they establish serious questions about his credibility. And if his credibility is shot, then so too, possibly, are his allegations. That amounts to quite a bit more than a hill of beans. Though it does indicate he's full of gas.

I didn't pick out the discrepancies; RonB did. And I don't believe that those "discrepancies" amount to anything substantive with respect to Wilson's credibility.

11/02/2005 11:32:33 PM · #154

Since the issue has arisen for the umpteenth time, I must, for the umpteenth time, defend the famous 16 words in Bush's SOTU address.
1) There is NO evidence that he based his statements on forged documents. He did not mention ANY documents; He did not mention any U.S. based intelligence ( though he could have ). He did not mention Niger. He specifically said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa". That's it!
2) The British held their own investigation into the intelligence leading to war and published their findings in the Butler Report ( ref: here (large pdf ).
3) In that official document ( not a media report ) it says, in paragraphs 497 ( on page 123 ( highlighting mine ):

"In preparing the dossier, the UK consulted the US. The CIA advised caution about any suggestion that Iraq had succeeded in acquiring uranium from Africa, but agreed that there was evidence that it had been sought."

Read that again. The CIA, even after Mr. Wilson's trip, "agreed that there was evidence that it (uranium) had been sought.".

From the Butler Report, paragraph 498:

"The range of evidence described above underlay the relevant passage in the Prime Ministerâ��s statement in the House of Commons on 24 September 2002 that:
'In addition, we know that Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa, although we do not know whether he has been successful.'"

Now read THAT again. Evidence underlayed Mr. Blair's statement that Saddam had been trying to buy uranium from Africa.

From the Butler Report, paragraph 499:

"We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Governmentâ��s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bushâ��s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:
'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'
was well-founded."

The British Government's own investigation came right out and said in its official report that intelligence estimates at the time were that Saddam Hussein had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Just what the President said.

It appears that the President's detractors believe that a) the CIA lied to the British Intelligence Community, but told the truth to Bush ( they claim He KNEW the intelligence was false ); b) the British told the U.S. that their intelligence indicated that Hussein did seek uranium from Africa, but Bush decided to NOT tell them that the CIA ( and Joe Wilson ) disagreed, and that the CIA had lied to them; and c) Bush then decided to blame the poor British intelligence community for the uranium story so that they would take the fall if folks found out it wasn't true. That could be how it happened.

OR, the Butler Committee lied in their report: the CIA really DID tell them that the evidence was unreliable, and they told Bush the truth, but Bush decided to use the unreliable report in his SOTU address anyway, and then the Butler Committee had to lie about what really happened in their report to help "cover" Bush's lie. Yeah. That could be how it happened.

Ahhh. Conspiracy theories abound.

OR, perhaps it happened just as the Butler Report says it did? Now THAT would be a novel idea.

11/02/2005 11:54:15 PM · #155

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So you're admitting that the Bush administration actually outed plame?
If by "outed" you mean that her name and the fact that she was employed by the CIA were disclosed in violation of the law, then it would appear that even Mr. Fitzgerald hasn't enough evidence to support that allegation.

Obviously that is not what was meant by "outed" in this context -- the statement was plain that it was for political retribution, and has nothing to do whether to do so was illegal or not.

I hold government officials to a higher standard than lack of indictability. Deception and character assassination are not the "family values" I wish my son to learn from the leader of the free world.

The definition of "outed" is, first of all, immaterial to the question that OLYUZI ( not you ) asked. My direct answer to his direct question ( regardless of the meaning of "outed" ) was, and is:

"I am in no position to admit to anything that the Bush administration did."

Secondly, since the question contained the adverb "outed", it makes perfect sense, at least to me, to request clarification - something known in group discussions as a "definition of terms" - to insure that all parties know what is meant by a term that could have different meanings to different people. It helps to avoid confusion.

Third, I believe that since it was Olyuzi who asked the question in which the adverb was used, HE should be the one to offer the clarification ( unless, of course, you really are Olyuzi logging on under a different user id ).

Fourthly, the "context" does NOT "obviously" suggest the meaning of the word. It may be "obvious" to minds that think alike, but "obviously" MY mind doesn't think like Olyuzi's all of the time.

I infer from the fact that you qualified your statement by the phrase "in this context" that you believe that the word "outed" could have a different meaning in a different context. If my inference is NOT correct, then why did you qualify your definition by saying "in this context"? If my inference IS correct, then you have validated my reason for seeking clarification - to wit: the context did not define the term FOR ME.

****************

Actually, Ron, I think YOU had initially confounded the issue and intentionally gave yourself an out (there's that word again) by using quotation marks around the word "retribution," in your "hoist by his own petard" scenario you posted above. My response to you was with questions for you to clarify what you meant as I think you were trying to play both sides of the fence. A way to impart responsibility to the Wilsons for this affair but avoid assigning any liability to the Bush administration. You seem to have no problem creating false impressions by implying fault lies with Wilson and at the same time state: "I am in no position to admit to anything that the Bush administration did."

I have taken many a pain killer and had to lay down with a cold compress on my forehead after reading a good number of your posts, Ron. :)

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
And for the reason of retribution for Wilson's exercising his first amendment rights?

RonB's response:
Barring further revelations, it would appear that the disclosure was intentional, and with the purpose of casting doubt on Mr. Wilson's reporting. But I haven't seen any "evidence" that would lead me to state that I knew the "reason", and that the "reason" was such-and-such.

My second question to you shows the context in which I meant my questions. That is, as political retribution for the Wilsons challenging the Bush administration's claims.

I do not agree with your assessment that the appearance of an intentional outing of Plame is for the purpose of "casting doubt on Mr. Wilson's reporting." Why would the Bush administration have to take very serious illegal actions if they believed they had legitimate intelligence? YOUR casting doubt on Mr. Wilson's reporting is an attempt at diversion from the real issue. The obstruction of justice by Libby.

I believe that the intentional outing was not only done for political retribution but for the purposes of stifling dissent and free speech and as an example for all to see. Trying to instill fear tactics for the purpose of an authoritarian rule.

11/03/2005 12:03:43 AM · #156

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
That would imply intent on the perpetrator(s) and so would be a criminal action, no?

While it wold imply intent, it does not follow that it was / would have been a criminal action. If Mr. Fitzgerald found no indictable offense related to the disclosure itself, then one must presume, unless and until, he or someone else presses charges, that there are none.

If intent is implied how can it not follow that it was a criminal action? Do you know of any past or possible situations where intent to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative is NOT criminal?

Message edited by author 2005-11-03 00:04:29.

11/03/2005 12:52:42 AM · #157

Speaking of authoritarian rule, I came across an interesting website tonight about the moral decline in the U.S. today. This is the author's opening paragraph:

"Americans are alarmed about the moral condition of their society today. Many in the liberal half of America worry that the political right has been taken over by amoral forces that pretend to be righteous while indulging a lust for power and wealth. Many conservative Americans fear that America's moral integrity is being eroded by an "anything goes" culture that's fostered by contemporary liberalism. Both these worries are well-founded. Each side of America's political and cultural divide is challenged to overcome its moral blindspot."

And here's the link if you'd like to read more:

None So Blind

11/03/2005 07:44:24 AM · #158

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I do not agree with your assessment that the appearance of an intentional outing of Plame is for the purpose of "casting doubt on Mr. Wilson's reporting." Why would the Bush administration have to take very serious illegal actions if they believed they had legitimate intelligence?

Exactly WHAT "illegal" actions did the Bush administration take? Or do you know something that no one else knows? So far NO ONE, whether in the Bush administration or otherwise, has been found guilty in a court of law of doing anything illegal in the disclosure of Valerie Plames association with the CIA.
But, if you say it often enough, you can always hope that by mere repeition of the falsehood, some will start to believe you.

Message edited by author 2005-11-03 07:48:40.

11/03/2005 07:50:12 AM · #159

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
That would imply intent on the perpetrator(s) and so would be a criminal action, no?

While it wold imply intent, it does not follow that it was / would have been a criminal action. If Mr. Fitzgerald found no indictable offense related to the disclosure itself, then one must presume, unless and until, he or someone else presses charges, that there are none.

If intent is implied how can it not follow that it was a criminal action?

I intend to go to the supermarket today. Does it follow, therefore, that going to the supermarket is a criminal action? Of course not.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Do you know of any past or possible situations where intent to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative is NOT criminal?

No, I don't - BUT, has anyone provided evidence that Valerie Plame WAS an "undercover" CIA operative? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO! And if she was NOT, then the intention, if any, was NOT criminal.
But, if you say it often enough, you can always hope that by mere repeition of the falsehood, some will start to believe you.

Message edited by author 2005-11-03 07:51:17.

11/03/2005 11:44:15 AM · #160

Originally posted by RonB:

[...]if you say it often enough, you can always hope that by mere repeition of the falsehood, some will start to believe you.

And you would know; you are, after all, the expert when it comes to employing that tactic.

11/03/2005 12:04:32 PM · #161

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by RonB:
[...]if you say it often enough, you can always hope that by mere repeition of the falsehood, some will start to believe you.

And you would know; you are, after all, the expert when it comes to employing that tactic.

What can I say? Your response demonstrates such a masterful debating technique and level of sophistication and erudition that I cannot even dream of countering it. I am forced to acknowledge that you are the real masterdebator.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/03/2005 02:38:03 PM · #162

Please don't descend into name-calling -- it violates the site TOS even if it is permitted by Federal Law.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/03/2005 11:58:17 PM · #163

Interesting, this page is still posted, detailing the reasons we need to disarm Mr. Hussein.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/04/2005 12:34:59 AM · #164

Some quotations as cited in this article:

Â Â Â Â "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention, 8/26/2002

Â Â Â Â "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." - George W. Bush, Radio Address, 10/5/2002

Â Â Â Â "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." - George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, 10/7/2002

Â Â Â Â "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." - Ari Fleischer, Press Briefing, 1/9/2003

Â Â Â Â "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." - Colin Powell, Remarks to UN Security Council, 2/5/2003

Â Â Â Â "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - George W. Bush, Address to the Nation, 3/17/2003

Â Â Â Â "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." - Donald Rumsfeld, ABC Interview, 3/30/2003

Â Â Â Â "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." - George W. Bush, Interview with TVP Poland, 5/30/2003

Â Â Â Â There are, literally, dozens more comments and declarations exactly like this. The best one, after that magically deranged comment from Bush claiming we actually found the stuff, came from Ari Fleischer on July 9, 2003, as he attempted to fend off questions about why no WMD had been located. "I think the burden," said Fleischer while channeling Orwell, "is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are."

11/04/2005 07:35:17 AM · #165

Source of Forged Niger-Iraq Uranium Documents Identified
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
and ELISABETTA POVOLEDO
Published: November 4, 2005

ROME, Nov. 3 - Italy's spymaster identified an Italian occasional spy named Rocco Martino on Thursday as the disseminator of forged documents that described efforts by Iraq to buy uranium ore from Niger for a nuclear weapons program, three lawmakers said Thursday.

The spymaster, Gen. NicolÃ² Pollari, director of the Italian military intelligence agency known as Sismi, disclosed that Mr. Martino was the source of the forged documents in closed-door testimony to a parliamentary committee that oversees secret services, the lawmakers said.

Senator Massimo Brutti, a member of the committee, told reporters that General Pollari had identified Mr. Martino as a former intelligence informer who had been "kicked out of the agency." He did not say Mr. Martino was the forger.

The revelation came on a day when the Federal Bureau of Investigation confirmed that it had shut down its two-year investigation into the origin of the forged documents

The information about Iraq's desire to acquire the ore, known as yellowcake, was used by the Bush administration to help justify the invasion of Iraq, notably by President Bush in his State of the Union address in January 2003. But the information was later revealed to have been based on forgeries.

The documents were the basis for sending a former diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson IV, on a fact-finding mission to Niger that eventually exploded into an inquiry that led to the indictment and resignation last week of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby.

Senator Brutti also told reporters that Italian intelligence had warned Washington in early 2003 that the Niger-Iraq documents were false.

"At about the same time as the State of the Union address, they said that the dossier doesn't correspond to the truth," Senator Brutti said. He said he did not know whether the warning was given before or after President Bush's address.

He made the claim more than once, but gave no supporting evidence. Amid confusing statements by various lawmakers, he later appeared to backtrack in conversations with both The Associated Press and Reuters, saying that because Sismi never had the documents, it could not comment on their merit.

There had long been doubts within the United States intelligence community about the authenticity of the yellowcake documents, and references to it had been deleted from other presentations given at the time.

Senator Luigi Malabarba, who also attended Thursday's hearing, said in a telephone interview that General Pollari had told the committee that Mr. Martino was "offering the documents not on behalf of Sismi but on behalf of the French" and that Mr. Martino had told prosecutors in Rome that he was in the service of French intelligence.

A senior French intelligence official interviewed Wednesday in Paris declined to say whether Mr. Martino had been a paid agent of France, but he called General Pollari's assertions about France's responsibility "scandalous."

General Pollari also said that no Italian intelligence agency officials were involved in either forging or distributing the documents, according to both Senator Brutti and the committee chairman, Enzo Bianco.

Committee members said they were shown documents defending General Pollari, including a copy of a classified letter from Robert S. Muller III, the director of the F.B.I., dated July 20, which praised Italy's cooperation with the bureau.

In Washington, an official at the bureau confirmed the substance of the letter, whose contents were first reported Tuesday in the leftist newspaper L'UnitÃ . The letter stated that Italy's cooperation proved the bureau's theory that the false documents were produced and disseminated by one or more people for personal profit, and ruled out the possibility that the Italian service had intended to influence American policy, the newspaper said.

As a result, the letter said, according to both the F.B.I. official and L'UnitÃ , the bureau had closed its investigation into the origin of the documents.

The F.B.I. official declined to be identified by name.

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Italy's military intelligence service sent reports to the United States and Britain claiming that Iraq was actively trying to acquire uranium, according to current and former intelligence officials.

Senator Brutti told reporters on Thursday that indeed Sismi had provided information about Iraq's desire to acquire uranium from Niger as early as the 1990's, but that it had never said the information was credible.

Thursday's hearing followed a three-part series in La Repubblica, which said General Pollari had knowingly provided the United States and Britain with forged documents. The newspaper, a staunch opponent of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, also reported that General Pollari had acted at the behest of Mr. Berlusconi, who was said to be eager to help President Bush in the search for weapons in Iraq.

Mr. Berlusconi has denied such accounts.

La Repubblica said General Pollari had held a meeting on Sept. 9, 2002, with Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser. Mr. Hadley, now the national security adviser, has said that he met General Pollari on that date, but that they did not discuss the Niger-Iraq issue.

"Nobody participating in that meeting or asked about that meeting has any recollection of a discussion of natural uranium, or any recollection of any documents being passed," Mr. Hadley told a briefing on Wednesday in Washington. "And that's also my recollection."

At the time, Mr. Hadley took responsibility for including the faulty information in Mr. Bush's State of the Union address.

David Johnston contributed reporting from Washington for this article.
The NY Times article

11/04/2005 08:24:31 AM · #166

Some quotations as cited in this article:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[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.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"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 begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force â�� if necessary â�� to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"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.

Message edited by author 2005-11-04 08:24:56.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/04/2005 08:28:57 AM · #167

Mr. Clinton wasn't so self-deluded by his lies to take the country to war.

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/04/2005 08:49:55 AM · #168

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Mr. Clinton wasn't so self-deluded by his lies to take the country to war.

He did however pardon Mark Rich.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/04/2005 08:54:52 AM · #169

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Mr. Clinton wasn't so self-deluded by his lies to take the country to war.

He did however pardon Mark Rich.

How is that relevant to this issue, other than to act as a predictor that Mr. Bush will just pardon himself and all his buddies so they will truly be "above the law." How American.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/04/2005 09:03:55 AM · #170

Had the Democrats taken the country to war in Iraq there would have been an equally loud uproar against it, just as the there is now.

In any of the quotes of Democrats above posted by RonB there is NO call for invasion.

Flash

Nikon D700

11/04/2005 09:05:14 AM · #171

Originally posted by GeneralE:

How is that relevant to this issue

Perhaps a bit of research on your part may assist you in understanding the associated relevance. Start with the links between Mark Rich and Iraq.

Regarding your insinuation of the current presidents likely future mis-use of the presidential pardon powers, I believe it is premature to make that judgement. However, we will be able to judge it within the next 3 years.

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/04/2005 09:10:34 AM · #172

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Hair splitting in my opinion. There is clear evidence (as posted above)that the very individuals who are trying to seek political cover (Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, etc.) gave advice and consent, counter to the criticisms currently in the news. Just more hypocritical political banter.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

11/04/2005 09:15:37 AM · #173

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Mr. Clinton wasn't so self-deluded by his lies to take the country to war.

CalvinBall 1.2. "Any player may declare a new rule at any point in the game".
If you don't like the fact that your opponent used your own tactic against you, change the rule.

Oh, I nearly forgot. Bosnia.

srdanz

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

11/04/2005 09:51:34 AM · #174

Would you care to elaborate how exactly was the US involved in war in Bosnia? I don't recall any involvement that resembles war. (Maybe by some lame lawyer definition it is war, but please specify why do you think it was the war)

edit to add: Bosnia definitivey was at war, but I am asking about US involvement here.

Message edited by author 2005-11-04 09:52:26.