Debate Politics Forums - View Single Post

Trajan Octavian Titus · 08-28-07, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chanda

And the CIA has been so reliable regarding Iraq intelligence...NOT.

There's a difference between testimonial intel and forensic intel.

Quote:

Hardly. The Lausanne-based Dalle Molle (Swiss) Institute for Perceptual Artificial Intelligence, Bruce Lawrence, Duke professor of religious studies, 9/11 Scholars for Truth, and anyone who has seen a comparison of photos:

"9-11 Scholars for Truth" lmfao You're serious right? Tell me which one of your scholars has a degree in criminology and forensics?

Quote:

Both pictures have angles and shadows. What makes one of them distorted and the other one not?

One was a digital camera kid genious look at other clips and compare:

Quote:

I don't know why, but I guess they have their reasons. Cheney and Bush refused to testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission. Did you not find that at all troubling?

Ya the Executive was concerned about the fact that a very important non-elected committee with extraodinary power no longer fell under the jurisdiction or the responibility of the Congress, thus violating the Constitutional mandated separation of powers on several levels.

Quote:

Time to put this piece of spin to rest. The Washington Post analyzed this claim and found:

“Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence
information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the
administration to provide the material…Bush does not share his most
sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers.
Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence
community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just
days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country. In
addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included
in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used
publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had
not been cleared for release.” (Washington Post, 11/13/05)

Yes let's, if the Democrat party was not in favor of the war and considered it only but a poker chip in their hand of real politic then they would have voted for the following bill:

Quote:

The Senate’s Forgotten Iraq Choice

By LINCOLN D. CHAFEE

Published: March 1, 2007
Providence, R.I.

AS the presidential primary campaigns begin in earnest, the Iraq war is overshadowing all other issues, as it did during the midterm elections. Presidential candidates who were in the Senate in October 2002 are particularly under the microscope, as they are being called upon to justify their votes for going to war.

As someone who was in the Senate at the time, I have been struck by the contours of the debate. The situation facing the candidates who cast war votes has, to my surprise, often been presented as a binary one — they could either vote for the war, or not. There was no middle ground.

On the contrary. There was indeed a third way, which Senator James Jeffords, independent of Vermont, hailed at the time as “one of the most important votes we will cast in this process.” And it was opposed by every single senator at the time who now seeks higher office.

A mere 10 hours before the roll was called on the administration-backed Iraq war resolution, the Senate had an opportunity to prevent the current catastrophe in Iraq and to salvage the United States’ international standing. Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, offered a substitute to the war resolution, the Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002.

Senator Levin’s amendment called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. It was unambiguous and compatible with international law. Acutely cognizant of the dangers of the time, and the reality that diplomatic options could at some point be exhausted, Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not “promptly adopted” or enforced. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened.

An opponent of the Levin amendment said that the debate was not over objectives, but tactics. And he was right. To a senator, we all had as our objectives the safety of American citizens, the security of our country and the disarming of Saddam Hussein in compliance with United Nations resolutions. But there was a steadfast core of us who believed that the tactics should be diplomacy and multilateralism, not the “go it alone” approach of the Bush doctrine.

Those of us who supported the Levin amendment argued against a rush to war. We asserted that the Iraqi regime, though undeniably heinous, did not constitute an imminent threat to United States security, and that our campaign to renew weapons inspections in Iraq — whether by force or diplomacy — would succeed only if we enlisted a broad coalition that included Arab states.

We also urged our colleagues to take seriously the admonitions of our allies in the region — Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. As King Abdullah of Jordan warned, “A miscalculation in Iraq would throw the whole area into turmoil.”

MichaelBalter.com
The Senate’s Forgotten Iraq Choice - New York Times

Quote:

Furthermore, the US and UK were secretly bombing Iraq before Congress ever voted on the war.

Every shot fired was retaliatory in nature, every shot fired into the no-fly by Saddam was an act of war.

Quote:

Any claim that Saddam was a threat was a lie. Colin Powell said in February 2001 that Saddam was contained and not a threat:

A) All 16 members of the intelligence community concluded with "high confidence," that Saddam had WMD and was expanding his WMD programs, B) we actually found WMD and so has the insurgency infact they have used them against U.S. troops in the form of binary sarin filled artillery shells with indefinate shelf lives retro-fitted into IED's, C) Saddam had a long and ongoing deep relationship with AQ he had met directly with AQ's number 2 Zawahiri, OBL met directly with ISI operatives, and they agreed on a non-aggression pact, to give OBL safe haven in Iraq, and for Iraq to aid AQ in bio/chemical weapons production, which they infact did, D) Saddam was harboring known AQ members for example he gave safe haven, a salary, and a house to one Abdhul Ramin Yasin who along with KSM's nephew Ramzi Yousef built the bomb detonated in the '93 WTC attack, and E) the DOCEX release proves conclusively that Saddam was recruiting suicide volunteers from the Iraqi airforce . . . gee what would suicide volunteers with flight experience be useful for???

Quote:

“He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”--Colin Powell, February 24, 2001

The Memory Hole > 2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat (video)

Many statements were made that connected Iraq to 9/11. Even though it wasn't directly stated, the implication was definitely there, and so misleading that a large percentage of Americans believed Iraq/Saddam responsible for 9/11.

Present one quote by the executive or that of his constituency in which they blame Saddam for 9-11.