Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 158

Thread: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

  1. #111
    Guru
    ADK_Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    05-07-11 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,706

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    On the intelligence breakdown...

    Kay's statement here came after the invasion had already taken place, after Kay admitted they went in thinking they were going to find WMD's. Richard Clarke and his team had actually examined as much intel as there was prior to the invasion and advised the Bush administration they didn't believe there were any WMD's there. That was ignored. Both the U.S. and the U.K. were guilty of making much of their case on unvetted, suspect raw intelligence and a lack of actual information...they were estimating and speculating. Kay says as much here. His defense is "hey, we were justified because we jsut didn't know for sure." That is a fundamental flaw in justifying the death sentences of people. You had better have some evidence. We had none before the invasion, we had none after the invasion.

    You blew nothing out of the water, all you did is reinforce my case that the U.S. made a huge mistake and did so based on a very bad intelligence gambit. In fact we did this knowing our intel was far from solid.

    And if you are going to take shots at me, you might figure out who you are actually addressing in your post. I didn't tell you take a trip to Crawford. But I'll gladly spell it out for you, and gladly debunk your faulty argument.

    Now, how about that other post of yours I broke down? You wanna have a go at that or was this it? Here is a hint, if you are going to address a post of mine citing a lack of evidence for justifying the war, don't produce a series of statements that back me up. All you've done is find someone who said "I think we were justified in invading based on the intel" and then says "we were all wrong."
    OUCH! You got a permit for that weapon?

    Stick a fork in him. He's DONE!!!
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  2. #112
    Sage
    bhkad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    08-13-10 @ 01:01 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,745

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Dick Cheney comes back into office NINE YEARS LATER. I don't give two ****s if Dick Cheney had a bad taste in his mouth from nine years ago. His judgement was crap and that bad tasted doesn't exonerate him. It was his duty, and that of the rest of our nations leadership, to deal with the evidence at hand in 2003. At the time they were deciding to invade Iraq, not a bunch of holdover feelings from nine years ago. And there was no evidence of WMD's. They knew this.

    They sent our sons and daughters to war, we killed Iraqi sons and daughters. And for what? Nothing. The entire premise of the war was challenged before the first shot was fired due to a lack of supporting evidence, and guess what...Richard Clarke and the rest were vindicated. No WMD's.
    Same dynamic existed with regard to a threat to Israel then, with Iraq, as now, with Iran.

    You can't assume they don't have the goods because the stakes are too high if you are wrong. You have to believe the bluff.

    And Saddam was sending out signals that he had WMD's.

    "It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

    Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.

    "He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.

    "Absolutely," Piro says.
    Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions - CBS News

    OBL 11/24/02

  3. #113
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,463

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    Lerxst.

    You did not read the testimony.
    I absolutely read the testimony. David Kay did nothing more than admit that we went to war based on speculation of things not known and Saddam's history. Was Saddam violating U.N. resolutions? Yes, Did Kay think he was an imminent threat? Yes. But there plenty of people that didn't agree with Kay. And that is the point. Your case rests on the opinion of this one man, this man who admitted he was dead wrong. His case for Saddam being an imminent threat was based upon his assumption that there were in fact WMD's there or a reconstituted program that was underway and producing them.
    I have gone through it several times after watching it... on CNNi.
    Kay admits they were wrong about WMD, but says all were wrong. But they acted on the best intel they had, and had done the right thing.
    He also notes failures in other directions as quoted above.
    And that is the whole problem you don't seem to understand. Kay's opinion means **** when he says "we did the right thing" because it's all based upon incomplete information that was tainted from information that came from the White House which was itself the product of bad, unverified intelligence and a predisposition (one which Kay admits he and his team actually held). You don't get a mulligan when you kill thousands of people. Some people seem to think it's okay to go to war over things you don't know. I don't.

    He says we may have been lucky, and we could still have fallout.
    He says the regime was dangerous, volatile because it was instable. The chances of a terrorists hooking up with someone in the regime was real because of this instability.
    The chances? Chances are terrorists are going to hook up in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, North Korea...so? By that logic we could theoretically justify preemptive strikes against those nations. It doesn't cut it. You kill when you know there is a threat for sure. You don't kill when you think there is a threat based on negatives you can't prove.

    My few words can do scant justice to his testimony.
    No they can't. What they are doing is parroting the tactic of Warner and McCain of trying to make Kays statement justify our actions. Doesn't work.

    In all seriousness, this document should put your ill feeling to rest if you are intellectually honest.
    Stop. I've already explained why this document actually reinforces my position. And I've explained the fundamental difference between you and I. I actually consider the taking of another human life to be something horrible regardless of the reasons and I believe that when set about doing that on a large scale we had damn well better be justified...truly justified.

    David Kay is a serious man, an expert in his field.
    So is Richard Clarke who absolutely predicted that David Kay' would fail without even knowing it prior to the invasion ever occurring.

    His answers are thoughtful and based on a thorough understanding of the history.
    So? His testimony certainly, in no way whatsoever, exonerates the administration. I've read it, through and through. I have the Iraq Study Group Report sitting on my desk right in front of me. It doesn't exonerate the administration at all. It summarizes an intelligence failure and an unnecessary invasion.
    He is a professional in every sense of the word. And he does expose warts and all.
    I never said he didn't. But that in no way changes his words and the reality of what happened. You may find him completely charming, but until he can actually say with honesty that there was evidence of WMD's, that we did get it right, that we were truly justified, his words only reinforce the fact that this war was a series of human tragedies that could have been avoided.

    If you want an emotional pinata, that's another story.
    No, I want you to substantiate your case with something that actually works in your favor.
    *insert profound statement here*

  4. #114
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,463

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by bhkad View Post
    Same dynamic existed with regard to a threat to Israel then, with Iraq, as now, with Iran.

    You can't assume they don't have the goods because the stakes are too high if you are wrong. You have to believe the bluff.

    And Saddam was sending out signals that he had WMD's.



    Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions - CBS News
    No, you can't assume they do have them when you are talking about killing so many people. I don't know how many times I have to keep saying this, but our own CSG, acting on intel they were getting from the CIA and other sources, advised the Bush administration that there is no evidence of WMD's and that invading Iraq would be a huge mistake and detract from our efforts to go after Al Qaeda. Do not sit here and try to convince me that in the post war failure an interrogators statements about Saddam needing to keep up appearances equates to a justification for war. We had intel that said there were very likely no WMD's period, we had UNSCOM inspectors saying there was no evidence of WMD's at that point and requesting more time, and we had the Iraqi government itself saying "we don't have WMD's." So because this guy says "Saddam wanted people to think he had a program because it gave the illusion of power" falls far short of Saddam announcing to the world "we have WMD's!" We had UNSCOM inspector on the ground and the Iraqi government, who realized we were dead serious, allowing access and movement throughout the country at the end. And those inspectors messages were quite clear and very urgent..."DO NOT INVADE!"
    *insert profound statement here*

  5. #115
    Sage
    bhkad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    08-13-10 @ 01:01 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,745

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    No, you can't assume they do have them when you are talking about killing so many people. I don't know how many times I have to keep saying this, but our own CSG, acting on intel they were getting from the CIA and other sources, advised the Bush administration that there is no evidence of WMD's and that invading Iraq would be a huge mistake and detract from our efforts to go after Al Qaeda. Do not sit here and try to convince me that in the post war failure an interrogators statements about Saddam needing to keep up appearances equates to a justification for war. We had intel that said there were very likely no WMD's period, we had UNSCOM inspectors saying there was no evidence of WMD's at that point and requesting more time, and we had the Iraqi government itself saying "we don't have WMD's." So because this guy says "Saddam wanted people to think he had a program because it gave the illusion of power" falls far short of Saddam announcing to the world "we have WMD's!" We had UNSCOM inspector on the ground and the Iraqi government, who realized we were dead serious, allowing access and movement throughout the country at the end. And those inspectors messages were quite clear and very urgent..."DO NOT INVADE!"
    If a man says he has a bomb the authorities have to assume he has a bomb. No matter what other intel might say otherwise. And as I already pointed out the CIA intel was suspect.

    The reason Iran didn't invade was because they believed Saddam had WMD's.

    OBL 11/24/02

  6. #116
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by bhkad View Post
    Same dynamic existed with regard to a threat to Israel then, with Iraq, as now, with Iran.

    You can't assume they don't have the goods because the stakes are too high if you are wrong. You have to believe the bluff.

    And Saddam was sending out signals that he had WMD's.

    Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions - CBS News
    I watched the Interview on CBS 60 minutes with the Saddam interrogator and found it fascinating that Saddam himself stated that he wanted everyone to believe he still had WMD capability because of his fear of Iran which he believed would not attack him thinking he still had them.

    Unfortunately, this REALITY and TRUTH falls on deaf ears of hyper partisans filled with misplaced hatred for George Bush. After all, what do rabid partisans need with the facts and the truth right?

    Great post!

  7. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    You can only laugh at the Liberal partisan hack response to Democrats and the Clinton administration believing the IDENTICAL intelligence and making the IDENTICAL claims Bush did; "well they were all liars too."

    This is what we call denial folks. No amount of credible debate will change this condition and no amount of FACTS will cause them to pause in their rabid denial of REALITY.

    What this means is that any attempts to explain REALITY to them using the FACTS will only lead into a circle of futility where they are caught in their lies and distortions, run off to the next lie and distortion eventually ending up with the INITIAL lie and distortion.

    This is not about getting the TRUTH for these deniers; this is all about politically impugning good people for the mere fact that they disagree with their political philosophy.

    This thread is a GREAT example of what I mean by this "circle of futility." Perhaps I should re-name it the circle of denial?


  8. #118
    Guru
    ADK_Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    05-07-11 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,706

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    This is not about getting the TRUTH for these deniers; this is all about politically impugning good people for the mere fact that they disagree with their political philosophy.
    "good people"?

    Ok, because I'm in a playful mood............

    Warnings on WMD 'Fabricator' Were Ignored, Ex-CIA Aide Says - In late January 2003, as Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to argue the Bush administration's case against Iraq at the United Nations, veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller sat down with a classified draft of Powell's speech to look for errors. He found a whopper: a claim about mobile biological labs built by Iraq for germ warfare. - Drumheller instantly recognized the source, an Iraqi defector suspected of being mentally unstable and a liar. The CIA officer took his pen, he recounted in an interview, and crossed out the whole paragraph. - A few days later, the lines were back in the speech. Powell stood before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 and said: "We have first-hand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails."
    It is undisputed that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. However all the UNMOVIC inspectors, using the latest state of the art detection technology, had not found a trace of any current ongoing nuclear program in Iraq. The United States had to rely on forged evidence to get the world to believe them.

    White House knew there were no WMD CIA - The CIA had evidence Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction six months before the 2003 US-led invasion but was ignored by a White House intent on ousting Saddam Hussein, a former senior CIA official said, according to CBS. - "The (White House) group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested." - "We said: 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said: 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change'," added Drumheller, whose CIA operation was assigned the task of debriefing the Iraqi official. - "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy," the former CIA agent told CBS.
    Bush administration has used 27 rationales for war in Iraq, study says - The study also finds that the Bush administration switched its focus from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein early on only five months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States
    Lots of good "FACTS" on this site and its links. And the great things about these is that even if you totally ignore them, they will remain "F A C T S ! ! !" Iraq Nukes

    Want some more lies? See: Iraq Lies

    More good links:
    Diplomats and Intelligence Officers Resign Over Iraq
    Claims of Al Qaeda Links
    Claims of Attempts to Acquire Nuclear Material
    Military Dissent
    The Smoking Gun - Important Read!

    15 September 2002: A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
    The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff) . The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

    The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'
    Lets Not Forget: Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President



    Enjoy!
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  9. #119
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,463

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    You can only laugh at the Liberal partisan hack response to Democrats and the Clinton administration believing the IDENTICAL intelligence and making the IDENTICAL claims Bush did; "well they were all liars too."
    Did Clinton invade Iraq, completely deconstruct the governance of the country, fire the military, and set off a years long and bloody insurgency based upon the info he had at that time? No he didn't. Very big difference. As has already been pointed out, things in Iraq had changed between when Clinton was in and when Bush was pushing. What did the UNSCOM inspectors say about the WMD's in light of the plans to invade? What did the Counter Terrorism Security Group say about WMD's and the plans to invade?

    What part of "what Clinton thought is irrelevant" do you not get? Clinton wasn't the President leading this nation around by the nose with bad intel and pushing Congress to war with the same.

    This is what we call denial folks. No amount of credible debate will change this condition and no amount of FACTS will cause them to pause in their rabid denial of REALITY.
    Why don't you offer up some relevant facts then. All you are doing is bloviating at this point.

    What this means is that any attempts to explain REALITY to them using the FACTS will only lead into a circle of futility where they are caught in their lies and distortions, run off to the next lie and distortion eventually ending up with the INITIAL lie and distortion.
    More of the same, yammering about in a thread without actually making any relevant point.

    This is not about getting the TRUTH for these deniers; this is all about politically impugning good people for the mere fact that they disagree with their political philosophy.
    How about, for once in your life here at DP, instead of whining, you actually put up a fact based argument and let's test it.

    This thread is a GREAT example of what I mean by this "circle of futility." Perhaps I should re-name it the circle of denial?

    This post is a great example of someone who types a lot and says very little.
    *insert profound statement here*

  10. #120
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:04 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,484
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    OUCH! You got a permit for that weapon?

    Stick a fork in him. He's DONE!!!
    Only in a world where facts don't matter, history is forgotten, and emotion rules the roost... In that case perhaps.

    You folks exhibit what I call Titanic Politics.
    Setting a course of personal destruction and executing it flawlessly.

    snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes
    Only the tip of the iceberg.

    We start with Levin because Lerxst likes eem so much.

    Words of Mass Destruction

    Claim: Quotes reproduce statements made by Democratic leaders about Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction.

    "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.

    "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 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 if necessary 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.


    In December 2001, nine members of Congress (a group which included both Democrats and Republicans) wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to step up support for the internal Iraqi opposition seeking to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Included in that letter was the following paragraph:
    This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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.
    Unless the version reproduced on the Department of State's web site is in error, however, Senator Bob Graham of Florida was not one of the signatories to that letter.

    On 19 September 2002, Senator Carl Levin by then Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee addressed a committee hearing on U.S. policy on Iraq. His introductory remarks included the following:
    The Armed Services Committee meets this afternoon to continue our hearings on U.S. policy toward Iraq. The purpose of these hearings is to give the Administration an opportunity to present its position on Iraq, and to allow this Committee to examine the Administration's proposal with Administration witnesses and experts outside of the government.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8"]YouTube - Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, & WMD[/ame]



    .
    Last edited by zimmer; 05-10-09 at 02:52 AM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •