Senate Defies Veto Threat

[T-Bor]

Damn dude..I wish I could phrase shit like you..Well done !!!!!! How come you arent working for the white house?

Again, you use Government talking points straight from GW's mouth to frame the issue.

Do you question anything you hear outside of this board?

Dude, What time period do you live in 1978? You think there is a warehouse full of people with headsets on listening to phone calls and reading your e-mails? Really? is that what you think?

They're called Computers, I believe you're using one to regurgitate your republican brainwashing facts on everyone here.

Computers monitor far more than you can imagine, screening for alot of key words and phrases in alot more phone calls and e-mails than just ones going out of the country.

"Oh we were only listening to terrorists phone calls, if your not a terrorist you dont need to worry"<sarcasm

"If we can't monitor everyone the terrorists will win"<sarcasm

"You are emboldening the Terrorists"<sarcasm

Sure the Libs oppose the program dont you understand it's illegal under FISA as well as unconstitutional under the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

"We must Wire-Tap, because the terrorists could strike at any moment" <Sarcasm

"What if we didnt Wire-Tap and the terrorists struck?"<sarcasm

This is all the spun shit that came out of the White House, Not a single word or phrase remotely similar to

"What we did was conduct illegal Wire-Taps"<WishFull Thinking

there was no admition of wrong doing, they basically said

"Let us do what we do, and you shut the fuck up, especially you NYT, this is your fault we are totally turning this around on you, what business do you have telling the public what we are doing."<The Truth


And you listened, and you listed so well that you memorized it.
Awesome, well done, good little soldier.

Im not even gonna read your next post, ill just turn on FOX NEWS and write it for you.

You may have noticed the sacrastic points are noted, thats so its clear when im being sarcastic, ive learned that the concept escapes alot of people here.
I wouldnt want to confuse anyone.

 

[red states rule]

Again, you use Government talking points straight from GW's mouth to frame the issue.

Do you question anything you hear outside of this board?

Dude, What time period do you live in 1978? You think there is a warehouse full of people with headsets on listening to phone calls and reading your e-mails? Really? is that what you think?

They're called Computers, I believe you're using one to regurgitate your republican brainwashing facts on everyone here.

Computers monitor far more than you can imagine, screening for alot of key words and phrases in alot more phone calls and e-mails than just ones going out of the country.

"Oh we were only listening to terrorists phone calls, if your not a terrorist you dont need to worry"<sarcasm

"If we can't monitor everyone the terrorists will win"<sarcasm

"You are emboldening the Terrorists"<sarcasm

Sure the Libs oppose the program dont you understand it's illegal under FISA as well as unconstitutional under the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

"We must Wire-Tap, because the terrorists could strike at any moment" <Sarcasm

"What if we didnt Wire-Tap and the terrorists struck?"<sarcasm

This is all the spun shit that came out of the White House, Not a single word or phrase remotely similar to

"What we did was conduct illegal Wire-Taps"<WishFull Thinking

there was no admition of wrong doing, they basically said

"Let us do what we do, and you shut the fuck up, especially you NYT, this is your fault we are totally turning this around on you, what business do you have telling the public what we are doing."<The Truth


And you listened, and you listed so well that you memorized it.
Awesome, well done, good little soldier.

Im not even gonna read your next post, ill just turn on FOX NEWS and write it for you.

You may have noticed the sacrastic points are noted, thats so its clear when im being sarcastic, ive learned that the concept escapes alot of people here.
I wouldnt want to confuse anyone.

Careful. Using your "thought process" somewhere someone is watching everything you type on your computer

You will be carried off to the secret concentration camps Pres Bush had built in the desert (by Haliburton of course)

 

[red states rule]

She was a paper pusher huh? She worked to help keep Nukes out of terrorists hands..but then Bush and his lackeys do everything they can to discredit her. A paper pusher...LOL...a lackey if you will right.. Thats funny. She was an UNDERCOVER AGENT...Period..

To see how this may very well have happened, let’s go through the chronology in greater detail.

January 28, 2003: President George W. Bush delivered his State of the Union address.

February 6, 2003: Joe Wilson wrote an editorial for the Los Angeles Times, A ‘Big Cat’ With Nothing to Lose, in which he claimed we should not attack Saddam Hussein because he will use his weapons of mass destruction on our troops and give them to terrorists.

There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him.

And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that.

February 28, 2003: Joe Wilson was interviewed by Bill Moyers. Wilson agreed with Bush’s SOTU remarks, and reiterated his belief that Saddam had WMD and that he would use them on US troops.


MOYERS: President Bush’s recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that?
WILSON: I agree with that. Sure.

MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that?

WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech as he did in the State of the Union Address is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true. But the only thing Saddam Hussein hears in this speech or the State of the Union Address is, "He’s coming to kill me. He doesn’t care if I have weapons of mass destruction or not. His objective is to come and overthrow my regime and to kill me." And that then does not provide any incentive whatsoever to disarm.

March 3, 2003: At the invitation of David Corn, Joe Wilson wrote a piece for the Nation, Republic Or Empire?

In it Wilson blasted the "neo-conservatives" in the Bush administration for their imperial over-reach. But he once again made no mention of uranium or any other suggestion that Bush misled the country or lied about Iraq’s WMD.

Then what’s the point of this new American imperialism? The neoconservatives with a stranglehold on the foreign policy of the Republican Party, a party that traditionally eschewed foreign military adventures, want to go beyond expanding US global influence to force revolutionary change on the region.

American pre-eminence in the Gulf is necessary but not sufficient for the hawks. Nothing short of conquest, occupation and imposition of handpicked leaders on a vanquished population will suffice. Iraq is the linchpin for this broader assault on the region. The new imperialists will not rest until governments that ape our worldview are implanted throughout the region, a breathtakingly ambitious undertaking, smacking of hubris in the extreme.

March 8, 2003: CNN’s Renay San Miguel interviewed Joe Wilson about the so-called Niger forgeries, which had just become a hot topic in the news.

SAN MIGUEL: Just fine. How could this happen? It is the perception that documents like these are vetted to within an inch of their life by intelligence agencies. How do you think this managed to slip by?
WILSON: Well, this particular case is outrageous. I actually started my foreign service career in Niger and ended my foreign service career doing – in charge of Africa in the Clinton White House. We know a lot about the uranium business in Niger, and for something like this to go unchallenged by U.S. – the U.S. government is just simply stupid. It would have taken a couple of phone calls. We have had an embassy there since the early ’60s. All this stuff is open. It’s a restricted market of buyers and sellers. The Nigerians (sic) have always been very open with us.

For this to have gotten to the IAEA is on the face of it dumb, but more to the point, it taints the whole rest of the case that the government is trying to build against Iraq…

SAN MIGUEL: So how do you play this, then? I mean, what, do you admit it, do you just move on? Do you try to get these things verified if you do believe, indeed, that Iraq was trying to buy this material from Niger? I mean, how do you handle this? What’s the damage control on this?

WILSON: I have no idea. I’m not in the government. I would not want to be doing damage control on this. I think you probably just fess up and try to move on and say there’s sufficient other evidence to convict Saddam of being involved in the nuclear arms trade.

Note that up until at least March 8, 2003 Joe Wilson still contended that Saddam had WMD and that he was involved in the nuclear arms trade.

So what happened after March 8th to make Wilson change his tune about Iraq’s WMD and revise his "findings" from his trip to Niger? A version in direct contradiction to what he told his CIA debriefers, according to the US Senate’s Select Committee On Intelligence report?

And what set Mr. Wilson off on his jihad against Mr. Bush about those "16 words"?

The answer is obvious. The US invaded Iraq in mid-March and after searching for six weeks, admitted they had not found any stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. So Mr. Bush was suddenly very vulnerable to criticism on the subject. Even though Mr. Wilson had continually contended that Saddam had WMD.

And, coincidentally…

May 2003: Joe Wilson began to "advise" the Kerry for President campaign.

Wilson… said he has long been a Kerry supporter and has contributed $2,000 to the campaign this year. He said he has been advising Kerry on foreign policy for about five months and will campaign for Kerry, including a trip to New Hampshire… — David Tirrell-Wysocki, "Former Ambassador Wilson Endorses Kerry In Presidential Race,” The Associated Press, 10/23/03

Five months prior to October 2, 2003 would be May 2, 2003. What happened on that date?

May 2, 2003: Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame attended a conference sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, at which Wilson spoke about Iraq. One of the other panelists was the New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof.

(Coincidentally, all records of this particular conference at the Senate Democratic Policy Committee have been expunged from their website.)

May 3, 2003: Over breakfast, Wilson and Valerie told Kristof about his trip to Niger.

May 6, 2003: Kristof published the first public mention of Wilson’s mission to Niger, without identifying him by name, in a column for the New York Times, Missing in Action: Truth.

I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy’s debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted – except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway.

Note that unlike in his interview with CNN on March 8, 2003, Wilson was now claiming to have personally taken an active role in debunking the so-called forgeries. Which is of course untrue, since we now know Wilson never saw the documents.

The Senate’s Select Committee On Intelligence, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports."

(The Senate Committee’s report goes on to say: the former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged.")

And of course Mr. Wilson’s report was anything but "unequivocal." Indeed, the same Senate report said that the CIA believed Wilson’s trip had provided evidence that Iraq was trying to buy Yellowcake from Niger.

May 23, 2003: The John Kerry For President campaign recorded a $1,000 contribution from Joe Wilson.

June 12, 2003: Walter Pincus published an article in the Washington Post, CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data.

During his trip, the CIA’s envoy spoke with the president of Niger and other Niger officials mentioned as being involved in the Iraqi effort, some of whose signatures purportedly appeared on the documents.

After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said. Among the envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S. government official said.

Again, we now know that what Wilson told Pincus, like what he had told Kristof, was completely untrue, since the relevant papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

June 2003: According to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, the following interview with Richard Armitage at the State Department transpired "about a month before" Robert Novak’s column appeared on July 14, 2003.

Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off.
Woodward: But why would they send him?
Armitage: Because his wife’s an analyst at the agency.
Woodward: It’s still weird.
Armitage: He – he’s perfect. She – she, this is what she does. She’s a WMD analyst out there.
Woodward: Oh, she is.
Armitage: (over) Yeah.
Woodward: Oh, I see. I didn’t think…
Armitage: (over) "I know who’ll look at it." Yeah, see?
Woodward: Oh. She’s the chief WMD…?
Armitage: No. She’s not the…
Woodward: But high enough up that she could say, "oh, yeah, hubby will go."
Armitage: Yeah. She knows [garbled].
Woodward: Was she out there with him, when he was…?
Armitage: (over) No, not to my knowledge. I don’t know if she was out there. But his wife’s in the agency as a WMD analyst. How about that?

Why would Richard Armitage have been talking about Wilson and Plame in June of 2003? This was still weeks before Joe Wilson wrote his New York Times editorial, and a month before Robert Novak published his column mentioning Valerie Plame.

Armitage brought this up because he is a gossip and it was already common knowledge because Joe Wilson had been calling all of the newspapers trying to get them to run his story about his mission to Niger.

Given the chronology and Mr. Armitage’s remarks, it seems quite obvious Mr. Wilson outed his wife when he spoke to the Senate Democratic Policy Committee and then to the subsequent reporters at the Times, the Post and elsewhere, when he was hawking his story about his trip to Niger.

And these are the people Dick Armitage said Wilson was calling. Who else would he be calling?

And it’s highly probably that Wilson’s motivation for bringing up his wife is likely to have been exactly as Armitage suggested to Woodward. Wilson wanted to give his radically new and dangerous story more credibility.

He wanted to show that he was not just some untrustworthy "low-level guy" who had peaked in his career as an Ambassador to some godforsaken country nobody had ever heard of.

June 14, 2003: Joe Wilson shared a podium with Ray McGovern as the keynote speaker at the very leftwing Education For Peace In Iraq Center. (Valerie was also in attendance.)

Let me just start out by saying, as a preface to what I really want to talk about, to those of you who are going out and lobbying tomorrow, I just want to assure you that that American ambassador who has been cited in reports in the New York Times and in the Washington Post, and now in the Guardian over in London, who actually went over to Niger on behalf of the government — not of the CIA but of the government — and came back in February of 2002 and told the government that there was nothing to this story, later called the government after the British white paper was published and said you all need to do some fact — checking and make sure the Brits aren’t using bad information in the publication of the white paper, and who called both the CIA and the State Department after the President’s State of the Union and said to them you need to worry about the political manipulation of intelligence if, in fact, the President is talking about Niger when he mentions Africa.

That person was told by the State Department that, well, you know, there’s four countries that export uranium. That person had served in three of those countries, so he knew a little bit about what he was talking about when he said you really need to worry about this.

But I can assure you that that retired American ambassador to Africa, as Nick Kristof called him in his article, is also pissed off, and has every intention of ensuring that this story has legs. And I think it does have legs. It may not have legs over the next two or three months, but when you see American casualties moving from one to five or to ten per day, and you see Tony Blair’s government fall because in the U.K. it is a big story, there will be some ramifications, I think, here in the United States, so I hope that you will do everything you can to keep the pressure on. Because it is absolutely bogus for us to have gone to war the way we did…

(Note that Ray McGovern is the head of the group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, whose mission is to cajole current and former intel workers to leak information to the press that would hurt national security and our military efforts abroad. A prominent member of VIPS, Larry Johnson, was a classmate of Valerie’s at the CIA, and claims to have been a friend with her ever since. Mr. Wilson has worked very closely with Ray McGovern and VIPS since at least this meeting.)

Of course Wilson was speaking of himself as a thinly disguised third person. He promised the audience that he would see to it that his mission to Niger story "would have legs."

And sure enough other newspaper articles began to appear, for which Mr. Wilson had been the obvious source.

June 29, 2003: The UK’s Independent published, Ministers Knew War Papers Were Forged, Says Diplomat.

A high-ranking American official who investigated claims for the CIA that Iraq was seeking uranium to restart its nuclear programme accused Britain and the US yesterday of deliberately ignoring his findings to make the case for war against Saddam Hussein.

The retired US ambassador said it was all but impossible that British intelligence had not received his report - drawn up by the CIA - which revealed that documents, purporting to show a deal between Iraq and the West African state of Niger, were forgeries.

When he saw similar claims in Britain’s dossier on Iraq last September, he even went as far as telling CIA officials that they needed to alert their British counterparts to his investigation…

The former diplomat - who had served as an ambassador in Africa - had been approached by the CIA in February 2002 to carry out a "discreet" task: to investigate if it was possible that Iraq was buying uranium from Niger. He said the CIA had been asked to find out in a direct request from the office of the Vice-President, Dick Cheney.

During eight days in Niger, he discovered it was impossible for Iraq to have been buying the quantities of uranium alleged. "My report was very unequivocal," he said. He also learnt that the signatures of officials vital to any transaction were missing from the documents. On his return, he was debriefed by the CIA.

Note that once again almost everything in this article, like the others, has been subsequently proven to be untrue. Including Wilson’s claim that he had seen the supposedly forged documents, that he had reported them to be forgeries, and that his Niger report was "unequivocal."

July 6, 2003: Richard Leiby and Walter Pincus published another Wilson sourced article, Ex-Envoy: Nuclear Report Ignored, in the Washington Post.

While [Wilson’s] family prepared for a Fourth of July dinner, he proudly showed a reporter photos of himself with Bush’s parents.

That is to say, either Richard Leiby or Walter Pincus (or both) spent a seemingly very cordial Fourth of July at the home of Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame.

July 6, 2003: Still frustrated that his trip to Niger story was still not getting the attention he thought it deserved, Mr. Wilson finally stepped out from behind the curtain and wrote his now notorious op-ed piece for the New York Times, What I Didn’t Find in Africa.

July 6, 2003: Joe Wilson appeared on NBC’s Meet The Press with Tim Russert.

So, in all, Wilson managed to publish a New York Times editorial, be the subject of a front-page Washington Post story, and put in an appearance on a Sunday Morning talk show all on the same day.

Note too that it has been regularly suggested that all of the reporters involved, Kristof, Leiby, Pincus and even Tim Russert knew about Valerie Plame’s employment at the CIA before its disclosure in Robert Novak’s column.

July 8, 2003: Richard Armitage told Robert Novak about Wilson’s wife working at the CIA.

July 14, 2003: Mr. Novak published his column, Mission To Niger.

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

But according to Mr. Armitage and every other indication, Valerie Plame’s work at the CIA had already been revealed to reporters by her husband Joe Wilson to give credence to his new and mendacious claims about what he uncovered in his trip to Niger.

And there was another motivation possibly at work here as well. Something that could possibly have induced an ambitious man to completely change his story and even make up things that he could not have actually experienced.

For lest we forget, there was suddenly much talk at this time within the Kerry camp that Joe Wilson might be the new administration’s Secretary Of State. The vainglorious Mr. Wilson most certainly had his eyes on that prize.

Discrediting President Bush on his (then) strongest point, the war in Iraq, would certainly be a feather in Wilson’s cap in the eyes of the Kerry campaign.

And any concern about the secrecy of his wife’s job at the CIA was surely a minor consideration compared to that lofty goal of becoming John Kerry’s Secretary Of State.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/when-and-why-joseph-c-wilson-iv-outed-valerie-plame

 

[Superlative]

Please provide one shred of evidence that Cheney appropriated money to Halliburton - and explain how he personally profits from Halliburton's future profitability when his pension is in a fixed annuity.

Stay tuned, i will answer this as best i can. but i have shit to do. ill be back.

 

[red states rule]

Stay tuned, i will answer this as best i can. but i have shit to do. ill be back.

We all wait with bated breath

 

[Superlative]

We all wait with bated breath

Im sure you can wait for days to read something your going to ignore.

 

[red states rule]

Im sure you can wait for days to read something your going to ignore.

No, not at all. When you post your "proof" that VP Cheney personally approved contracts for Haliburton - I am sure it will a great piece of liberal fiction

T -Bor should love the chronology of the Plame/Wilson story

 

[Superlative]

No, not at all. When you post your "proof" that VP Cheney personally approved contracts for Haliburton - I am sure it will a great piece of liberal fiction

T -Bor should love the chronology of the Plame/Wilson story

Oh shit my mistake, that EVERYTHING the government denies is a Conspiracy theory.

And EVERYTHING the government tells you is the truth, its so obvious you can tell just by looking at their proven track record they are all truthful and honorable. and its never about money or power. and they are definetly not lying liars. ever.

Its funny how everyone here can find Solid unrefutable PROOF of WMD's but you dont see Bush or Cheney waving that shit around on MSNBC, CNN or FOX.
Kind of weird, that the little people like us can find BALONEY and you (RSR specifically) will totally believe without a doubt there were WMD's

But if I found as much BALONEY and Heresay backed up by coincidence and rhetorical evidence that implemented your Beloved OverLord Cheney in giving the old nudge, nudge, wink-wink to Halliburton you will go out of your way to say its bullshit. The fucking guy was the CEO for 5 years and then become Vice President of a war he created with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, then coincidentally by the sheer grace of god almighty Halliburton is given contracts for BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars.
They say its just sound business, and you say,
"Well fuck the guy says its just business, he doesnt care who gets all the money, he was right about WMD's he cant be lying to us now."

I bet you also thought smoking and lung cancer were totally unrelated until the tobacco companies admitted they were.

 

[red states rule]

Oh shit my mistake, that EVERYTHING the government denies is a Conspiracy theory.

And EVERYTHING the government tells you is the truth, its so obvious you can tell just by looking at their proven track record they are all truthful and honorable. and its never about money or power. and they are definetly not lying liars. ever.

Its funny how everyone here can find Solid unrefutable PROOF of WMD's but you dont see Bush or Cheney waving that shit around on MSNBC, CNN or FOX.
Kind of weird, that the little people like us can find BALONEY and you (RSR specifically) will totally believe without a doubt there were WMD's

But if I found as much BALONEY and Heresay backed up by coincidence and rhetorical evidence that implemented your Beloved OverLord Cheney in giving the old nudge, nudge, wink-wink to Halliburton you will go out of your way to say its bullshit.

I bet you also thought smoking and lung cancer were totally unrelated until the tobacco companies admitted they were.

Not only did Pres Bush believe Saddam had WMD's but so did the Dems


"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America&#65533;s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam&#65533;s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq&#65533;s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration&#65533;s policy towards Iraq, I don&#65533;t think there can be any question about Saddam&#65533;s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002


© Copyright 2001-2006 John Hawkins

 

[Annie]

Oh shit my mistake, that EVERYTHING the government denies is a Conspiracy theory.

And EVERYTHING the government tells you is the truth, its so obvious you can tell just by looking at their proven track record they are all truthful and honorable. and its never about money or power. and they are definetly not lying liars. ever.

Its funny how everyone here can find Solid unrefutable PROOF of WMD's but you dont see Bush or Cheney waving that shit around on MSNBC, CNN or FOX.
Kind of weird, that the little people like us can find BALONEY and you (RSR specifically) will totally believe without a doubt there were WMD's

But if I found as much BALONEY and Heresay backed up by coincidence and rhetorical evidence that implemented your Beloved OverLord Cheney in giving the old nudge, nudge, wink-wink to Halliburton you will go out of your way to say its bullshit.

I bet you also thought smoking and lung cancer were totally unrelated until the tobacco companies admitted they were.

Never mind the diversions, how about posting about your proof, since you must be done with all your chores?

 

[red states rule]

Lets see how he responds to all the Dems who said Saddma had WMD's

 

[red states rule]

Oh shit my mistake, that EVERYTHING the government denies is a Conspiracy theory.

And EVERYTHING the government tells you is the truth, its so obvious you can tell just by looking at their proven track record they are all truthful and honorable. and its never about money or power. and they are definetly not lying liars. ever.

Its funny how everyone here can find Solid unrefutable PROOF of WMD's but you dont see Bush or Cheney waving that shit around on MSNBC, CNN or FOX.
Kind of weird, that the little people like us can find BALONEY and you (RSR specifically) will totally believe without a doubt there were WMD's

But if I found as much BALONEY and Heresay backed up by coincidence and rhetorical evidence that implemented your Beloved OverLord Cheney in giving the old nudge, nudge, wink-wink to Halliburton you will go out of your way to say its bullshit. The fucking guy was the CEO for 5 years and then become Vice President of a war he created with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, then coincidentally by the sheer grace of god almighty Halliburton is given contracts for BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars.
They say its just sound business, and you say,
"Well fuck the guy says its just business, he doesnt care who gets all the money, he was right about WMD's he cant be lying to us now."

I bet you also thought smoking and lung cancer were totally unrelated until the tobacco companies admitted they were.

Pity A Poor Democrat
By Christopher Chantrill


Don't think it's easy being a Democratic officeholder. Here she is, after solemnly assuring the voters that she'll support our troops as patriotically as any Republican, now recklessly using the lives of our fighting men and women as poker chips in a high-stakes political game with President Bush.


Where will it all end? Why, with all those billions we could really solve the health-care problem.


But after opposing President Bush on behalf of the reality-based community for so many years, how can she do anything other than continue opposing and obstructing his every act, especially now that Democrats have gained control of Congress.


For Democratic voters really do believe that wars ought to be a thing of the past. In the modern age, what with social programs and all, there really is no rational basis for conflict. That's why the present war is so obviously a result of President Bush's incompetence or his debt to the oil companies.


It's not just Democratic voters that think this way, you know. We conservatives and Republicans believe something similar. In the modern age, what with markets and free exchange of goods and services and all, there really is no rational basis for conflict. That's why the present war is so obviously a result of 30 years of Democratic appeasement, starting with President Carter's weaselly response to the Embassy hostage-taking in 1979, not to mention President Clinton's radical aversion to any risk other than sexual.


Anyway, we should certainly not judge the Democrats as cowardly caving to their extremist base. As Charles Moore advised his readers, a politician is not a Martin Luther bellowing his integrity to the world from a rock.


"A better model for politics is being at sea in a frail boat. You cannot control the weather. You cannot rebuke the waves. All you can do is learn to sail with skill."
And that means catching the wind, he writes.


For Democratic officeholders the problem is not so much catching the wind. That is seldom a problem sailing along in the Roaring Lefties.


As any sailor knows, the roaring winds in the southern Peaceful Ocean create huge following seas and an extremely challenging task for an anxious helmsman.


Over the next two years as Democrats run down their easting towards the distant Cape, they can think of nothing except getting there first. Only then can they enjoy all the benefits of being first in port with a cargo of progressive notions for the political market of Washington DC.


Our Democratic friends want desperately to get back to what they do best, meeting human needs with other peoples' money. So here they are, cracking on sail, driving towards the Cape, dreaming of the Fortunate Isles that lie beyond it.


Maybe their hopes will be realized.


But the world is very different the good old days. How simple it all seemed when FDR told us that we had nothing to fear but fear itself, or when Michael Harrington wrote convincingly of The Other America and launched a War on Poverty. How easy it seemed to the Clintons in 1993 when all we needed was one more Big Push to bring universal health care to every American.


In Europe, reports Janet Daley, the trans-national elite is discovering the virtues of patriotism and socialist presidential candidate Ségolène Royal is playing the Marseillaise rather than the Internationale at her campaign rallies.


Something of the same kind is likely to confront the Democrats as they come roaring through Drake Passage south of the Cape. They'll find that after a generation of Reaganomics, ten years of welfare reform, and five years of Bush's war they can't ever go back home to "Happy Days Are Here Again."


Progressive people have taken comfort for many years in the old notion that generals are always fighting the last war. This is supposed to demonstrate the immense superiority of the progressive approach to life and politics.


But it reflects a larger truth. A war, such as the one we are now embarked upon, is a struggle that forces us to abandon the certainties and the lessons of an older, simpler time. And a war, such as the one we are now embarked upon, also exposes all our little weaknesses and frailties, for wars are initiated by ruthless, ambitious men with an instinct for the weaknesses of the people in their way.


Democrats have yet to decide whether we face a real threat, the kind of threat met so heroically by the 300 Spartans at the pass of Thermopylae, or whether we are dealing with nothing more than bunch of young rich kids from the Middle East intoxicated with jihad.


By the way, a warning to progressive mariners. Don't veer to far to the right in Drake Passage or you may run ashore on Elephant Island.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/pity_a_poor_democrat.html

 

[Superlative]

Not only did Pres Bush believe Saddam had WMD's but so did the Dems


"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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America&#65533;s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam&#65533;s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq&#65533;s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

© Copyright 2001-2006 John Hawkins

Ive highlighted a few amusing points that you take as FACT of weapons of mass destruction,
Your fact being "In the future" he could have WMD's doesnt mean he has them, and i doubt that "intent" is reason for invasion.

I know the president has and will disagree and say "We have to kill them there before they kill us here." But thats what the "Project for the New American Century"s mandate is.

Thats totally sound logic, Saddam gassed the kurds way before 911, but that is such a good reason to remove him years later. - Sarcasm

But your cut and paste Post of Dems who said Saddam had WMD's is just Dems saying he will be a problem later on, "in the Future"

Quoting Democrats that want to keep the little power they had and the public happy is not a solid arguement.

Google Cheneys - Defense Policy Guidance and Project for the New American Century

Both Wolfowitz and Libby worked under Cheney when he was defense secretary during the George H.W. Bush administration.

THE DPG was to be used by the neocons as a policy foundation from which to initiate the Bush doctrine in response to 9/11” they just renamed it "Project for the New American Century "

PNAC's founding statement of principles, issued on June 3, 1997, repeated many of the same goals laid out in the draft DPG, including the use of preemptive force, arguing that;

“the history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire.”


In 1997 they basically made up this standpoint "If it looks like trouble shoot it."

And now your posting Dems saying in the future he is going to shoot us.

 

[red states rule]

Libs and Bush haters have been ducking the fact Dems said the same thing about WMD's for four years

 

[Superlative]

Libs and Bush haters have been ducking the fact Dems said the same thing about WMD's for four years

So did the majority of the populace, but i guess everyone has figured out by now the guy in charge lied to more than just the general population.

 

[red states rule]

So did the majority of the populace, but i guess everyone has figured out by now the guy in charge lied to more than just the general population.

In your mind only. If Pres Bush lied so did your beloved Dems

 

[Edward]

Impossible, you cant possibly work a forty hour week and still have time to see all the lobbyists.

Senators and Representives put in more than 40 hours a week responding to constituent issues and conducting legislative business. Being on the floor for forty hours a week is simply not appropriate considering how much else they are responsible for. They also manage a Capitol Office and several District Offices. Every person is a lobbyist who seeks to lobby members of Congress including their own constituents. Anyone who thinks that being in Congress has to do more with being on the floor of either body is ignorant of what is required. Most Senators and Representatives will only go to the floor to either vote or to speak and the rest of their time is spent between committee meetings, caucus meetings, and other business.

 

[red states rule]

Senators and Representives put in more than 40 hours a week responding to constituent issues and conducting legislative business. Being on the floor for forty hours a week is simply not appropriate considering how much else they are responsible for. They also manage a Capitol Office and several District Offices. Every person is a lobbyist who seeks to lobby members of Congress including their own constituents. Anyone who thinks that being in Congress has to do more with being on the floor of either body is ignorant of what is required. Most Senators and Representatives will only go to the floor to either vote or to speak and the rest of their time is spent between committee meetings, caucus meetings, and other business.

Ah, the poor guys and gals have a hard job. They have plenty of time to do their job, but they are to busy doing other things while we pay the tab. (BOTH parties are guilty)


Comfortable salaries that are often determined through legislative sleight-of-hand. Contrary to the arguments of many Washington "insiders," the cost of living has rarely eroded the historical value of lawmakers' pay, which on a constant-dollar basis is hovering near the postwar high.

Pension benefits that are two to three times more generous than those offered in the private sector for similarly-salaried executives. Taxpayers directly cover at least 80 percent of this costly plan. Congressional pensions are also inflation-protected, a feature that fewer than 1 in 10 private plans offer.

Health and life insurance, approximately 3/4 and 1/3 of whose costs, respectively, are subsidized by taxpayers.

Wheeled perks, including limousines for senior Members, prized parking spaces on Capitol Hill, and choice spots at Washington's two major airports.
Travel to far-flung destinations as well as to home states and districts. Despite recent attempts to toughen gift and travel rules, "junkets" are still readily available prerogatives for many Members.

A wide range of smaller perks that have defied reform efforts, from cut-rate health clubs to fine furnishings.

The franking privilege, which gives lawmakers millions in tax dollars to create a favorable public image. Experts across the political spectrum have labeled the frank as an unfair electioneering tool. In past election cycles, Congressional incumbents have spent as much on franking alone as challengers have spent on their entire campaigns.

An office staff that performs "constituent services" and doles out pork-barrel spending, providing more opportunities for "favors" that can be returned only at election time.

Exemptions and immunities from tax, pension, and other laws that burden private citizens -- all crafted by lawmakers themselves.

http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=343

 

[T-Bor]

In response to RSR's post on Valerie Plame. Its so funny that people think a CIA agent can be betrayed by her govt and its OK... Even if she was a paper pusher, which she wasnt, why should the govt betray her like that?

Here is a post which validates my argument RSR. See how easy it is to do...


US officials 'betrayed' CIA agent

Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame filed the lawsuit together
A former CIA officer who is suing US Vice-President Dick Cheney and others over the leaking of her identity says the government "betrayed" her trust.
Valerie Plame's identity was leaked after her husband, former US ambassador Joseph Wilson, criticised the use of intelligence before the war in Iraq.

In a lawsuit the pair say Ms Plame was outed by officials in "revenge".

"I and my former CIA colleagues trusted our government to protect us as we did our jobs," Ms Plame told reporters.

"That a few reckless individuals within the current administration betrayed that trust has been a grave disappointment to every patriotic American."

As their chief method of punishment, the White House officials destroyed [Ms Plame's] cover by revealing her classified employment with the CIA to reporters

Lawsuit wording


Case makes political waves

She added: "I feel strongly, and justice demands, that those who acted so harmfully against our national security must answer for their shameful conduct in court."

Mr Wilson said officials' "use of power for personal revenge" broke faith with their oath to uphold the constitution.

He said the couple were "under no illusions about how tough this fight will be".

But he said: "No official, however powerful, is above the law."


Mr Cheney is the most senior of the 13 officials being sued

The couple were speaking at a news conference a day after the unveiling of their civil lawsuit against Mr Cheney, his ex-aide Lewis Libby and presidential adviser Karl Rove.

They accuse the three named officials and 10 others of putting their lives and the lives of their children at risk.

Mr Libby had already been charged with perjury and obstructing justice in connection with the leak. He has resigned pending trial but denies the charges.

Mr Rove's spokesman has described the allegations in Ms Plame's lawsuit as "utterly without merit". Mr Rove's solicitor says he has been told that no charges against Mr Rove are anticipated.

'Twisted intelligence'

Ms Plame's name had appeared in an article written by columnist Robert Novak about a week after her husband said in the New York Times that the government had twisted intelligence to go to war in Iraq.


The CIA had sent Mr Wilson to Niger in 2002 to find out whether then Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium from the African country.

Mr Wilson reported there was no truth in the claim but it still appeared in President George W Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.

 

[red states rule]

let’s go through the chronology in greater detail.

January 28, 2003: President George W. Bush delivered his State of the Union address.

February 6, 2003: Joe Wilson wrote an editorial for the Los Angeles Times, A ‘Big Cat’ With Nothing to Lose, in which he claimed we should not attack Saddam Hussein because he will use his weapons of mass destruction on our troops and give them to terrorists.

There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him.

And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that.

February 28, 2003: Joe Wilson was interviewed by Bill Moyers. Wilson agreed with Bush’s SOTU remarks, and reiterated his belief that Saddam had WMD and that he would use them on US troops.


MOYERS: President Bush’s recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that?
WILSON: I agree with that. Sure.

MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that?

WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech as he did in the State of the Union Address is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true. But the only thing Saddam Hussein hears in this speech or the State of the Union Address is, "He’s coming to kill me. He doesn’t care if I have weapons of mass destruction or not. His objective is to come and overthrow my regime and to kill me." And that then does not provide any incentive whatsoever to disarm.

March 3, 2003: At the invitation of David Corn, Joe Wilson wrote a piece for the Nation, Republic Or Empire?

In it Wilson blasted the "neo-conservatives" in the Bush administration for their imperial over-reach. But he once again made no mention of uranium or any other suggestion that Bush misled the country or lied about Iraq’s WMD.

Then what’s the point of this new American imperialism? The neoconservatives with a stranglehold on the foreign policy of the Republican Party, a party that traditionally eschewed foreign military adventures, want to go beyond expanding US global influence to force revolutionary change on the region.

American pre-eminence in the Gulf is necessary but not sufficient for the hawks. Nothing short of conquest, occupation and imposition of handpicked leaders on a vanquished population will suffice. Iraq is the linchpin for this broader assault on the region. The new imperialists will not rest until governments that ape our worldview are implanted throughout the region, a breathtakingly ambitious undertaking, smacking of hubris in the extreme.

March 8, 2003: CNN’s Renay San Miguel interviewed Joe Wilson about the so-called Niger forgeries, which had just become a hot topic in the news.

SAN MIGUEL: Just fine. How could this happen? It is the perception that documents like these are vetted to within an inch of their life by intelligence agencies. How do you think this managed to slip by?
WILSON: Well, this particular case is outrageous. I actually started my foreign service career in Niger and ended my foreign service career doing – in charge of Africa in the Clinton White House. We know a lot about the uranium business in Niger, and for something like this to go unchallenged by U.S. – the U.S. government is just simply stupid. It would have taken a couple of phone calls. We have had an embassy there since the early ’60s. All this stuff is open. It’s a restricted market of buyers and sellers. The Nigerians (sic) have always been very open with us.

For this to have gotten to the IAEA is on the face of it dumb, but more to the point, it taints the whole rest of the case that the government is trying to build against Iraq…

SAN MIGUEL: So how do you play this, then? I mean, what, do you admit it, do you just move on? Do you try to get these things verified if you do believe, indeed, that Iraq was trying to buy this material from Niger? I mean, how do you handle this? What’s the damage control on this?

WILSON: I have no idea. I’m not in the government. I would not want to be doing damage control on this. I think you probably just fess up and try to move on and say there’s sufficient other evidence to convict Saddam of being involved in the nuclear arms trade.

Note that up until at least March 8, 2003 Joe Wilson still contended that Saddam had WMD and that he was involved in the nuclear arms trade.

So what happened after March 8th to make Wilson change his tune about Iraq’s WMD and revise his "findings" from his trip to Niger? A version in direct contradiction to what he told his CIA debriefers, according to the US Senate’s Select Committee On Intelligence report?

And what set Mr. Wilson off on his jihad against Mr. Bush about those "16 words"?

The answer is obvious. The US invaded Iraq in mid-March and after searching for six weeks, admitted they had not found any stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. So Mr. Bush was suddenly very vulnerable to criticism on the subject. Even though Mr. Wilson had continually contended that Saddam had WMD.

And, coincidentally…

May 2003: Joe Wilson began to "advise" the Kerry for President campaign.

Wilson… said he has long been a Kerry supporter and has contributed $2,000 to the campaign this year. He said he has been advising Kerry on foreign policy for about five months and will campaign for Kerry, including a trip to New Hampshire… — David Tirrell-Wysocki, "Former Ambassador Wilson Endorses Kerry In Presidential Race,” The Associated Press, 10/23/03

Five months prior to October 2, 2003 would be May 2, 2003. What happened on that date?

May 2, 2003: Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame attended a conference sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, at which Wilson spoke about Iraq. One of the other panelists was the New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof.

(Coincidentally, all records of this particular conference at the Senate Democratic Policy Committee have been expunged from their website.)

May 3, 2003: Over breakfast, Wilson and Valerie told Kristof about his trip to Niger.

May 6, 2003: Kristof published the first public mention of Wilson’s mission to Niger, without identifying him by name, in a column for the New York Times, Missing in Action: Truth.

I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy’s debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted – except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway.

Note that unlike in his interview with CNN on March 8, 2003, Wilson was now claiming to have personally taken an active role in debunking the so-called forgeries. Which is of course untrue, since we now know Wilson never saw the documents.

The Senate’s Select Committee On Intelligence, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports."

(The Senate Committee’s report goes on to say: the former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged.")

And of course Mr. Wilson’s report was anything but "unequivocal." Indeed, the same Senate report said that the CIA believed Wilson’s trip had provided evidence that Iraq was trying to buy Yellowcake from Niger.

May 23, 2003: The John Kerry For President campaign recorded a $1,000 contribution from Joe Wilson.

June 12, 2003: Walter Pincus published an article in the Washington Post, CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data.

During his trip, the CIA’s envoy spoke with the president of Niger and other Niger officials mentioned as being involved in the Iraqi effort, some of whose signatures purportedly appeared on the documents.

After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said. Among the envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S. government official said.

Again, we now know that what Wilson told Pincus, like what he had told Kristof, was completely untrue, since the relevant papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

June 2003: According to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, the following interview with Richard Armitage at the State Department transpired "about a month before" Robert Novak’s column appeared on July 14, 2003.

Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off.
Woodward: But why would they send him?
Armitage: Because his wife’s an analyst at the agency.
Woodward: It’s still weird.
Armitage: He – he’s perfect. She – she, this is what she does. She’s a WMD analyst out there.
Woodward: Oh, she is.
Armitage: (over) Yeah.
Woodward: Oh, I see. I didn’t think…
Armitage: (over) "I know who’ll look at it." Yeah, see?
Woodward: Oh. She’s the chief WMD…?
Armitage: No. She’s not the…
Woodward: But high enough up that she could say, "oh, yeah, hubby will go."
Armitage: Yeah. She knows [garbled].
Woodward: Was she out there with him, when he was…?
Armitage: (over) No, not to my knowledge. I don’t know if she was out there. But his wife’s in the agency as a WMD analyst. How about that?

Why would Richard Armitage have been talking about Wilson and Plame in June of 2003? This was still weeks before Joe Wilson wrote his New York Times editorial, and a month before Robert Novak published his column mentioning Valerie Plame.

Armitage brought this up because he is a gossip and it was already common knowledge because Joe Wilson had been calling all of the newspapers trying to get them to run his story about his mission to Niger.

Given the chronology and Mr. Armitage’s remarks, it seems quite obvious Mr. Wilson outed his wife when he spoke to the Senate Democratic Policy Committee and then to the subsequent reporters at the Times, the Post and elsewhere, when he was hawking his story about his trip to Niger.

And these are the people Dick Armitage said Wilson was calling. Who else would he be calling?

And it’s highly probably that Wilson’s motivation for bringing up his wife is likely to have been exactly as Armitage suggested to Woodward. Wilson wanted to give his radically new and dangerous story more credibility.

He wanted to show that he was not just some untrustworthy "low-level guy" who had peaked in his career as an Ambassador to some godforsaken country nobody had ever heard of.

June 14, 2003: Joe Wilson shared a podium with Ray McGovern as the keynote speaker at the very leftwing Education For Peace In Iraq Center. (Valerie was also in attendance.)

Let me just start out by saying, as a preface to what I really want to talk about, to those of you who are going out and lobbying tomorrow, I just want to assure you that that American ambassador who has been cited in reports in the New York Times and in the Washington Post, and now in the Guardian over in London, who actually went over to Niger on behalf of the government — not of the CIA but of the government — and came back in February of 2002 and told the government that there was nothing to this story, later called the government after the British white paper was published and said you all need to do some fact — checking and make sure the Brits aren’t using bad information in the publication of the white paper, and who called both the CIA and the State Department after the President’s State of the Union and said to them you need to worry about the political manipulation of intelligence if, in fact, the President is talking about Niger when he mentions Africa.

That person was told by the State Department that, well, you know, there’s four countries that export uranium. That person had served in three of those countries, so he knew a little bit about what he was talking about when he said you really need to worry about this.

But I can assure you that that retired American ambassador to Africa, as Nick Kristof called him in his article, is also pissed off, and has every intention of ensuring that this story has legs. And I think it does have legs. It may not have legs over the next two or three months, but when you see American casualties moving from one to five or to ten per day, and you see Tony Blair’s government fall because in the U.K. it is a big story, there will be some ramifications, I think, here in the United States, so I hope that you will do everything you can to keep the pressure on. Because it is absolutely bogus for us to have gone to war the way we did…

(Note that Ray McGovern is the head of the group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, whose mission is to cajole current and former intel workers to leak information to the press that would hurt national security and our military efforts abroad. A prominent member of VIPS, Larry Johnson, was a classmate of Valerie’s at the CIA, and claims to have been a friend with her ever since. Mr. Wilson has worked very closely with Ray McGovern and VIPS since at least this meeting.)

Of course Wilson was speaking of himself as a thinly disguised third person. He promised the audience that he would see to it that his mission to Niger story "would have legs."

And sure enough other newspaper articles began to appear, for which Mr. Wilson had been the obvious source.

June 29, 2003: The UK’s Independent published, Ministers Knew War Papers Were Forged, Says Diplomat.

A high-ranking American official who investigated claims for the CIA that Iraq was seeking uranium to restart its nuclear programme accused Britain and the US yesterday of deliberately ignoring his findings to make the case for war against Saddam Hussein.

The retired US ambassador said it was all but impossible that British intelligence had not received his report - drawn up by the CIA - which revealed that documents, purporting to show a deal between Iraq and the West African state of Niger, were forgeries.

When he saw similar claims in Britain’s dossier on Iraq last September, he even went as far as telling CIA officials that they needed to alert their British counterparts to his investigation…

The former diplomat - who had served as an ambassador in Africa - had been approached by the CIA in February 2002 to carry out a "discreet" task: to investigate if it was possible that Iraq was buying uranium from Niger. He said the CIA had been asked to find out in a direct request from the office of the Vice-President, Dick Cheney.

During eight days in Niger, he discovered it was impossible for Iraq to have been buying the quantities of uranium alleged. "My report was very unequivocal," he said. He also learnt that the signatures of officials vital to any transaction were missing from the documents. On his return, he was debriefed by the CIA.

Note that once again almost everything in this article, like the others, has been subsequently proven to be untrue. Including Wilson’s claim that he had seen the supposedly forged documents, that he had reported them to be forgeries, and that his Niger report was "unequivocal."

July 6, 2003: Richard Leiby and Walter Pincus published another Wilson sourced article, Ex-Envoy: Nuclear Report Ignored, in the Washington Post.

While [Wilson’s] family prepared for a Fourth of July dinner, he proudly showed a reporter photos of himself with Bush’s parents.

That is to say, either Richard Leiby or Walter Pincus (or both) spent a seemingly very cordial Fourth of July at the home of Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame.

July 6, 2003: Still frustrated that his trip to Niger story was still not getting the attention he thought it deserved, Mr. Wilson finally stepped out from behind the curtain and wrote his now notorious op-ed piece for the New York Times, What I Didn’t Find in Africa.

July 6, 2003: Joe Wilson appeared on NBC’s Meet The Press with Tim Russert.

So, in all, Wilson managed to publish a New York Times editorial, be the subject of a front-page Washington Post story, and put in an appearance on a Sunday Morning talk show all on the same day.

Note too that it has been regularly suggested that all of the reporters involved, Kristof, Leiby, Pincus and even Tim Russert knew about Valerie Plame’s employment at the CIA before its disclosure in Robert Novak’s column.

July 8, 2003: Richard Armitage told Robert Novak about Wilson’s wife working at the CIA.

July 14, 2003: Mr. Novak published his column, Mission To Niger.

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

But according to Mr. Armitage and every other indication, Valerie Plame’s work at the CIA had already been revealed to reporters by her husband Joe Wilson to give credence to his new and mendacious claims about what he uncovered in his trip to Niger.

And there was another motivation possibly at work here as well. Something that could possibly have induced an ambitious man to completely change his story and even make up things that he could not have actually experienced.

For lest we forget, there was suddenly much talk at this time within the Kerry camp that Joe Wilson might be the new administration’s Secretary Of State. The vainglorious Mr. Wilson most certainly had his eyes on that prize.

Discrediting President Bush on his (then) strongest point, the war in Iraq, would certainly be a feather in Wilson’s cap in the eyes of the Kerry campaign.

And any concern about the secrecy of his wife’s job at the CIA was surely a minor consideration compared to that lofty goal of becoming John Kerry’s Secretary Of State.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/when-and-why-joseph-c-wilson-iv-outed-valerie-plame