'S' Stands for 'Secret'
In their attempt to muddy the waters and confuse people, many Republicans have suggested that even if Karl Rove leaked Valerie Plame's identity, her information wasn't really secret. Well, now the Washington Post has obtained a document that proves that information about her was, in fact, "secret".
A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.
The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.
Karl Rove leaked the identity of a CIA operative – whose identity was clearly marked “secret” – to Time’s Matthew Cooper, yet he continues to work at the White House.
Comments (102) «
We have been saying it all along.
They fixed the facts to fit the policy and they smeared anyone that tried to get the truth out.
These people are scum. Bush is a liar, his right hand man is a traitor.
In a time of war. I can't believe any American would put politics before National Security...but, I'm not a Republican.
Well they can't use that weak argument anymore, so I guess it's on to attacking Wilson's mother...
Kenny,
Politics before national security? Are you serious?
Look no further than WMDs...Every one of you Democrats said Iraq had WMDs, until after the fact. You guys switched your position for political gain. But it backfired...You lost miserably in '04 because of hypocrisy on national security.
You still don't get it.
Kenny,
Do you remember the Senate Intelligence Committee's report? hehehehe....They didn't think too highly of Mr. Wilson, eh?
Let me guess: You're gonna tell me it was the Republicans who wrote that Report....
Ace,
I see you haven't been banished yet, despite your concerns that it was only a matter of time before they kicked you off.
What topic do you want to debate now?
WMDs? Yes, some, not all, of the democrats believed that Saddam had WMDs. Their solution, send in UN inspectors to discover the truth. The truth? There were no WMDs. Who was right and who was wrong?
Ace,
Obviously you live in that little red balloon and believe that it is better to bomb there then here.
You just go on believing that OK. And that is all I am going to say to you, Dunce!
It is truly amazing! Haven't Republicans used every "the dog ate my homework" excuse yet?
First they didn't do it, then there was nothing wrong with what they did, now its we wanted to do it too.
Republicans are pathological liars, they'd rather lie than tell the truth. I guess that's because it's easier to write talking points that way.
Joe Wilson spoke the truth, the White House relented, Karl Rove tried to screw Wilson so no one else would tell the truth, but he revealed a United States secret while doing so.
Rove's a traitor and should not be involved in government in any way, and nothing anyone else did changes that.
I tried to post a comment on the RNC Blog, I was just asking a question and they wouldn't post it? I had signed in and everything and they wouldn't even take a pointed question? Why do you let GOP post their garbage on your Blog. I always thought Democrats were not afraid they will be proven wrong, and now I know how honest Democrats are and how dishonest GOP is?
"Every one of you Democrats said Iraq had WMDs, until after the fact"
Posted by Ace on July 21, 2005 at 02:17 PM
There you go, lumping again. I was living overseas during the run-up to the invasion and during the first year of the war (in a country, I might add, which is more than a little bit fond of Americans) and I remember thinking, "has everyone at home gone NUTS?!?!" Seemed pretty obvious to me and everyone around me there weren't going to be any WMD's found and, if by some slight chance there were, they would be from the 80's and have "Made in the USA" stamped on the sides of them.
Well I was marching in the street of Settle in every oranized protest against the war, once I had 30,000 companions, until the day the invasion began. Even then, we held candle light vigils at the Federal building for seven days.
My Congressman took heat for saying that Bush was trying to mislead us. Senator Patty Murray voted against the war resolution.
I know they didn't fool the Pacific Northwest.
Freepers are nutty fascinating creatures.....They are the ultimate forms of hypocrisy.
Now its, "the DSM is our fault" because the democrats voted for the war.
No, we were in the minority and had nothing to do with it. Hell, everyone that voted for it was duped by false intelligence.
And we all know that the intelligence was fixed by republicans, or rather neocons to get this war.
It was illegal, and then Karl &neocons dismantled national security in order to punish those who screamed it was illegal!
Now the whole house of cards......Is going up like a puff. Did everyone see Scotty and his freepers repeat Ken Mehlman's bullshit?
Sometimes I wonder if the right is really full of ignorance or something worse, when Ken is the best they have, a total hack who is very dishonest and can't even attack like Dean can. Using a proper framing.
nick
What kills me the most about hot karl and the neocons is how much utter contempt they have for the people who actualy believe in them. They hate Democrats, sure. But judging by their actions, I almost think they hate their base even more. How can you so abuse someone's trust so completely, again and again. I really think McCain is secretly overjoyed to watch the guy sleazily screwed him out of the 2000 nomination, twist, slowly, in the wind.
What kills me the most about hot karl and the neocons is how much utter contempt they have for the people who actualy believe in them. They hate Democrats, sure. But judging by their actions, I almost think they hate their base even more. How can you so abuse someone's trust so completely, again and again. I really think McCain is secretly overjoyed to watch the guy sleazily screwed him out of the 2000 nomination, twist, slowly, in the wind.
Posted by Cody on July 21, 2005 at 04:40 PM
amen to that Cody. Strangely, the more they screw their so-called base, the more they support them. It's like some national Stockholm Syndrome
Note to republicans:
You can choose to not approve of neanderthals like Karl Rove or Paul Wolfowitz, and still be a manly republican!!
Democrats don't approve of the bullshit Zell Millers in our party. We tar and feather and totally obliterate them.
You can do the same thing you know, and stop giving the neocons a free pass.
They don't give a damn about you republicans, or you free republicans or any of us.
You, and we are simply a means to an end. A way to bring in the new world of NEOCONSERVATIVE-LIBERALS that are based on lies.
We can't live in peace based on lies, and we will never stop the muslim holy crusades based on lies. We'll self destruct instead. But those of us still rational, will get out of the way before the whole thing swings back.
Remember now quite literally, there are criminals and traitors near the White House again. This has Richard Nixon all over it. This time though it has had severe, lasting damage on our CIA. That could hurt us for the next 10 years....This is when it comes down to choosing a different path.
nick
"Every one of you Democrats said Iraq had WMDs, until after the fact. You guys switched your position for political gain."
That's the biggest bunch of BS I've ever heard. Why were so many of us attending church services and anit-war meetings before this hurried invasion calling for the President to wait till the UN weapons inspectors made their final report?
I personally never thought there were WMDs in Iraq. The haste with which this administration sent our troops into harms's way and the obviously shaky intel Powell presented to the UN were a red flag. When the President made his assertions that an attack could happen within weeks when the Weapons Inspectors were finding absolutely NOTHING, anybody with half a brain could figure out somthing fishy was going on.
You may have been taken in, but a lot of us Democrats were suspicious from the beginning. Now you're finally waking up and growing afraid the whole thing was a hoax; and as usual, it's all our fault? Snap out of it. Bush played you like a fiddle. And now Nero and his neocons are watching it all go up in flames.
Ace, since you clearly don't understand how things progressed, here's a short version about what happened in Iraq. I'm not going to go into the whole Rove issue since it's complex enough to deal with it seperately.
After Afghanistan, which both parties supported, George W. decided it was his chance to attack Iraq. A follow-up to daddy's war with Iraq, among other reasons.
George W. started to apply pressure to various people trying to gain support for an attack on Iraq. And right after Afghanistan, there was a bit more trust on the part of Democrats when it came to reports that the White House administration was releasing. At that point, there was a trust that the information wasn't doctored or pressured from the various agencies.
And so, an attack on Iraq was allowed to go forward, with some resistance, but generally not as much as there might have been if Afghanistan hadn't happened.
As time went on, information started to come out about what really went on as far as intelligence prior to the attack on Iraq. Things like the Downing Street Memo came out, along with other information to show that what George W. had been pushing was trumped up evidence to try to convince people to allow and support attacking Iraq. And so, after the fact, a growing number of Democrats started to change their attitude about the whole war on Iraq.
Changing your opinion because of new information is the sign of someone with intelligence. The fact that the so-called evidence about weapons of mass destruction wasn't real was a key reason for many. If you knew before the war that there were no weapons of mass destruction, would YOU have supported an attack on Iraq, especially since Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11?
George W. lied to the world, not just the people of this country when he was saying that Iraq had weapons it didn't have. And since then, he hasn't admitted that he was acting on information that wasn't true, and as a result made a mistake in ordering the attack on Iraq.
Now, we have the situation where we have forces in Iraq, including the National Guard. The people who are supposed to be here in the USA to protect our country here at home have been sent to Iraq, leaving this country under-defended from attack. Military bases are being closed all over the place because so much money has gone into the war on Iraq that the government is broke and is trying to save money.
You want to complain about Democrats and how we dislike if not hate George W. Bush, try to comprehend this short version of the war on Iraq. People dislike being lied to and manipulated for selfish personal reasons. People don't like hearing that US soldiers are being killed because of a war that never should have happened if the correct intelligence had been released.
Democrats support our troops around the world, most of us just don't support their idiotic Commander-In-Chief.
FACT:
It's always about the invisible with these guys.
With the GOP now, its about "invisible" ethics who needs that?
"invisible" vote counts, who needs fair votes since that is "bad behavior" according to Tom DeLay?
"invisible" WMD, who needs WMD when we simply take over other countries for money?
"invisible" values, we can say what we want and be hypocrites, because Nixon taught us the way!
And last but not least, "invisible" terrar!. Because just like the war on drugs, the only way to keep the masses thuroughly drunk and controllable is projecting the war on terror!
nick
From Florida Department of Law Enforcement Website:
(Percentage of victims of domestic violence that are children)
1999: 7.84%
2000: 7.84%
2001: 7.44%
2002: 7.54%
2003: 7.56%
2004: 7.69%
(Percentage of total forcible sex offenses where children are victims)
1999: 11.65%
2000: 27.26%
2001: 28.48%
2002: 29.40%
2003: 28.43%
2004: 11.63%
Two important patterns to note:
Whenever Brother Bush, the president, has been competing to win an election, the percentage of children in violent crimes drops dramatically. In all other years, it nearly triples.
Secondly, from the year 2001 on, the rate of increase of child victims of domestic violence (which includes forcible sex offenses) has been steadily increasing.
Already there has been in 2005 several very high profile cases involving the kidnapping, rape, and murder of children, including by known sexual predators who went un-investigated by police (John Couey).
While all of this has been going on, Governor Bush misused his authority as Governor by watching over a woman in a permanent vegetative state, over whom the governor had no authority to preside (according to Federal Courts). Of course, he may have been able to honor the little girl's memory by insisting that police did everything "by the book." Instead, police botched the confession rendering it inadmissible, and the sexual predator/murderer may walk.
Clearly Republicans are more than willing to sacrifice your children in order to make themselves look more competitive for elections.
(FDLE does not report crimes against children aging 12 years and younger. Data for kidnapping is not recorded. These are only REPORTED cases. Many other children who do survive constant torment are too intimidated, cowed, and distrustful of adults to report their misery.)
BREAKING' KARL ROVE, LEWIS LIBBY BORE FALSE WITNESS TO PROSECUTORS IN CIA LEAK
Looks like somebody's getting comfy for the jumpsuit!
"Bloomberg News has slotted a story alleging that senior Bush advisor Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff 'Scooter' Libby provided false testimony to the special prosecutor to a Washington-based grand jury, RAW STORY has been told.
Patrick Fitzgerald, the Chicago special prosecutor appointed to investigate the outing of former covert agent Valerie Plame Wilson, may also be looking at whether other crimes -- such as perjury, obstruction of justice or leaking classified information -- were committed.
It's breaking tonight or tomorrow AM, sources say. Bloomberg has been among the head of the pack in breaking elements of the CIA leak scandal; they recently hired former Wall Street Journal editor Al Hunt."
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Report_Bloomberg_to_reveal_Rove_Libby_gave_false_te_0721.html
Prepare the frog marches.....Karl Rove and Lewis have changed their story, possibly three or more times, committed perjury and engaged in conspiracy.
Its all getting wound up close to Tricky Dick Cheney too, and we could be looking at a full fledged removal of the VP very shortly!!!
nick
Here's the gist -- the talking points as I see 'em -- regarding the significance of the "S" secret classification on the State Department memorandum:
1. The "S" knocks out one more basis for a defense based on ignorance, one of the RNC's lies. Whoever saw this memo knew that the information about Plame was not to be revealed.
2. It blows a hole in the RNC lie that Plame was a non-covert desk jockey, analyst, or restroom janitor, etc. This agent's covert status was being acknowledged and actively protected.
3. If the White House leakers learned about Plame from a classified source such as the memo, as opposed to a non-classified source such as a journalist, they are more likely to be vulnerable under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
4. Per The American Prospect article, Rove told the FBI he learned through a journalist that Plame worked for the CIA. (He later said, Alzheimer's-like, that he was not sure at all where he first heard the information.) If evidence can place the memo in Rove's hands early-on, it would put a lie to Rove's initial statements to the FBI. A good case for perjury, conspiracy, and/or obstruction of justice possibly???
5. At least some other Bush officials on Air Force One likely read the memo, a reasonable assumption, meaning other Bushies could turn out to be involved in, or at least knowledgable of, the events and smear campaign which followed.
I ain't no lawyer, so if anybody has good insight or corrections regarding this, please post!
nick_t - that is really interesting about the Bloomberg story. Thanks for posting that. Now I'm determined to get a good, restful, full-nights sleep so I'll be "bright-eyed and bushy-tailed" tomorrow morning.
I've heard they it is best for really damning news to break late in the week. (Someone correct me if I have that incorrect, please.) This would make sense with this particular story. If this is true, then this is going to be a devestating to those that maintain that Rove is a non-story in the Plame affair.
These neo extreme right wing trolls are incredibly boring. They have no argument of their own. Nothing but repeats from the radio propaganda traitors.
So when are you neocons actually going to enlist? Too chicken? Of course you are.
Can someone explain to me the comment Cooper made about a "double secret" when he talked to Rove? I wonder if it pertained to this secret notation in the memo?
And how do we know Ari Fleicher was seen reading the memo on Air Force One? Everyone has been reporting it, but no one has said who saw him doing it. Who else was on that plane? If the President was sent the memo from the State Department, would Cheney get a carbon? Who told Powell to bring the memo with him?
“You still don't get it.
Posted by Ace on July 21, 2005 at 02:17 PM”
rove’s “ace” in the hole,
if you’re still in this game, sorry to break the news, you’re spinn’ rove’s poker hand and even rove knows spinn’ played out. rove’s now divertin’ his cards.
rove scandal > roberts nomination
suggest you go back and talk to rove and get back in his new poker hand. this white house has always been on the same hand and you’ve been left as a lone ace. oh, and thanks for being in rove’s hand, scandal needs to be put back on the table. let me think, who’s the king? joker? queen? 10? once again, thanks for helping to keep rove’s old hand of cards on the table...we wouldn’t want this story to fold!
DaveB,
You left out some facts....(what a shocker).
Hans Blix testified - 2 months before the war - that there were "strong indications" of WMDs in Iraq and that several thousand chemical rockets were discovered in January 2003 and many were missing. How convenient.
John Edwards, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that Iraq was "the most serious and IMMINENT threat to the United States". You left that out. Oh wait...Now you're gonna tell me Bush told the CIA what to say?
In 1998, Bill Clinton said there were "11 WMD producing facilities in Iraq". Is it your contention that Bill Clinton was lying? If not, what happened to those WMDs?
As far as the Downing Street Memo, you can not and will not be able to specifically cite what intel was fixed by Bush. You never have and you never will.
Bill CLinton said, on Larry King, that "it is incontestable that there were stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq that were unaccounted for". Was Clinton lying?
I keep getting booted off this Blog...I happen to make posts that are in disagreement, therefore, I get tossed. My email is Tomcat4000s@yahoo.com if you wish to continue this. The DNC won't let me stay on.
"I've heard they it is best for really damning news to break late in the week. (Someone correct me if I have that incorrect, please.)"
Sorry, Casey, you might be wrong. Saturday is the slowest news day. If you want to let something die, it's best to release it late on a Friday afternoon. Rove does it all the time.
However, since this is such a big story and Miller is still in jail, that might not matter this time. The talking heads will be all over it on the Sunday political talk shows. And the way this is developing, more info may leak out by Monday. Lots of the big media outlets drop their bombshells in their Sunday editions.
At this point, I think the Brits are so angry that the next tidbit might come from there. Their people were talking to Cheney's people regularly....and Judith Miller.
nick,
Bill Clinton committed an act of war against Iraq (over 400 cruise missiles) due to Iraq's WMDs. Was Bill Clinton lying?
Bill Clinton said there were "11 WMD producing facilities in Iraq" in 1998. Was Bill Clinton lying?
If your answer is "no", is it your contention that WMDs were rampant in Iraq up until 1998 then they magically disappeared?
Bill Clinton said that in 2000, it was "incontestable" that there were stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq that were unaccounted for. Was Bill Clinton lying? If the answer is "no", is it your contention that there were "stockpiles" of WMDs in Iraq up until 2000 then they magically disappeared?
My email is Tomcat4000s@yahoo.com. I will be booted off of the DNC Blog because I disagree with you. Email me the answers if you have the balls.
SandyH,
John Edwards was on the Senate Intelligence Committee. John Edwards said Iraq was the "most serious and IMMINENT threat to the United States"
Was John Edwards lying? (Please don't tell me that Edwards believed Bush....The same Bush that 1)stole the election; 2) Went AWOL; 3) Guilty of insider trading at Harken)
John Edwards, like George Washington, cannot tell a lie. Bush grew up on them.
"As far as the Downing Street Memo, you can not and will not be able to specifically cite what intel was fixed by Bush. You never have and you never will.
I wouldn't underestimate this grand jury or the Special Prosecutor. They are going to get someone to crack and spill the beans. Too many people have been caught lying and now face prosecution. It's plea bargaining time.
Nice to see that you concede that intel was fixed by Bush. Thought that you would come around sometime.
SandyH,
In 1998, Bill CLinton said Iraq had "11 WMD producing facilities". Was Clinton lying?
Saddam probably did have that many in 1998. Bush invaded in 2001. Clinton had been bombing the hell out of Iraq every chance he got. Mission accomplished.
SandyH,
Psst: Bush didn't invade until March 2003.
"probably"?
So its your contention that Iraq had many WMDs in 1998, but they were gone in 2001?
I was wonder if you had a little AceII climbing the curtains? If not, why the I notation after your name?
Well, they certainly weren't there when our troops marched in. Clinton showed that he knew how to bomb his targets in Bosnia, and apparently he worked wonders in Iraq, too.
I don't recall Powell saying anything about those facilities at the UN. If they were still in commission, I'm sure he would have.
Don't be distracted by trolls from the actual topic of this DNC Diary folks which is the fact that the memo circulated around Air Force One regarding Plame and Wilson was classifed as "Secret" the second higest level of classification used by the US Government according to the Washington Post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information
And now the Wall Street Journal (A Conservative Media Source) is going to report tomorrow that the memo was in fact classified "Top Secret, No Foreign" which is the HIGHEST level of classification and could be damaging to national security if leaked.
This memo puts to rest the claim that Plame's job in the CIA was not important, was nothing but a desk job, and she was not a covert agent. Thats all been proven bullshit now.
Lets stay on topic folks. Some folks want to take us back to the Clinton years despite the fact that he didn't send over a thousand troops to their deaths. They can't debate this Plame leak issue anymore, they have nothing.
Iraq was one of the most industrial countries in the middle eastin the eighties and early ninties. Saddam spent over 55 billion on education. After invading Kawait and ingaging in war with the US they were left a poverty striction shell. After ten years of harsh UN sanctions the country was left with nothing.It has been documented by many sources that WMD were eliminated.We now have the Downing Street Minutes and Plame Gate to back this up. Saddam was a bad guy! Looking back we see the mistakes we have allowed this government to make. We now have to take them to task and understand that we are the government and we must take it back.
Noone is saying anything about Colin Powell.He is the person who actually had the top SECRET MEMO.I hope he will not become a fall guy for the neo coms!
I think it is very noble of this sight to allow other views. THAT IS WHAT aMERICA IS ALL ABOUT.
Ace1,
You have an interesting way of muddying the situation.
Yes, Bill Clinton lied also. Are you happy? What got Clinton was then the coverup of his sex. Who cares about Clinton? Are we talking about Clinton?
Bush is the stooge for PNAC now, not Clinton. And there's a huge case of perjury and conspiracy against him.
The vice president did FIX the intelligence on Iraq, and put false information out that was forged....Niger weapons of mass destruction, and several other deceptions on WMD, all of which was destroyed in 1991 and shortly after.
Read here for a full legal brief:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?%20context=viewArticle&code=MAN20050702&articleId=622
Its the most damning you've ever seen.
nick
nick,
"HUGE" case of perjury against Bush? Did you say that one with a straight face?
Admitting Clinton lied about WMDs is interesting. Your fellow Bush Haters may have you assassinated...Who knows?
Please cite the intelligence that Dick Cheney "fixed". SandH couldn't. Maybe you can?
By the way, President Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam tried to purchase uranium from Niger...." The British Government MADE that claim and STILL stands by it. So much for Cheney "fixing" that intelligence.
But you folks never seem to want to discuss Hans Blix's testimony before the UN just 2 months prior to the invasion. Blix said that there were "strong indications" of WMDs and that UN Weapons inspectors discovered "several thousand chemical rockets" in January 2003 and several were "missing". Nope...Don't hear much about that testimony from you guys.... Let me guess: Blix is a "stooge" of the PNAC?
Of course binx is a stooge for PNAC. Have you not even researched this entire issue?
Still making false statements on the WH website, from Cheney's own mouth:
"Disarm Saddam Hussein
The gravest danger we face in the war on terror is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm all weapons of mass destruction. For 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement.
Three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam his final chance to disarm. He has shown his utter contempt for the U.N.
The U.N. and U.S. intelligence sources have known for some time that Saddam Hussein has materials to produce chemical and biological weapons, but he has not accounted for them:
26,000 liters of anthrax—enough to kill several million people
38,000 liters of botulinum toxin
500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents
Almost 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents
From three Iraqi defectors, we know that Iraq in the late 1990s had several mobile biological weapons labs. But he has not disclosed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on methods of enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb. He recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, according to the British Government. He has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons, according to our intelligence sources. Yet he has not credibly explained these activities.
Thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the UN inspectors.
Iraqi officials accompany all inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the U.N.
Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with the UN be killed, along with their families.
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including al-Qaida members. He could provide hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.
The United States will ask the UN Security Council to convene next week to consider the facts of Iraq’s ongoing defiance of the world. We will consult. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm, we will act for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world. "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/disarm.html
The binx testimony is not going to fly. Multiple witnesses and evidence show the intelligence was fixed. Michael Ledeen was involved with the forging of the Niger papers. They FIXED the intelligence facts around the policy, and all you need to prove it is in that document on globalresearch.ca.....
So now you think a PAID OFF Weapons inspector would prove Iraq was a threat? Give me a break! David Kelly, and all the actual credible inspectors there found nearly nothing, confiscated the little "anthrax" scare, and were on their way as Saddom was complying with all resolutions.
But since they had already bombed Iraq, the WAR started and shut down the inspectors. Then Kelly ended up dead. What a shocker.
nick
KARL ROVE, LEWIS LIBBY, HADLEY, CHENEY GUILTY OF TREASON: HIGH LEVEL ESPIONAGE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
"(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
(h) (1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection."
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000793----000-.html
According to governing law, article 793, of the US Constitution high level officials may have broken both. Each law may have been breached in addition to article 641, which could be a very serious charge.
If found guilty of harming national security, Rove, Libby, and the big fish could be sentenced to and not limited to illicit conspiracy, long-time confinement in federal prison, and or being fined of up to 10,000 dollars.
Each article under this act, shows that one may not disclose covert classified information which can endanger the United States. If indeed, as testament to, the CIA contingency who tracks weapons of mass destruction has been dissolved, and there is no longer a way to keep track of nor secure borders from terrorist nukes, the law of supporting terrorism and international warfare acts in a time of war may apply.
In the fallout of the covert protection act, numerous destruction to United States national security has been confirmed. A lie in order to wage a catergorically manufactured war, and also may include illegalities in each statute. In the process, long-term defense of the United States has been breached.
In essence, the friends of Dick Cheney may be guilty of deliberate harm to the United States. Karl Rove, assisting a swastika nation in another country, has committed a traitorous act against the United States.
While not fully detailed, Rove's account may be equal to selling information to the Chinese government which was defined as treason. Other govt officers, such as Jeb Bush, has already been found to sell weapons chip information to china see: http://www.insider-magazine.com/unrestricted_warfare.htm
If during a time of war, the act of treason is even more serious. Fantasy films like the Bourne Identity give us a glimpse of these events, but we never imagine what it would be like if it happened here. It has happened here.
nick
nick,
It does my heart good to see a Democrat such as yourself:
1) You accused Clinton of lying about WMDs;
2) You claim the PNAC paid Hans Blix (not Binx)
3) You claim Saddam was complying with every resolution.
Promise me you will remain a voice for the Democratic Party.
I wonder if the grand jury has pulled in Bolton yet? He's the one who was pimping for Cheney over at the CIA. Why aren't the Republicans pushing his nomination anymore?
They must be afraid he'd face more embrarrassing questions and have to plead the 5th or incriminate Cheney? I say all their WMD intel was bogus. And their plot can be cracked wide open through the Powell memo that the grand jury is studying right now.
There was a reason Tenet commissioned it and Powell was told to bring it on board Airforce One for that long trip...the gang was all there and ready to discuss next steps without any chance of discovery...they thought.
In trying to find out who leaked the info, the grand jury stumbled on to a Presidential abuse of power plot never seen before in the history of this country. This Special Prosecutor is like a pit bull; he's not going to let go. His investigation is going to be extended just like Watergate.
SandyH,
Isn't it odd that you never answered about Hans Blix's testimony?
Classic.
Ace1,
Thought you were going to get "booted" off this site yesterday for voicing your ideas and opinions??? Lets go have an intelligent chat on the RNC blog....oh yeah, no place for free speech there.
Keep spewing BS. Good bye.
On CSPAN-III (WindowsMedia or RealPlayer)
On Revealing Covert Agents
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) co-chair a meeting on the national security implicatings of disclosing a covert agent's identity. Former intelligence agents participate in the meeting, co-sponsored by the Sen. Democratic Policy Committee and Democratic members of the House Gov. Reform Committee.
Began at 10:00 AM EDT, just getting warmed up now.
poor karl rove, he thought the S marking the information on the memo meant
1) Spill the beans to the nearest reporter
2) Smear Joe Wilson
3) Make sure that the leak is Super Secret
anybody else?
JWN,
Umm, I was booted. My name yesterday was Ace. I had to change it to Ace1.
Keep up.
Ace/Ace1...
Yet you are still here??? Lets go chat on the RNC blog.
JWN,
My email address is tomcat4000s@yahoo.com.
No doubt I will be booted. Feel free to answer any of those questions that the other Bush Haters couldn't via my email.
Ace1,
Glad to see you back. Hope the boot didn't hurt too much.
By the way, we are not all Bush haters. Some are, but most of us just think he has disgraced the office of the President of the United States. No hate, just disdain.
Veneita,
I think you forgot:
4) Sell your soul to evil
5) Squeal like a pig
6) Smirk like you are smarter than everyone else
Okay?
Ace1,
Why must we chat via email and not at the RNC blog? You are still here, although under another name, and even if you get booted as Ace1, I am sure you will be back as Ace2. Seems like the ability is here for you to voice your ideas, why not at your party site?
JWN,
He could voice his opinions and thoughts at the RNC site, but it would be a pretty much one-sided debate because if it ain't a talking point, it ain't getting posted.
Ace/Ace1/A**hole
I'm a "Bush hater", and I hate you for your role in foisting him on all of us.
That stupid sneer, dumb laugh, idiotic word play, inability to remember names, he's a dolt and an embarassment.
You guys could go talk at FreeRepublic.com, oh, yeah, we'd get booted there, too.
And BTW, Ace, if it were up to a vote if you could spread your second syllable of RNC talking points here, I'd vote against you.
JWN,
Nah...No more attempts.
I do not speak for the RNC. I just respond the bs hurled at Bush.
And when I get to the question that you guys can't answer, I get booted.
For instance: I asked if Bill Clinton was lying when he said there were "11 WMD producing facilities in Iraq in 1998". The DNC zapped me.
So, my email is there for anyone wanting to answer.
And I guess my wife has a point: I need to get a life.
:)
c_at_l_bob,
As expected. I know you hate. Heck, Howard Dean said he hated the Republicans and everything they stand for. Umm, how many Red States do you expect to win with hate as your message? Just curious....
(rove's) ace1-2...n,
givin' us your e-mail didn't answer their question...you're divertin' (again)...let me rephrase...
would a person w/differnt views be asked to pledge loyalty to log on to rnc
(aka..."rove-neo.com?")?
speaking for myself, i hope you're not booted from dnc...this keeps you as the "ace" in rove's hand and doesn't let this cia-rove-bush -libby-?-scandal-hand-story-fold...
nor did you answer my question from my earlier post, if you're rove's ace in the hole, who's rove's king-queen-joker-10?
Ace,
Bill was not lying when he claimed there were 11 WMD facilities in Iraq. However, he proposed to get inspectors back into Iraq to confirm the intelligence rather than launch an invasion. Even Bush decided to send in UN inspectors. Of course, they did not find what he wanted so he quickly pulled them back out and launched his war.
I have no problem claiming Clinton made mistakes while president, can you do the same about Bush?
An amazing post, but loaded with inaccuracies:
1) Why did Clinton need to confirm if he wasnt' lying?
2) The inspectors were there in Iraq, Clinton removed those inspectors and committed an act of war against Iraq for those facilities (400 cruise missiles) I guess there was plenty confirmation, eh?
3) In January 2003 - 2 months before the war - Hans Blix testified that there were "strong indications" of WMDs and that UN Weapons inspectors discovered "several thousand chemical rockets" in January 2003 and several were "missing". He also stated that Saddam was no cooperating.
4) Bill Clinton said that it was "incontestable" that there were stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq in 2000 that were unaccounted for.
I opposed the war, still do. For the reason that "what do you do afterward"? That's what's happening now. Horrible. However, to accuse Bush of lying when virtually every Democrat said there were WMDs (you previously said "some"). There are 48 Dem Senators and 225 +/- Dem Reps and you won't find 10 that said there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Ace,
1) Because Clinton, unlike Bush, is more thoughtful in his approach to governing. He wanted confirmation of these WMDs before he would think of invading against current UN resolutions.
2) I'm pretty sure the inspectors were asked to leave by Saddam. Also, I have tried to find a link to the 400 cruise missles sent by Clinton and I have been unable to find it in the past. Please provide a link to this story.
3) And what was Blix's recommendation? More time for the inspectors to do their job. And the chemical missles were just the casings, no chemicals were found to the best of my recollection.
4) Again, he pushed for UN inspectors not invasion. The difference between Clinton and Bush.
I am not going to argue about which senators and reps said what. It appears that the information provided to them was skewed when they were asked to vote.
...There are 48 Dem Senators and 225 +/- Dem Reps and you won't find 10 that said there were no WMDs in Iraq. Posted by Ace1 on July 22, 2005 at 12:13 PM
ace(1...n) and all...
comments are not on original topic:
'S' Stands for 'Secret'
Posted by Josh McConaha on July 21, 2005 at 12:24 PM
...i’m not the blog police nor its monitor...but this (clinton and demos) is not strand’s topic...just suggestin’ take it to open thread...or am i missin’ somethin’?
in the meantime, i’ll move to new thread for today:
Rove and Libby: Perjurers?
Bloomberg is reporting today that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby gave testimony to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak scandal that directly contradicts accounts given by reporters...
Posted by Jesse Berney at 10:22 AM | Comments (3)
MSNasquatch,
Let's stay on topic: Did Blix and the Democrats say there were WMDs in Iraq before the war? I don't care what Blix recommended.
1) Did Bill Clinton get confirmation of those 11 WMD facilities?
2) http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/iraq/
Click on "facts at a glance" You don't remember Operation Desert Fox? Wow....
3)Blix said NOTHING about shells. Blix said "chemical rockets"
4)Why more inspections if WMDs don't exist?
5)Bill Clinton signed the "Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998" citing regime change in Iraq. Why? Was it a failed policy?
6)Is it a "thoughtful approach" to launch over 400 cruise missiles?
Ace,
First of all, thanks for the post, I had been trying to find that before.
1) Yes, Clinton must have believed there were WMD facilities.
2) Yes, he launched a cruise missle and air strike attack against said facilities.
3) Ace, the rockets found could have been used to launch chemicals but they did not find the chemicals, just the rockets.
4) I won't argue that people thought they may have existed. But Rummy said he knew where the WMDs were and the inspectors checked all of those sites and found nothing. The inspectors believed that Saddam had complied with ending his WMD program and that he destroyed any stockpiles.
5) The act wanted to create regime change through means other than invasion. Please don't cherry pick info from the document as I have read it. they wanted to support ouster of Saddam through local dissentors.
6) It saved US soldier lives and generated few civilian casualties which is in start contrast to the current situation.
I'm out for a bit, but will be back later to continue.
MSNasquatch,
Ok...civil responses...Cool.
I don't know how much longer I will be able to post in here....I won't be logging on any more. Anyway, I have enjoyed the debate.
A couple things:
As I said before, I opposed the war. I think our intelligence agencies could have tracked Saddam selling WMDs...However, I honestly believe Bush thinks turning Iraq into a Democracy helps the situation. I doubt he expected the insurgency. I think it was either Scharwzkopf or someone else that said: "All war plans change right after the first bullet is fired". Hind-sight is always 20/20.
Secondly, "thoughtful approaches" very seldom ever win wars. Its an ugly thing. After all of Clinton's bombs, UN Weapons inspectors still suspected WMDs.
Anyway, I enjoyed the debate and I won't be too obnoxious in the future...
See ya.
I am a classic. I'm a true Christian who doesn't believe in starting wars unless you are attacked.
I really find it odd that we have to be discussing this at all. The leader of the world's so called last superpower screwed up royally. Not since Napoleon at Waterloo has the world seen a commander-in-chief mess up so bad.
He didn't check to see if his intel was right before marching into war and making a fool of himself. He didn't halt the invasion when the inspectors were coming up with nothing. And he allowed two of his top advisors to out the name/idenity of a CIA agent during the time of war... in retaliation for exposing his incompetence.
And remember, he is the best the Republicans have. It's not about Hans Blix or Bill Clinton. It's about the man who would be king.
My favorite Cheney fixed intel, AceI? His assertion that Saddam was using mobile chemical weapons labs. Chemical Ali on wheels. Turned out to be weather tracking equipment.
It's been years since I've been in a chemistry lab, but I recall you don't jolt certain mixtures or they blow up. Why would any scientist be using an RV for experiments? A camaflauged underground bunker maybe? But an RV? It sounded so ridiculous, it had to be made up.
No wonder Powell threw it across the hotel room when they gave it to him a few days before his UN presentation. You don't fool military generals with that sort of BS. But it was enough to fool 51% of the voters.
I can invision how Bolton came up with it. He couldn't give Cheney what he wanted, because there wasn't anything to report. So he told the CIA staff to get out the latest satilite photos and compare them for any movement over a few months. Troop movements, convoys, that sort of thing. All they could come up with were these RVs....shieks on vacation?
He then conducted a brainstorming session with one of those conservative think tanks to come up with an explanation that sounded scarey enough that Cheney would approve it. Rove added the finishing touches.
The Explanation was more important than the photos. It gave them enough cover to get the last remaining troops in position for the already planned assault. Turkey and most of Iraq's other neighbors weren't as impressed and pulled out of the coalition. The rest is history.
Ace1,
Stop distracting the issue. The fact is Bush knowingly lied to Congress and the proof is right in plain view.
Lets not talk about Clinton anymore. He lied didn't he, and so did Bush. Cheney fixed the "intelligence & facts" around the policy, and there are mountains of evidence of it.
Everything else you say is irrelevant.
The CIA was in undercover NOC status, their cover was blown. Everything else said is irrelevant. An act of treason was committed here and the american people are going to get underneath it. And the Bush admin can't scream "plausible deniability" anymore....By actively participating, they are culpable. Remember ENRON was desintegrated. The truth will bring down all the criminals.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Advance_Colleague_of_outed_agent_seeks_to_setrecord_st_0722.html
PNAC has used you like a pawn, you should feel ashamed and disgusted. You should hate your own foolish decisions soon, because PNAC would love to dispatch of you and anyone else who gets in the way.
nick
The weapons and VC were destroyed and it was confirmed by the CIA and Foreign Intelligence Service.
http://www.tribweb.co.uk/ritter02082002.htm
The bottom line is Saddom complied with all resolutions and the little anthrax that was left was taken out.
nick
MEME FOR THE DEMOCRATS:
REPUBLICANS NOW SOFT ON TREASON, LOW ON VALUES!
Keep repeating that, remember who engaged in the illegal war and has fully compromised our nation's security. Stand up at every chance you get, and keep drilling home the same point. Never back off of it.
nick
"lets stay on topic" you say "ace" and in that true-to-form, sadly boring, style veer so completely away from the topic, you reveal yourself the miserable, obstructionist liar you apparently are. Rove is the saddest, sleaziest form of traior and coward. Pushing my friends and relatives to die, when he he probably couldn't piss straight, much less fire a rifle. I suspect the same of you, "ace".
cody,
Hate is dripping from every syllable you utter. We can't be more please that you are a voice for the Democratic Party.
Here's a challenge: Cite any lie I have told. This oughta be fun.
Rove pushed your friends and relatives to die? Huh? Where do you guys come up with this stuff?
I seem to remember a vote from Congress on using force against Iraq....You can't hide from all of those Democrats who voted "yes".
Promise me you will stay a Democrat.
nick,
I have a question: The date of that article from Scott Ritter is August 2, 2002. This article, as you claim, proves Iraq didn't have WMDs and was not a threat.
Would you please tell me why John Edwards - in October 2002 - said that Saddam was a threat to the United States and urged the President to go to war against Iraq?
John Edwards: "Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."
From Meet the Press: "MR. RUSSERT: I think what confuses people, Senator, is that there seems to be a difference in rhetoric and emphasis. Back in October of 2002, you voted to authorize the country to go to war. In fact, you said this about Saddam: "I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
I will patiently wait for your reponse.
As it's turned out, everyone was making judgments with Cheney/Bolton's fixed intel. If Congress had known it was fixed, they would never have approved this half-baked neocon dream.
There were no WMDs, no mobile chemical labs, and no armed long-ranged missiles. There were thousands of pounds of conventional arms that Rumsfeld ordered our troops to ignore and those are the very ones being used to kill our troops even today.
If our soliders had secured those sites, the insurgents would not be terrorizing Iraqi civilans. What did Rumsfeld say about his order to ignore the looting? "Democracy can be a little messy sometimes." And he smiled when he said it.
It all goes back to this memo that gave them a way to discredit the whistleblower who exposed their fixed intel strategy...in hopes of throwing the hounds off the scent. Lord help them, if the voters ever really understood the scam they orchestrated using our military personnel as pawns.
But the hounds are on the scent now with one of their own in jail. Once the trials begin, they will be the lead story every damned day. And when the perjurers begin to plea bargin, there will be more trials and maybe an impeachment or two.
Ace, you are correct. Hate is dripping from every sylable I utter. No I am not the voice of the Democratic party, I just do't like people like you. And no I will not cite your lies, because I don't need to. You know you are a liar, and so does everyone else here. Why don't you enlist, instead of sitting there striking up friendly debate with people who don't like you?
Ace, I don't hate you - I just have no respect for you. I can see how pleased you are with yourself, and I don't need to prove that you are a liar, because you already know you are a liar. Why don't you enlist? Oh yeah, you're a coward too.
cody,
I knew you wouldn't be able to cite any lie I told.
Thanks for playing.
Democrats as bipartisans gave the President the benefit of the doubt by joining with Republicans to support the President. They didn't independently support the stance on WMD, they only in good faith chose to support the Republican stand & conclusion about the WMD which turned out to be wrong. They supported the President and are now being criticized for it, they are damned if they support him and damned if they don't. So fellow Democrats, just stand up for the truth. The truth doesn't seem to fit the Republican agenda. They don't seem too interested in the truth coming forward now on a vast number of important issues.
I'm not 'playing' with you ace, I'm serious. I imagine most of us are serious here. This is a serious matter we're talking about. And thats why you want to "play" , because you are an arrogant little dirtbag, and you can't handle it. And those dirtbags you look up to are going down. Sorry "Ace" - but I tell you what, you tell me why you won't join up and go fight this war you love so much, and I'll cite a lie you've told.
Ok Ace, My fault, you say you were against the war - I called you a dirtbag, that was wrong. So it's on me - So just keep running that big yap, and you will slip up soon. Republicans lie, because you have to lie to get things done. Because you don't really represent your own base. You are very good at lying though, but you will slip, and I will catch you.
j5,
You're way off base.
Your party said Iraq had WMDs in 1998. Virtually every elected Democrat said Iraq had WMDs in 2003.
Bill Clinton said there were "11 WMD producing factilies" in Iraq in 1998. Is it your contention that Iraq was producing massive amounts of WMDs in 1998, then in 2001, they magically disappeared?
Do you realize how silly that sounds?
Here I am Joy mongering at Democrats.org! You guys have to stop by here! ;)
First, I've got a few questions for you, Ace1 or Ace. Why did Bush have to lie to go to war? If his pretenses were so pure and legitimate, why couldn't he have just told the truth? Why were the WMD documents from Niger feigned? They did not even have the letterhead to be from the government of Niger. They were also supposedly from a government official from Niger who has been out of office for decades now. Why did the Bush Administration have to create a story about a connection between al Quaeda and the Ba'ath Party of Iraq? Osama bin Laden openly despised Saddam and reffered to him as an infidel. There is also no real evidence of any meeting between the two orginizations. Why did Colin Powell have to use sattelite video images of a pre-1991 weapons plant to justify his claim to the UN that Saddam had continued building WMDs again? If war was Bush's last resort to go to war, then why do the Downing Street Memos prove differently?
Secondly, I will respond to your claim that Senator John Edwards supported the war in 2002. The fact is that almost every American supported the war in Iraq. We still had the fear that the September 11th attacks imposed on the American people. Many Democrats gave their trust and support to President Bush's policies and approved of the Bush Administration's tactics on the war on terror. It was not until former counterterrorism expert Richard A. Clarke spoke up about what had really gone on. There was no justification for the war. Bush used our post 9/11 fear to his own advantage to pursue his personal agenda. He was planning to invade Iraq ever since he took office. Now, thousands have died because of Bush's lies about Iraq, our paper thin military has been stretched even farther, and we are further diverted from the having Afghanistan under control and catching Osama bin Laden and other key al Quaeda leaders. You may want to argue that the world is safer without Saddam Hussein, but the reality is that we are not. The reality is that Bush and his consrvative allies have created a new breeding ground for terrorists, wasted billions of dollars on a war that did not need to be fought, lead thousands of unarmored troops to die (I do not care about Rumsfeld's philosophy about going to war with the army you have), have put the innocent civilians of Iraq in danger of the attacks by the growing insurgency, and have further stained our reputation in the world. So spare me the lame rhetoric about Bill Clinton this an Bill Clinton that. It seems to be the right wing's last resort. Face the fact that it was Bush, not Clinton, who put our country into an unnecessary war. I appreciate you sharing your views and I look forward to reading your response.
Floyd,
Factually, you are about to get blown out of the water.
a) Bush did not lie about WMDs in Iraq. To accuse Bush of lying about WMDs, you must have evidence that Bush KNEW there were no WMDs in Iraq before the war started. Do you have such evidence?
b) Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam tried to purchase uranium from Niger..." The British Government most CERTAINLY made that claim. Now, cite the lie Bush told.
c) The Senate Intelligence Report slams Wilson for that claim of his.
d) You're a liar. "Thousands of unarmored troops" have not been killed.
I hate to tell you, but you can't run from Clinton and the other Democrat's words on WMDs. Well..I guess you can and it will keep on costing you elections. You see, to be a Democrat, you've got to try to convince the American Public that Iraq had WMDs up until 2000, then they magically disappeared when Bush was in office. Did you forget about Hans Blix's testimony? Clinton said there were "11 WMD producing facilities in Iraq in 1998". Where are those WMDs? Was Clinton lying?
You people don't get it. Playing politics with national security will get you beat every time. The GOP keeps gaining seats and winning the White House. You and Dick Durbin keep comparing our troops to Nazi's. Howard Dean says "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for". How many Red States are you going to win with hatred?
The facts are not your friends on WMDs.
Are people familiar with the concept of "lipstick on the pig". It is a term used to represent the fact that the republicans mislead the public and misrepresent facts and details to confuse an issue to the point that it looks good. They take a pig (a policy or issue that most Americans would not support) and smear lipstick on it to make it look good. Example 1: The clear skies initiative. Example 2: invasion of iraq. Both were pigs. Both were sold with half truths, confusion and (in some cases) outright lies. Everyone should know they are going to smear lipstick on this Rove/leak issue and try to make it look acceptable to the American public. Be ready. That is coming.
Republicans sold Americans their "pig" at the repubican national convention. We must educate people so they can see past the lipstick. Just for fun, see the following. Make up your own if you like.
Regarding that republican convention:
Ya know, no matter how much lipstick you smear on a pig, some people will still refuse to kiss it.
When this convention is done, there won’t be any pig lipstick left.
They slapped so much lipstick on this pig, it was beginning to look like Katherine Harris.
Karl Rove: “I think if we put a little more lipstick on this pig, it could fly.”
Dick Cheney, “Maybe if we put lipstick on both ends of this pig we can convince more people.” If you don’t agree, “f” you.
George Bush, “these are serious times, we need a serious leader. Should we use pink or red lipstick on the pig tonight?”
Zell Miller, “I used to hate lipstick…but on this pig, it looks pretty good. Gimme a kiss, honey.”
Laura Bush, “Uhhm… don’t walk behind the pig, George. Just because we put lipstick on it does not mean it is house trained.”
Condi, “George, I asked the people of Europe if they liked our pig. They said they like their bacon with a little salt.”
Scott McClellan, “George, the pig made a mess in the oval office. Should I try to blame it on Clinton, or leave it for the next administration?”
Dick Cheney, “Hey George, when this convention is over, I’m gonna send this pig to Haliburton so they can feed it to our troops. Is $3,000 per pound too much?”
George Bush (Sr.), “Read my lips, this pig has wings”.
Arnold, “I am taking the pig for a walk. I’ll be back.”
George Bush, “Karl, do you think anyone will notice that this is a pig even though we have smeared it with lipstick?
Karl, “No, we’ll have Fox News tell the American people it’s a unicorn.”
Chris Mathews, “Karl, where did you get your degree from?”
Karl, “pig state university”
Question: How many pigs does it take to run this country.
Answer: Under George Bush… 2
things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
as soon as frist announce he was for stem cell research bush calls him into his closet.....wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall for that meeting?
Ace,
I must hand it to you: you are a very good at arguing. I respect you very much for your reply to my recent comment. However in reality, I was right about Bush lying about weapons of mass destruction. I do not need to cite evidence that proves that Bush new that there were no WMD in Iraq. Reality is that Bush had no evidence showing that Saddam had WMD. Asserting something even if you really do not know what the truth is is still lying. If I did not know if my brother had bought a new shirt today, it would still be lying if I asserted that he did. T make an assertion while being ignorant of the truth (or indifferent to the truth in Bush's case) is still lying.
Regarding your second point in your case agianst me, Bush said in his State of the Union Address that the British government has learned that Saddam did purchase WMD from Niger. Bush went along with the faulty evidence which means that he participated in the lie. Also no matter who obtained the documents it does not change the fact that they are fake. Also you did not respond to my claim about the Downing Strret Memos. If this war was so legitimate, what did Bush have to hide?
Thirdly, Wilson reported that Niger did not sell uranium to Saddam Hussein. This of course caused Bush and his cronies to get their panties up in a bunch and illegally blow the cover of Wilson's wife Valerie Plame. Karl Rove, Bob Novak, and whoever else who took part in the illegal disclosure of an undercover CIA operative should be sent to prison.
On the fourth point you got me. I apologize for my claim that thousands of unarmored troops have died. I now know that I was wrong on that claim. Thousands of people (civilians and soldiers on both side) have died and many troops and vehicles lack sufficient armor. I'm sorry that I did not investigate that case more thoroughly before trying to use it. However it is unacceptable that our soldiers do not have the right body armor and armor for their vehicles. It has gotten to the point that U.S. troops are salvaging armor from old Iraqi tanks. It was completely despicable how Donald Rumsfeld replied to a soldier who asked him why there was not funding for proper armor. If Bush had not decided to go overboard with the tax cuts, there could still be funding for armor for our troops. So much for supporting the troops on Bush's part.
For your forth point you should have listened to me about cutting the Bill Clinton rhetoric. Bill Clinton never said that Iraq had WMD. He said that Saddam had the capabilty to produce weapons of mass destruction. "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." Bill Clinton, Feb.4, 1998. He said nothing about Saddam actually having the WMDs. The airstrikes that Clinton ordered were successful in the fact that they destroyed the plants in which the WMDs could have been made. There is no evidence that the Ba'ath Party of Iraq resumed production of WMD after the airstrikes that Clinton ordered. And for the other Democrats who said that Iraq possessed WMD, they were only speaking upon the falls claims given to them by the Bush Administration. Next time, please leave Bill Clinton out of the arguement unless he is directly relevent to the points being discussed.
And fifth, I don't see how your claim that Democrats are playing politics with national security holds any water. Democrats do not raise the terror alert level in hope of drawing political favor. Only the GOP does that. Democrats did not use America's fear and vulnerablity to fulfill their sick personal goals. That was Bush all the way. Also, Dick Durbin did not compare every U.S. troop to a Nazi. He said that various torture techinques that have taken place at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo resembled torture techniques used in concentration camps due to their sadistic and inhumane nature. About Howard Dean saying that he hates Republicans, I must agree with you that is was not a good thing to say. However on a session of "Wolf Blitzter Reports" on CNN, Dean clarified his poorly worded comments. He said that he does not hate the voters who vote Republican, but he hates the Bush Administration and the terrible things that they are doing to our country. I don't see why Dean enrages so many right wingers. First, the right criticized the Democrats for not having a spine and now that we have one they are all bent out of shape. It never ceases to amaze me. It seems that the facts are my friends on WMD. I must say that I am enjoying our civil and factual debate. A Republican capable of intelligent debating is hard to find these days. You are rare. I hope to read your reply soon, Ace.
Floyd,
I appreciate your response, however, I will respectfully disagree. (expect no condescension from me)
You said the following: "Asserting something even if you really do not know what the truth is is still lying. "
By your logic, John Kerry, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton were lying. They all said Iraq had WMDs.
Let's visit Bill Clinton's bombing of "11 WMD producing facilities" in Iraq in 1998. Its difficult for us GOPers to understand why you guys claim Bush was lying about WMDs when Clinton said Saddam had a thriving WMD operation in 1998. To be a Democrat, you've got to try to convince the American Public that Saddam had WMDs thru 2000, but when Bush got in office, those WMDs magically disappeared. Doesn't pass the "Sounds Right Test".
Furthermore, Hans Blix testified before the UN on January 26, 2003 - 2 months before the war - that there were "strong indications" of WMDs in Iraq and that "several thousand chemical rockets" were discovered in Iraq in January 2003 and many were missing.
My personal opinion is the Democrats lost in '04 by saying the GOP was lying about WMDs even tho Democrats made the identical claims. If you would have had a Dem candidate say "I believe there were WMDs, but war was not the answer", he might've won.
This is from 1998: "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Henry Shelton said the sites hit during the first bombing wave included weapons of mass destruction and barracks belonging to the Iraqi Republican Guard."
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/18/iraq.strike.02/index.html Paragraph 36.
Many Democrats claim that there were no WMDs after 1991. What was Clinton bombing?
Its easy to say after the fact that there were no WMDs....Hindsight is always 20/20.
It boils down to this: President Bush, the frame of mind of the 911 attacks, took what appears to be faulty intelligence and removed Saddam Hussein. The Democrats said "ok" because they knew it would damage them politically. Now, after WMDs are not found, the Democrats have reversed position and accuse Bush of lying. 61 million people saw through that bs. Then there's Dick Durbin....Talk about the most offensive Senator in US History...Comparing our troops to Nazi's....disgusting.
Later.
Floyd,
Maybe you can help me out: I've asked this question to Chicago 100 times and still haven't gotten an answer.
If there were no WMDs in Iraq after 1991, were the 11 WMD producing facilities that Bill CLinton bombed in 1998 closed for 7 years? That is a "yes" or "no" question that I can't get an answer from Chicago. He certainly isn't in your league.
I gave up on that coward moons ago....I was wonder if you would answer.....
Ace,
Democrats who supported the war (not all did) were under the faulty intelligence that they received from the president. After former counterterrorism expert Richard A. Clarke spoke up and said that Iraq had no WMDs and that Saddam posed no threat, many Democrats stopped believing Bush and stopped supporting the war. Let me ask you this. If someone gave you information and you later found out that it was not true, would you still go on believing them, or would you stand by the truth? Democrats were not playing politics with Iraq, they were merely stating the truth and attacking the liars.
To your other point that Clinton claimed that there were WMD in Iraq in 1998: I have found no evidence that he ever did. He was given the information that Iraq was going to resume production of WMDs. The reason that he ordered the airstrikes was to take out the sites that had the capabilities to produce them. The bombings were successful because they foiled Saddam's nuclear program. Clinton said that Iraq had a WMD program, not the actual weapons. There is no evidence that Saddam resumed the manufacturing of the WMDs after the 1998 bombings. So no, Clinton did not order bombings on Iraqi weapons labs that had been closed for seven years.
Also, Dick Durbin never compared our troops to Nazis. It was the torture tactics used at prisons such as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib that he compared to the torture tactics at concentration camps.I cannot see how Republicans can justify what happened at Abu Ghraib. Why does the right feel that the Geneva conventions should not apply to these prisoners? This is a war isn't it?
For the record, I have responded to Ace1 (aka Neal) on every posting of his question on the 11 bombs. Eventually, I went as far as numbering the responses so I could just post the numbers so all could go back and read my response without me having to type it all over again. He just cannot deal with the answer. So he has switched to a different blog section where he hopes people will not realize that all his half truths, false quotes otherwise unsubstantiated claims have been debunked. I will be getting many of those a little later. But just to set the record straight. So there can be no confusion. I went to the source. I got out a copy of "My Life" by William J. Clinton. He addresses the issue on pages 833 and 834. The following is what he says.
We bid the prime minister farewell and flew home to another conflict. Six days earlier, on just the second day of renewed UN inspections in Iraq, some inspectors had been denied access to Saddam’s Ba’ath Party headquarters. On the day we returned to Washington, the chief UN weapons inspector, Richard Butler, reported to Kofi Annan that Iraq had not kept its commitments to cooperate with him and had even imposed new restrictions on the inspectors’ work.
The next day the United States and the United Kingdom launched a series of attacks from airplanes and with cruise missiles on Iraq’s suspected chemical, biological, and nuclear lab sites and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. In my address to the American people that evening I noted that Saddam had previously used chemical weapons on Iranians and Kurds in northern Iraq and had fired Scud missiles at other countries. I said I had called off an attack four weeks earlier because Saddam had promised full compliance. Instead, the inspectors had repeatedly been threatened, “so Iraq has abused its final chance.”
At the time the strikes were launched, our intelligence indicated that substantial amounts of biological and chemical materials that had been in Iraq at the end of the Gulf War as well as some missile warheads were still unaccounted for, and that some elementary laboratory work toward acquiring a nuclear weapon was being done. Our military experts felt that unconventional weapons might have become even more important to Saddam because his conventional military forces were much weaker than they had been before the Gulf War.
My national security team was unanimous in the belief that we should hit Saddam as soon as the Butler report was issued, to minimize the chances that Iraq could disperse its forces and protect its biological and chemical stocks. Tony Blair and his advisors agreed. The Angol-American assault lasted four days, with 650 air sorties and 400 cruise missiles, all carefully targeted to hit military and national security targets and to minimize civilian casualties. After the attack we had no way to know how much of the proscribed material had been destroyed, but Iraq’s ability to produce and deploy dangerous weapons had plainly been reduced.
Any questions???
When someone tells you it is a "yes or no question", it almost always means they are afraid of the truth. Seldom are issues black and white. Reality is not black and white, it involves all the colors of the rainbow in all the shades and nuances. Unfortunately, the republicans want to "dumb down" every issue into a "yes or no", "black or white", "dead or alive", "with us or against us" issue so they can convince the easily confused.
Issue 01 (for future reference)
Ace1 claimed:
By your logic, John Kerry, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton were lying. They all said Iraq had WMDs.
Chicago response:
Neal, please provide your evidence (if indeed you have any) for when they indicated they knew Iraq had WMD’s. Most democratic politicians are at least careful in what words they use. They try to be factual. So, for example, they do not claim they “know” Iraq has WMD’s. They claim they “suspect” Iraq has WMD’s if they do not know it. Bush, on the other hand, was intent on “fixing the data”. In his attempts to sway public opinion, he had his minions tell the people that they knew Iraq had WMD’s. Therefore, since Iraq did not have WMD’s they were lying. Can you understand the difference? It has been explained to you on numerous occaisions on various blogs.
Issue 02
Ace1 claimed:
Let's visit Bill Clinton's bombing of "11 WMD producing facilities" in Iraq in 1998. Its difficult for us GOPers to understand why you guys claim Bush was lying about WMDs when Clinton said Saddam had a thriving WMD operation in 1998. To be a Democrat, you've got to try to convince the American Public that Saddam had WMDs thru 2000, but when Bush got in office, those WMDs magically disappeared. Doesn't pass the "Sounds Right Test".
Chicago response
Please show me your evidence that demonstrates that Clinton “said Saddam had a thriving WMD operation in 1998”. I provided the post before which indicates Clinton’s claim. Exactly what he said is,
“The next day the United States and the United Kingdom launched a series of attacks from airplanes and with cruise missiles on Iraq’s suspected chemical, biological, and nuclear lab sites and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”
“Suspected”! As we have seen continiously in your posts, you take extreme liberty with mis-quoting and incorrectly paraphrasing people’s words. Clinton never said what you say he said. And you have been corrected on many occasions but you continue to misconstrue what people say in lame attempts to support your case. AND, Clinton’s strike in 1998 was due to the fact that Saddam was not living up to his agreement for full access to the inspectors. It was a show of force because Clinton understood that force was the only thing Saddam understood. If only our president in 2003 had been as smart. No Americans died as a result of Clinton’s attack. Innocent Iraq casualties were minimized. To be a republican, you have to misquote people, and paraphrase incorrectly to try to convince them that democrats lie like republicans do. AND you have to try to convince them that a four day attack where the US suffered NO casualties, is the same as this invasion were we have lost well over a THOUSAND! As would be expected you are failing miserably in your attempts.
Issue 03
Ace1 Claim
Furthermore, Hans Blix testified before the UN on January 26, 2003 - 2 months before the war - that there were "strong indications" of WMDs in Iraq and that "several thousand chemical rockets" were discovered in Iraq in January 2003 and many were missing.
Chicago response
I have caught you at this lie before. Here is my response from a previous post:
Chicago response: No.
Here is what the article says
“In addition, Blix said several thousand chemical rockets like those inspectors discovered earlier this month remain unaccounted for, and about 3,000 pages of documents relating largely to uranium enrichment programs are in the possession of an Iraqi scientist.
So Blix did NOT testify that they found several thousand chemical rockets.
I caught your sorry butt in this misrepresentation of what Blix said. And here you are again making the exact same misrepresentation on a different blog. How shameful. It could be an honest mistake the first time, but this time, it is a lie.
Issue 04
Ace1 Claim
My personal opinion is the Democrats lost in '04 by saying the GOP was lying about WMDs even tho Democrats made the identical claims. If you would have had a Dem candidate say "I believe there were WMDs, but war was not the answer", he might've won.
Chicago response
Doubt that anyone on the planet is really concerned about your opinion after your demonstrated lack of credibility on various of these blogs. But it would seem that one of the reasons the republicans did not get canned in ’04 was because the WMD reports had not been concluded. As most of us know now, those reports found that Iraq had no WMD’s. Of course those reports were controlled by the party in charge and they have demonstrated that they are very good at misleading the American people. But now the American people know. Good luck in ’06 and ’08. You will need more than luck. Better hope the states don’t require paper reciepts…
Issue 05
Ace1 Claim
This is from 1998: "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Henry Shelton said the sites hit during the first bombing wave included weapons of mass destruction and barracks belonging to the Iraqi Republican Guard."
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/18/iraq.strike.02/index.html Paragraph 36.
Chicago response
Some of this is so simple (unless of course you are trying to defend Bush). First, we know there were no WMD’s so it is possible Shelton was incorrect. Doubtful since if they had hit a WMD site, they probably would have known from the debris. We know from the Clinton post I provided earlier that the targets were “suspected” WMD production sites. So perhaps Shelton was just not clear in that they were targeting suspected WMD production sites and instead just said WMD sites. The bottom line is that they did not know and they did not tell the American people that they knew that Iraq had WMD’s. The Bush administration, on the other hand told the world that they knew Iraq had WMD’s, they said they knew how much they had, and they knew where they were. Lies.
Issue 06
Many Democrats claim that there were no WMDs after 1991. What was Clinton bombing?
Chicago response
See quote from My Life by William J. Clinton provided earlier to understand what Clinton was bombing.
And it is not just the “democrats” that make the claim that there were no WMD’s in Iraq after 1991. As I provided to Ace earlier (and he has run from) see the following:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.
In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
I provided this to ace before. He knew the facts. Why is he pretending that “the democrats claim…” Sad.
Issue 07
Ace Claim
Its easy to say after the fact that there were no WMDs....Hindsight is always 20/20.
Chicago response
The difference is really pretty simple. The democrats did not lie. They did not claim they “knew” when they did not. They did not change wording on state of the union addresses so that they could tell the American people that Iraq was trying to by uranium. Rather than removing the statements about the uranium, Bush changed it to, “the British have learned”. Why? The CIA had him remove that statement from earlier speeches because they doubted its accuracy. He changed the wording so he could include it in the state of the union. Dishonest and immoral. Is there any doubt remaining that he was fixing the data? We have high ranking administration officials indicating that Bush was intent on attacking Iraq shortly after he was put in office. We have the downing street memo which indicates he was going to fix the data. We have the statements from the Bush administration claiming they “knew” Iraq had WMD’s. And we have the reports that indicate that there were no WMD’s. It’s all there. Its obvious.
Issue 08
Ace1 Claim
It boils down to this: President Bush, the frame of mind of the 911 attacks, took what appears to be faulty intelligence and removed Saddam Hussein. The Democrats said "ok" because they knew it would damage them politically. Now, after WMDs are not found, the Democrats have reversed position and accuse Bush of lying. 61 million people saw through that bs. Then there's Dick Durbin....Talk about the most offensive Senator in US History...Comparing our troops to Nazi's....disgusting.
Chicago response
BS.
It boils down to this. The Bush administration was intent on attacking Iraq when they were put in office (before 9/11). They lied about Iraq’s involvement in 9/11. The Bush administration lied to the American people about Iraq’s WMD’s and “fixed the data to justify the war.” See the downing street memo. They attacked anyone who spoke against their position (such as Joe Wilson). They attacked Democrats as being unpatriotic if they opposed the war. After 2003, we now know, there were no WMD’s. There was no involvement in 9/11. We know about the downing street memo. We know about Karl Rove outing Plame. Look at the polls. The American people are catching on. Fox news ain’t gonna save you this time. 61 million people saw through the lies last time. The number will be much higher this time. And you know it.
Lastly, I would just like to say that it is important that we educate everyone as to what the facts are. Many Americans who voted republican last time are simply being duped by the republicna party, FOX news, Rush Limbaugh and the like. It is important that they get the information so they can make an educated, informed choice. If they do, they will vote for the Democrats. Ace is not one of those individuals. I have corrected him on multiple occaisions only to see him post the same incorrect and misleading statements again and again. He is not being duped. He is one of the dupers. His interest is not in the truth, but rather to spread confusion. Those people need to be exposed. I hope I have done that tonight. Americans need the truth so they can decide.
« Hide Comments
Comments are now closed for this entry.
