[ghost_flash]

Democratic Candidates call for investigation into Iraq and how "Bush mislead us on Iraq"

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/061903A.shtml

This should be interesting.

[maxelson]

Indeed it will.
One thing is for sure: no thorough independent investigation will be conducted while the present administration is in office.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by maxelson:
One thing is for sure: no thorough independent investigation will be conducted while the present administration is in office.

Ditto for the 9/11 attacks.

Just think of all the books that will be written once the Bush administration is over.

[MacOSR]

I can only see two positions to take for the Democrats that voted for the war.

They claim they were mislead by Bush and gave him a "rubber-stamp" yes vote. If this is the case they are admitting they did not do their job.

If these same people had been critical of Bush by saying "he doesn't know what he is doing" prior to their vote then they are further admitting that they used the war politically...or they were simply spewing political rhetoric when they were saying "he doesn't know what he is doing."

While I agree with investigating our intelligence on the war to simply blame this on the President you would be foolish. Congress has equal responsibility for this.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by MacOSR:
While I agree with investigating our intelligence on the war to simply blame this on the President you would be foolish. Congress has equal responsibility for this.

President Bush isn't going to spend his campaign lauding what a great job Congress did in allowing him to invade Iraq; he's going to tell folks it was his leadership that brought it on, and that he should be rewarded for it with a second term. What's good for the goose ... etc.

Besides, it's not like it was Congress' idea to invade Iraq, was it? I don't recall any Congressional resolution urging Bush to get off his ass already and start sending troops into Baghdad.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Another great business opportunity:

Best Sellers
Top 10
Awards
New York Times' Reader's Reviews
Secrets of the FBI and CIA and NSA Special Forces Diaries
The Insider's version
"I-Told-You-So-Polemists"
"I-Told-You-So- Anarchists"
Pulitzer Prizes
Reader's Digest Special Edition
Collector's Photo Album
Director's Cut
Special Edition
Director's Cut Special Edition
Ultimate Director's Cut Special Edition
Iraq's Conspiracy: The Comic Book

etc.

(I'm leaving the t-shirts, toothbrushes, wallets and Jerrycans with a picture of Bush and Hussein kissing for myself because I want to patent these for personal mercantile projects because I am a Christian and a Humanist and plan early retirement).

Man...

Pain: It doe$ you g$$d!!


Thank God for tough lives and the Innocent!
Another opportunity to

C-A-S-H
I-T
I-N !

Smackdown on Misery!

Yeah!

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by MacOSR:
I can only see two positions to take for the Democrats that voted for the war...

The only people dumber than the idiot are the people following him.

[FeLiZeCaT]

If politicians are nothing more than corporate puppets, then seems like this one is heading slowly to the bin.

It is very difficult for me not to be very sarcastic about the whole issue of power-government-democracy synergy.

Nothing is really improving from one leader to another. The interests are always limited to a few people's gains...

These days, we see more and more people uniting behind the idea that Bush did a "bad job".

Suddenly, it calls for an investigation. About that war in Iraq.

Still, no one found bin Laden (apparently); where is the investigation?
Afghanistan was invaded; where is the investigation?
America is going for bankruptcy (or something like that); where is the investigation?
Lots of "terrorists" were arrested, but nothing public came out of it; where is the investigation?
People are going to be scrutinized in a way not different from the KGB's techniques; where is the investigation?

Again, the "Powers That Be" is showing more smoke screens and blinding lights and I really wonder what we are going to lose again.

We'll gain a new president (clapclap) with another hidden agenda (corporate interests that financed his ascension to power) and the whole charade wil start all over again...

More innocents will die.
More jobs will be lost in the industrialized countries to be transferred in the poorest, enslaving again more people (enslaving because they will be paid a very low wage while the savings from the transfer could enable much higher income).
And about the same group of people might get away with it.

Again.

I mean, we have been feeding these people for such a long time, they have been using us for so long...

I don't want to be a millionaire but, how are we going to make this a better world? How is this investigation going to make things better?

I can't see that.

Amazingly enough, OJ Simpson's Court process had amazing TV coverage.

Enron: how much exactly?

IraqGate: do you really think that'll go public? Not unless Bush is played for a total fool.

And that won't happen because America is too proud of itself, especially if it makes a mistake.

Other countries are probably not that much different anyway.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[Face Ache]

The time for this was before the war, not before the election.

Same Skeletons, Different Closet

How Many People Will Die Because of This "Mistake", Senator Kerry?

By SAM HUSSEINI

Truth is the only safe ground to stand upon.

At the debate last night, John Kerry, asked to give examples of the administration's deceptiveness on the "war on terrorism," said the following:

"Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, number one. Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, number two. I mean, I -- nuclear weapons, number three. I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration...."

On Oct. 9, 2002 John Kerry participated in "a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggerations," to put it mildly. In his speech on the floor of the Senate just before voting to authorize Bush to invade Iraq, Kerry said:

"Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try? ... According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons ... Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents..."

Kerry became famous by asking senators "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Kerry is now himself a senator.

Mr. Kerry: How do you ask someone to die for your support of the invasion of Iraq? How do you ask someone to die for this mistake? More than a "mistake," how do you ask someone to die because you voted for an illegal , unconstitutional invasion? How do you ask Iraqis and Americans and others to die because you backed Bush?

How can you tell us that Bush was deceitful when you uttered many of the same falsehoods? How can you hold him accountable when you refuse to be held accountable yourself?

How can you be "electable" when you have many of the same skeletons in your closet as Bush? Do you really think the Republican machine won't cite your speech over and over again -- "Kerry claims that Bush lied when Kerry said many of the same things!" Fox will blare. Or, after you get the Democratic nomination, will you be quiet about Iraq, other than to talk about narrow issues like Halliburton -- searching for something, anything, that Bush is guilty of that you are not? You will come off as petty. Bush will come off as the visionary.

How could you have been deceived by the administration on Iraq? You tout your leadership and foreign policy experience. How could the idea of a government lying systematically about a war not been considered seriously by you,given your experience in Vietnam? How could you not know that Bush was lying even before the invasion?

How do you explain your speech -- lies in your speech that were known lies at the time.

You said:

"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. It has been with us for the last four years -- since Saddam Hussein kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors at the end of 1998. And frankly, after Operation Desert Fox failed to force Iraq to readmit inspectors, the United States - and the international community -- erred in failing to find effective ways to compel Iraqi compliance, thus giving Saddam Hussein a free hand for four years to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction programs and allowing the world to lose focus on the threat of proliferation."

Can you count the lies here? If anything, Hussein's weapons of mass destruction capability ended with the Gulf War, the exact opposite of what it claimed. Hussein did not "kick out U.N. weapons inspectors at the end of 1998." They were withdrawn by UNSCOM head Richard Butler at the behest of the Clinton administration so it could launch the "Desert Fox" bombing campaign on the eve of Clinton's scheduled impeachment vote. And "Desert Fox" did not "fail" to achieve Iraqi compliance, it succeeded in destroying UNSCOM. The U.S. government, well before Bush, clearly did not want a successful weapons inspection program. If Saddam could continue verifying his compliance, there would be more pressure to lift the draconian economic sanctions.

How can you talk of the administration rushing to war when you said:

But the Administration missed an opportunity two years ago and particularly a year ago after September 11th to address this issue. They regrettably, even clumsily, complicated their own case. The events of September 11 created a new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable. That understanding enabled the Administration to forge a broad and impressive coalition against terrorism. Had the Administration tried then to capitalize on this unity of spirit to build a coalition to disarm Iraq, we would not be debating this question now, just a few weeks before Congressional elections. The Administration's decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or earlier, and the manner in which it engaged has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of its case.

So that's what raises questions about the credibility of the administration -- the fact that they leveraged the Iraq invasion for the mid-term elections, not their pattern of lies. Mr. Kerry, you actually fault the administration for not being hawkish enough, for not immediately "capitalizing on" 9-11. It is clear that you merely offer a different flavor of U.S. corporate global control than the Bush administration.

For over a decade, no politician ever lost political ground by attacking Saddam. But you could be the first.

[boots]

2 things here.

1) Yes, congress fµcked up by giving Bush the free reign. So there SHOULD be a purge of the half that is up during this election cycle.

2) The intelligence used to convince congress to vote yes on this is the same intel that they want to investigate. In other words, given the info they had, it wasn't hard to vote yes.

So I'm of two minds on this. Surely the congress should have asked some tougher questions. But they believed what they were told, so they CAN claim to have been misled.

Oh, and Bush is also asking for an investigation *grin* so it isn't just the Dem candidates.

This should get interesting. Now that Bush has joined the call, it will be easier for him to come across as cooperative.

[kindbud]

OK, I understand.

Congressional Democrats are feeling pretty vulnerable at election time after supporting Dubya for 3 years.

"Let's just say we were duped."