PDA

View Full Version : Rice confirmation Hearings, Byrd ExplainsThe Truth



Gayle in MD
01-26-2005, 12:08 AM
I don't know how many here watch C-Span, but it is certainly worth watching our Government at work. Senator Byrd of West Virginia has outlined for us, in his presentation, the facts leading up to the war in Iraq, more thoroughly than anything I have come across.

Several other Democratic Senators who spoke were also very impressive, and informative.

I would urge anyone who is interested in a factual recounting of who said and did what, and when, not to miss his speach before the Senate commitee. It is usually repeated several times during the week. Also, it is probably displayed on the Senate web site.

Watching would certainly clear up some of the misinformation which has been posted here regarding Senator Boxer's presentation. He also demonstrates fully why our country has become so divided due to the present administration, and gives dated factual information of how the Bush administration deceived the American public, intentionally, along with the Senate and the congress.

Also, the documentary, "Uncovered, The Truth About the War in Iraq," is a compelling commentary to the same.

Gayle in Md.

Sid_Vicious
01-26-2005, 03:33 AM
"Also, the documentary, "Uncovered, The Truth About the War in Iraq," is a compelling commentary to the same."

I heard Boxer on MPR a few days back, laying out the definitive facts of what Rice stated back on one date, then a total contradiction, and not only once but a hellova a lot of total outright lies, no other word would fit, and nary a one was approached by Rice. If that'd been Bill and Monica's deal(where we put this country on hold all due to a marital "squirming out of embarrassment", NOT anything like Iraq that's killed and is still killing), well Rice makes Clinton look like The Pope.

Compelling documentary? It ought to be a judiciary panel DEMANDING Rice answer at least one untruth, and documented at that. This country is divided. There are the ones with a desire for the real truth and then you have the blind-eyed, don't care that thousands of Americans are being killed and maimed, war mongers. This is honestly the most pitiful period I've ever seen exhibited from so-called American Republicans. Case closed!!!sid

Qtec
01-26-2005, 06:05 AM
Rice on the aluminium tubes.
[ QUOTE ]
Third, on the question of aluminum tubes, we didn't go to war because of aluminum tubes. This was a debate about whether this issue, this particular piece of evidence was evidence of reconstitution of the nuclear program. And there was one agency that disagreed that he was reconstituting his nuclear program and that was the State Department, the INR.

SENATOR BIDEN: Didn't the Department of Energy also?

MS. RICE: No. The Department of Energy said that they did not believe that the tubes were evidence of reconstitution, but that he was indeed, they believed, reconstituting his program. And that's an important distinction, though. But I said "reconstituting" his program; I was not talking about the tubes. The Department of Energy, in fact I learned when the process unfolded, did have reservations - or did believe that the tubes were not for nuclear weapons. The majority of agencies in the intelligence community did.
<hr /></blockquote>

The fact is the ONLY agency that said the tubes were evidence of reconstituting was the CIA.

[ QUOTE ]
Cases: National Security
Evidence on Iraq’s Aluminum Tubes Misrepresented
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This page is an excerpt from the 2004 UCS report Scientific Integrity in Policymaking.

The George W. Bush administration’s use of faulty intelligence in making its case for war against Iraq drew much attention from the media. One particular case shows that the administration knowingly disregarded scientific analysis of intelligence data that contradicted its case.
In the weeks leading up to the war, senior administration officials repeatedly stated that Iraq had attempted to acquire more than 100,000 high strength aluminum tubes for gas centrifuges to be used for enriching uranium. Highly enriched uranium is one of the two materials that can be used to make nuclear weapons.



This claim was made by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney, and finally by President Bush on September 12, 2002, in his address to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly. The president repeated this claim on several occasions, including his State of the Union address to Congress in January 2003. The contention was also featured in Secretary of State Colin Powell’s speech to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.65
The question before the intelligence community was whether these tubes, which in fact never reached Iraq because of a successful U.S. intervention, were meant to be used for centrifuges or for another purpose: motor casings for short-range rockets. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) advocated the view that the tubes were intended for centrifuges, and argued that the tight tolerances on the tubes’ dimensions and finish could have no other interpretation.

However, a set of technical experts from the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Oak Ridge, Livermore, and Los Alamos National Laboratories reviewed the CIA analysis and disagreed with this interpretation because the tube dimensions were far from ideal for this purpose. In fact, the dimensions and the aluminum alloy were identical to those of tubes acquired for rockets by Iraq in the 1980s. Furthermore, the Iraqis had developed and tested centrifuges before the first Gulf War that were much more capable than those that could have been built with the imported tubes.

The DOE experts also pointed out that if these tubes were actually intended for centrifuges, there should be evidence of attempts by the Iraqis to acquire hundreds of thousands of other very specific components, but no such evidence existed. This critique of the CIA interpretation was seconded by the State Department’s intelligence branch and, independently, by an international group of centrifuge experts advising the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).66

The claim that the aluminum tubes were intended for the manufacture of uranium for nuclear weapons was central to Secretary Powell’s case to the UN that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. He had been briefed by the IAEA about its disagreement with the CIA analysis, and was aware of a controversy inside the U.S. government about the administration’s claim because the DOE and State Department had both commented on the draft of his speech, which even mentioned that there was disagreement among experts.

However, Powell’s speech dismissed this disagreement by lumping the U.S. experts with the Iraqis: “Other experts, and the Iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher.”67 Many experts, especially at the DOE, felt “that was really a slap in the face . . . my friends in DOE felt shocked . . . we were thrown in the same camp as the Iraqis.”68

As Dr. David Albright, a weapons expert and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, DC, has noted, “It bespeaks something seriously wrong that a proper technical adjudication of this matter was never conducted. There was certainly plenty of time to accomplish it.” 69


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

65. D. Albright, “Iraq’s Aluminum Tubes: Separating Fact from Fiction,” December 5, 2003. Online at www.isis-online.org (http://www.isis-online.org);
<hr /></blockquote>

Everyone who examined the tubes basically disagreed with the CIA conclusion except the Govt, who were trying to make a case for war.



Q

eg8r
01-26-2005, 06:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Compelling documentary? It ought to be a judiciary panel DEMANDING Rice answer at least one untruth, and documented at that. This country is divided. There are the ones with a desire for the real truth and then you have the blind-eyed, don't care that thousands of Americans are being killed and maimed, war mongers. <hr /></blockquote> Do you have any justification for such a ridiculous statement or will this just be another one hit wonder from the Sidmeister?

eg8r

cheesemouse
01-26-2005, 06:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how many here watch C-Span, but it is certainly worth watching our Government at work.<hr /></blockquote>

C-Span is a national treasure. If one professes to be objective, open minded and trusting enough in your abilities to filter uncut information C-Span is the source. The diversity of events and issues aired is unmatched anywhere else I can think of. If any of you know something better please tell me what it is.

The Cheese knows Barbara may not like his tatics but the Cheese appreciates her passionate search for the truth. All we really have is the Constitution and Barbara understands that the Constitution is your only true friend when it comes to freedom. Here's too ya...

Gayle in MD
01-26-2005, 07:33 AM
You are so right my friend. Yet, whenever Democrats raise the issues involved in the lies and exaggerations used by this administration to justify a pre-emptive attack, Republicans invaribly divert with such accusations as partisanship, hindsight, accusations of gloom and doom on the part of those who are well aware of the vastly dishonest tactics. Democrats are justified to endeavor to head off such unlawful behavior in the future.

I don't think that ANY democrat should have voted for Rice. Their tactic of listing her many accomplishments has nothing to do with the lies she told to the American people. The contradictions listed, and documented by Boxer and Byden, and Byrd were numerous.

Democrats need to take a much stronger stand against this administration.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
01-26-2005, 07:42 AM
A National Treasure, this is so true. It's funny, in the mornings they have a call in show, and on Monday, a caller called in saying with such enthusiasm, "Yes, I agree completely with President Bush" When the host pressed her, confused, "You agree? which Part of the subject do you agree with?" she didn't even know what was being discussed! Too funny, typical Bush supporter!

Gayle in Md.

Vapros
01-26-2005, 08:44 AM
I hope the liberal Democrats will get control of the government someday, so they can get the world straightened out again. Lord knows there's enough of them - but for some reason they won't vote.
I have two or three little things around the house that I need cleared up, but the Republicans have not shown much concern so far. I may have to take care of them myself. Life under the current administration is not for sissies, is it?

Gayle in MD
01-26-2005, 10:40 AM
We are now up to twelve Democrats who voted against her! I hope this stand against lieing will grow and continue when approproate in the future.

I noticed today that in his press conference Bush has changed his word from Social Security "Crises" to SS "Problem"... do you think he could actually be learning a lesson about honesty from the hearings this week?

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
01-26-2005, 10:43 AM
Dear cheese,
If you meant to say Gayle, I thank you, and also I am always proud of your posts and your "tactics" seem fine to me!

Keep up the good work of spreading the truth friend!

Love,
Gayle

wolfdancer
01-26-2005, 10:57 AM
I'm curious eg8r....do you find the entire post, ridiculous, or just the hyperbole after "the country is divided..."?
It seems much was made here, over Sen. Boxer's "lie"...so one should reasonably expect that the other side, would have equal concerns over an allegation claiming an untruth by Dr. Rice. I see no harm into an inquiry, that will doubtless, clear the good name of our new Sec. of State.

eg8r
01-26-2005, 11:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious eg8r....do you find the entire post, ridiculous, or just the hyperbole after "the country is divided..."?
<hr /></blockquote> Which post?

[ QUOTE ]
It seems much was made here, over Sen. Boxer's "lie"...so one should reasonably expect that the other side, would have equal concerns over an allegation claiming an untruth by Dr. Rice. I see no harm into an inquiry, that will doubtless, clear the good name of our new Sec. of State. <hr /></blockquote> There is no harm in the inquiry, IT WAS A HEARING. This has been spelled out before. The big issue is the manner in which Boxer presented her arguments. She was not very professional at all. Apparently in a relentless attack to PROVE Rice was lying, Boxer decided it might go un-noticed if she herself lied a bit. She was caught in a few lies during her questioning of Rice. This is the point of this thread.

I don't believe this thread was started to remove any spotlight from Rice, but it is possible to have more than one discussion about the same event. This is not directed at your reply to me, but it seems it is OK for the Dems to attack the Reps, but when the Dems screw up (hypocritically in the national spotlight), they don't like it to be mentioned.

eg8r

Vapros
01-26-2005, 11:41 AM
Gayle, it's no sin to be a liberal Democrat, nor to be a conservative Republican. Both are just viewpoints. But we must be realistic, or at least try. All of the people involved here (both yours and ours) are professional politicians, and we must recognize what they do for a living. They all like to call it 'public service', but it frequently is not. We don't always have to like it, but we have to deal with it, and it's much easier to throw rocks when one is on the outside, looking in. No doubt, if your side had won, things would be different. I certainly do not agree they would be better, but they would be different. It's the nature of politics. We cannot expect too much from the politicians - most of them are lawyers, and there's more than one way to spell it. You guys will get another shot at the White House in four years, and it will probably be up for grabs, but you'll need a better candidate next time. And if you win, then my side will get to throw the rocks for a while. Ask Bill C. about that ...

wolfdancer
01-26-2005, 11:47 AM
Which post?
this may be hard to follow...but since I was replying to your post, which included the "ridiculous statement" statement....and your post was a reply to Gayle's post....now pay attention,..... that would make it Gayle's post, that I was referring to.

"...seems it is OK for the Dems to attack the Reps, but when the Dems screw up (hypocritically in the national spotlight), they don't like it to be mentioned."


....I think each party is guilty of discrediting the other party, at each given opportunity...I believe the word politics, encompasses a broad field of such behaviour.

wolfdancer
01-26-2005, 11:59 AM
"....but you'll need a better candidate next time."
Will Edwards be released from prison in time to run?
Does Huey have any descendants that might be interested?

Wally_in_Cincy
01-26-2005, 12:01 PM
If a Republican had said "Well there black ni**ers and there's white ni**ers", as Byrd did in 2002 on Fox News with Tony Snow, would you lend said Republican the credibility you are giving to Byrd?

I take his ramblings with a grain of salt, not because he is a former Klansman, but because he is just an old damn fool.

Qtec
01-26-2005, 12:41 PM
Bower didnt lie. She said 25% instead of 11%.
Big wow. Thats called a mistake.
That she believed the US was going to war because of the threat from WMDs.
Big wow. So did most of the country. [ check the polls]
So she didnt read the details on what she voted for and made a fool of herself.
Big wow. Thats called ignorance. Its totally insignificant.

Condi lied, as I have pointed out, which led to the deaths of 1500 US troops[ and counting] and who knows how many civilians.
Have you no comment on that?

This whole 'Boxer is a liar' thing is the GOP propaganda machine running interference. This is a rare opportunity to get some answers from the future SoS and you are attacking the questioner. Its just a variation on the 'shoot the messenger' policy that works so well for this Govt. Its so pathetic.

Q

Gayle in MD
01-26-2005, 01:46 PM
My friend, I couldn't agree with you more.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
01-26-2005, 01:51 PM
Big wow, lol, that is what everyone says everytime you "open your mouth". /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
01-26-2005, 01:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Which post?
this may be hard to follow...but since I was replying to your post, which included the "ridiculous statement" statement....and your post was a reply to Gayle's post....now pay attention,..... that would make it Gayle's post, that I was referring to.
<hr /></blockquote> Use the quote function. Then you don't have to look ridiculous trying to spell it out. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I think each party is guilty of discrediting the other party, at each given opportunity...I believe the word politics, encompasses a broad field of such behaviour. <hr /></blockquote> They are, so why is the Dem group taking such a holier-than-thou approach this time?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
01-26-2005, 01:57 PM
Thank you Mr. Q! So true! Senator Byrd was also not the only speaker to list the many lies. Nor was Senator Boxer. There were others, and I was very impressed with them.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
01-26-2005, 01:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Which post?
this may be hard to follow...but since I was replying to your post, which included the "ridiculous statement" statement....and your post was a reply to Gayle's post....now pay attention,..... that would make it Gayle's post, that I was referring to.
<hr /></blockquote> Since I have pointed out the quote function to you, I might add that when I use it, I only include in the quote what I will be referring to. So, back to your question, I was referring to the whole portion in which I quoted. More so to the ending, as I don't agree at all that there are only 2 groups and they would categorized as ridiculously as she attempted. To a lesser degree of ridiculousness I don't think the judiciary panel should be demanding Rice to answer questions from Boxer that were stated in a way as to attack her integrity.

eg8r

wolfdancer
01-26-2005, 04:09 PM
YOU are taking credit for pointing out the quote function to me????
...and to several others, I might add...ah, OK
Quote eg8r:
" To a lesser degree of ridiculousness I don't think the judiciary panel should be demanding Rice to answer questions from Boxer that were stated in a way as to attack her integrity.."
End of eg8r quote
I think most questions are "fair game" when determining the bona fides of a person being considered for such an important postition. Wouldn't her answers to these questions, thus then discredit Sen. Boxer?
Perhaps, she should have only given them her name,
rank, and serial number.

wolfdancer
01-26-2005, 04:13 PM
" They are, so why is the Dem group taking such a holier-than-thou approach this time?" (eg8r)

Quoting Will Rogers:
" The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that's out always looks the best."

wolfdancer
01-26-2005, 04:25 PM
Q, the aluminum tubes were to be given out to the masses, to defend themselves,to beat the Iranians over the head, and get their attention...known as mass defense weapons, or MDW's....and with the difficulty of translating the language, they were erroneously thought to be WMD's

Gayle in MD
01-26-2005, 04:28 PM
AH HA HA HA HA! Too funny.
Thanks for a good laugh!
Gayle

hondo
01-27-2005, 08:45 AM
I have gone from never voting for him to voting for him even
after he dies. He is brave enough to stand up to those
who would take away our rights in the name of " patriotism"
Many if not most of my friends are black and Byrd's
words were CERTAINLY not PC but he's old school.
I'm sure you know several old timers who are trying
to deal with their prejudices. It's funny how we
rail about PC except when it suits our purpose.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> If a Republican had said "Well there black ni**ers and there's white ni**ers", as Byrd did in 2002 on Fox News with Tony Snow, would you lend said Republican the credibility you are giving to Byrd?

I take his ramblings with a grain of salt, not because he is a former Klansman, but because he is just an old damn fool. <hr /></blockquote>

hondo
01-27-2005, 08:56 AM
Boxer is a pathetic liar.
Byrd is senile.
Kerry is an elitist liar.
Ted Kennedy is satan incarnate.
Hillary is an arrogant b...h.
John Edwards is a lawyer. Gasp!
It goes on and on. Don't defend the selfish, murderous
policies of the Republicans. Divert, attack the other
side. Living in small towns I've seen this crap
for years. I can't see a Democrat ever winning the
Presidency again. The Republican spin doctors have
it down to an art form.
(Just another stupid post from HonDUH)



quote=Qtec] Bower didnt lie. She said 25% instead of 11%.
Big wow. Thats called a mistake.
That she believed the US was going to war because of the threat from WMDs.
Big wow. So did most of the country. [ check the polls]
So she didnt read the details on what she voted for and made a fool of herself.
Big wow. Thats called ignorance. Its totally insignificant.

Condi lied, as I have pointed out, which led to the deaths of 1500 US troops[ and counting] and who knows how many civilians.
Have you no comment on that?

This whole 'Boxer is a liar' thing is the GOP propaganda machine running interference. This is a rare opportunity to get some answers from the future SoS and you are attacking the questioner. Its just a variation on the 'shoot the messenger' policy that works so well for this Govt. Its so pathetic.

Q

<hr /></blockquote>

hondo
01-27-2005, 08:58 AM
Cheer up, Gayle. We're not stupid; we just say stupid
things. Right, Eghead?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Big wow, lol, that is what everyone says everytime you "open your mouth". /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
01-27-2005, 09:29 AM
Why dont you comment on the rest of my post? Too chicken /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Eh /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Q

eg8r
01-27-2005, 09:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Cheer up, Gayle. We're not stupid; we just say stupid
things. Right, Eghead? <hr /></blockquote> Hey, looky here, a little sarcasm. Too bad you did not take a second to look at who my reply was to. There is a reason DUH was added to the end of your title. I was posting a reply to Q not Gayle. Keep up the sarcasm HonDUH, it is funny and it everyone needs to laugh once in awhile. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
01-27-2005, 09:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Why dont you comment on the rest of my post? Too chicken /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Eh /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
<hr /></blockquote> I have commented about it in prior posts. I just don't feel you are important enough for me to have to repeat myself. If you don't understand what I have already said about Rice, in this thread no less, then ask again.

eg8r

eg8r
01-27-2005, 09:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
YOU are taking credit for pointing out the quote function to me????
<hr /></blockquote> No I am just doing it again. I am wondering just how much does it have to rain before the water seeps through the concrete. You will get it sooner or later.

eg8r

hondo
01-27-2005, 09:55 AM
We're not stupid, WD. We just look ridiculous.
<hr /></blockquote> Use the quote function. Then you don't have to look ridiculous trying to spell it out. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I think each party is guilty of discrediting the other party, at each given opportunity...I believe the word politics, encompasses a broad field of such behaviour. <hr /></blockquote> They are, so why is the Dem group taking such a holier-than-thou approach this time?

eg8r
<hr /></blockquote>

hondo
01-27-2005, 09:59 AM
Which came first? The chicken or the eg?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Why dont you comment on the rest of my post? Too chicken /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Eh /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Q <hr /></blockquote>

hondo
01-27-2005, 10:03 AM
Gee, thanks, eg. Your charm is only exceeded by
your arrogace.

Hey, looky here, a little sarcasm. Too bad you did not take a second to look at who my reply was to. There is a reason DUH was added to the end of your title. I was posting a reply to Q not Gayle. Keep up the sarcasm HonDUH, it is funny and it everyone needs to laugh once in awhile. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
01-27-2005, 10:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Gee, thanks, eg. Your charm is only exceeded by
your arrogace.
<hr /></blockquote> No problem DUH. LOL, you called me arrogant because I pointed out your error buried in sarcasm, would the same apply if I pointed out your spelling? /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Maybe if you quit trying to be witty with your posts (an attribute neither you or I possess), you would take a little more time and pay attention to what you are actually doing.

eg8r &lt;~~~screwed up hire and higher the other day, pretty funny stuff