PDA

View Full Version : American Freedom Agenda...Partisan?



Gayle in MD
03-21-2007, 07:02 AM
Four prominent Republicans have launched an organization, The American Freedom Agenda, in an efort to restore our freedoms, and the oversight, which our founding fathers intended in the Constitution Of The United States. Former Governor of Georgia, Barr, is leading the way to overturn the assault against the Constitution, launched by the Bush Administration in an effort to grab unconstitutional power, against the best interests of Americans, our due process of law, and our oversight and checks and balances.


Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, who led the effort to impeach President Clinton, is one of the organizers of the effort, called the American Freedom Agenda. Others are David Keene of the American Conservative Union, writer and conservative direct mail pioneer Richard Viguerie, and constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, who served in the Reagan administration as associate deputy attorney general.

I think the time has come for President Bush to acknowledge that the recent requests for testimony under oath, is not a partisan witch hunt. Fortunately, there are many Republicans, who are just as concerned over the Bush Administrations power mongering, and lies, as there are Democrats. Hats off to those Republicans who are joining Democrats in their concerns regarding the abuse of power, false statements, and unamerican activities demonstrated, over and over, by this administration.
www.Americanfreedomagenda.org (http://www.Americanfreedomagenda.org)
Gayle in Md.

llotter
03-21-2007, 08:41 AM
It sure looks to me like these so-called conservatives are playing the role of the 'useful idiots' to the cause of the Leftist agenda. The Left, as exemplified by the ACLU and their communist tradition, has for decades beaten us all over the head with their 'civil right at any cost' tactic. But the reality of this method is not the patriotic theme as it might at first appear. To the contrary, this is a tactic to undermine and defeat America and it’s freedoms (what little we have left) in favor of the communist/socialist model with these Leftists in charge. As Lincoln said, 'the Constitution is not a Suicide Pact' in reference to his suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War.

Gayle in MD
03-21-2007, 09:48 AM
This is a bi-partisan organization, without any links to the ACLU, which is also not affiliated with any specific party. I don't see where your partisan, hate filled remarks, are pertinent to this post.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

llotter
03-21-2007, 10:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> This is a bi-partisan organization, without any links to the ACLU, which is also not affiliated with any specific party. I don't see where your partisan, hate filled remarks, are pertinent to this post.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>

You know, Gayle, I enjoy reading your posts and often very impressed by your eloquence even when I am diametrically opposed to about 99% of your content (of course, you too often filibuster so much that it makes it difficult to reply without filibustering myself). I like to have a constructive discussion/debate instead of unjustified interpretation to distort my posts with the intention of discrediting both the position and the person making it. Is it your intention to quash opposition with personal recriminations?

First, I didn’t make any partisan reference at all.
Second, there was nothing ‘hate filled’ in my comment.
Third, I only used the ACLU as an example of how the Left has been using this tactic for many years quite successfully.
Forth, the ‘useful idiot’ references what Lenin called those in this country who sided with communist, of which there were many. The point he was making was that by siding with his agenda, they were helping cause the defeat of their own society.

You could have more easily just expressed your confusion without the distortion.

If you read the agenda of the ‘American Freedom Agenda’, it looks precisely like it might have been written by the ACLU or one of the many others on the Left, so drawing that comparison to what Lenin said seems to me to be right on point. Bruce Fein, the progenitor, has been advocating this position for years but I was very disappointed when other ‘conservatives’ I once admired and who I thought should know better, signed on to what I see as a very Leftist position. I am beginning to feel pretty lonely out here.

wolfdancer
03-21-2007, 11:14 AM
Post deleted by wolfdancer

Gayle in MD
03-21-2007, 11:15 AM
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
The Left, as exemplified by the ACLU and their communist tradition, has for decades beaten us all over the head with their 'civil right at any cost' tactic. \
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

I think any fair minded person who read your post would think your reference to the left, meant, liberals.

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
Is it your intention to quash opposition with personal recriminations?
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

Hasn't that been your own tactic in every reply you have ever made to, or about me?


I was very happy to read about this organisation, particularly, since their intention is to promote bi-partisan members.

I, personally, can't see what the American Civil Liberties Union, nor communism, has to do with my post about a bi-partisan group of Americans, whose wish is to undo the assault of the Bush Administration, against the Constitution, the Bill Of Rights, the Geneva Convention, Checks and Balances in our government, the suspending the use of torture, restoring Habeas Corpus, and Congressional Oversight.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
03-21-2007, 11:20 AM
LOL, don't worry, friend. He'd never make it across the bridge. Virginians drive like they think, lol. You have to make a few left turns to get to my house. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
03-21-2007, 11:40 AM
yeah, I'm thinking "ultra-right, but way, way out in left field"

Gayle in MD
03-21-2007, 11:44 AM
I seem to be an irresistable magnet to the O'Reilly group, LMAO! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Overwhelming_vote_on_US_attorneys/20070320-063310-6908r/

BTW, Both Rove and Harriet were subpeonaed today! YES!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Love,
Gayle

llotter
03-21-2007, 12:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
<hr /></blockquote>
The Left, as exemplified by the ACLU and their communist tradition, has for decades beaten us all over the head with their 'civil right at any cost' tactic. \
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
<hr /></blockquote>

I think any fair minded person who read your post would think your reference to the left, meant, liberals.

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
<hr /></blockquote>
Is it your intention to quash opposition with personal recriminations?
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
<hr /></blockquote>

Hasn't that been your own tactic in every reply you have ever made to, or about me?


I was very happy to read about this organisation, particularly, since their intention is to promote bi-partisan members.

I, personally, can't see what the American Civil Liberties Union, nor communism, has to do with my post about a bi-partisan group of Americans, whose wish is to undo the assault of the Bush Administration, against the Constitution, the Bill Of Rights, the Geneva Convention, Checks and Balances in our government, the suspending the use of torture, restoring Habeas Corpus, and Congressional Oversight.

Gayle in Md.



<hr /></blockquote>

Partisan refers to a political party, not an ideology like liberal or conservative and, yes, I do strongly criticize modern liberalism in the toughest way I can but that NEVER, NEVER stoops to an attack on those who are liberal. I try to keep the discussion on a legitimate debate level in hope of expressing an alternative view from the right, for those on the other side to consider seriously. I have often been accused of doing what you say but I am not guilty. As Harry Truman famously said,

Maybe I presumed too much about what you understood about the traditional position of the right on this ‘civil right at any cost’ issue. Historically, it was well understood that in wartime civil rights must take a temporary back seat to ultimate survival. For example, during WWII, people were impressed into the military, property was taken over, rationing and even speech limitations were commonly implemented but these were commonly accepted because everyone knew when you under attack, extraordinary powers must be used to ‘win’ the war. I don’t think you would question that, would you??

But even then, the ACLU and other Leftists were making the case that sacrificing these ‘civil rights’ was a price too high and the first step toward dictatorship, just as they are today…it is a long standing tactic of the Left to undermine leadership and to question traditional western values. To those of us on the right, signing onto that agenda is the same as now as it was then, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The point I tried to make was that ‘American Freedom Agenda’ is virtually the same as those on the Left and conservatives shouldn’t be endorsing it, but unfortunately some of them seem to be doing exactly that.

Now, you talk about ‘hate speech’, just look at the two previous posts here by your open minded colleague, wolfdancer.

Gayle in MD
03-21-2007, 12:19 PM
My take is that it is encouraging to see some Conservative Republicans, make a distinction between themselves, and NEOCONS, and state as their mission the desire to undo the damage done this country, it's principles, it's Constitution, checks and balances, and the rule of Law, by the Bush administration. The post was not about communism, or the American Civil Liberties Union.


OJ said he wasn't guilty, too.
Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
03-21-2007, 12:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

Maybe I presumed too much about what you understood about the traditional position of the right on this ‘civil right at any cost’ issue. Historically, it was well understood that in wartime civil rights must take a temporary back seat to ultimate survival. For example, during WWII, people were impressed into the military, property was taken over, rationing and even speech limitations were commonly implemented but these were commonly accepted because everyone knew when you under attack, extraordinary powers must be used to ‘win’ the war. I don’t think you would question that, would you??

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

Iraq, did not attack us, nor has war with Iraq, ever been declared. There is no legitimate comparison between being in a civil war, in Iraq, and WWII, IMO. In fact, we have international agreements, which do not include occupying another country, in the interest of regime change, when they have not attacked us here.

Gayle in Md.

llotter
03-21-2007, 12:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> My take is that it is encouraging to see some Conservative Republicans, make a distinction between themselves, and NEOCONS, and state as their mission the desire to undo the damage done this country, it's principles, it's Constitution, checks and balances, and the rule of Law, by the Bush administration. The post was not about communism, or the American Civil Liberties Union.


OJ said he wasn't guilty, too.
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Correct me if I’m wrong but is your position that while we are at war, we shouldn’t be, and you are going to support positions that will lead to defeat? After all, the sacrifices in our civil rights are very minor compared to historical examples during wartime.

As for the point about communism and the ACLU, I was only pointing out how they are so similar to the ‘American Freedom Agenda’ and that they are in no way conservative. I hope most well known conservatives see through this and not only refuse to sign on but highlight just how far left it is.

Gayle in MD
03-21-2007, 01:13 PM
Correct me if I’m wrong but is your position that while we are at war, we shouldn’t be, and you are going to support positions that will lead to defeat?

We are not at war. War has never been declared with Iraq. The occupation was illegal, and against international agreements which we have signed. Our President has no authority, to declare War, with an ideology.

and you are going to support positions that will lead to defeat?

We've already lost the "Battle" in Iraq. I do not support our troops, dying in another country's civil war, in a country which has never attacked America.


After all, the sacrifices in our civil rights are very minor compared to historical examples during wartime.

We have never declared War with Iraq. Sacrifices of our civil rights, have been sacrificed unconstitutionally, in secret, and in unlawful actions, committed against the Constitution, by the Bush Administration.

As for the point about communism and the ACLU, I was only pointing out how they are so similar to the ‘American Freedom Agenda’ and that they are in no way conservative.

That's interesting, since the founders are Republicans, who don't consider this administration, or the last Republican Majority, to be, or have been, at all conservative.

I hope most well known conservatives see through this and not only refuse to sign on but highlight just how far left it is.

I hope you recognize that this statement identifies you as a neocon, and thereby, not a conservative, at all.

Gayle in Md.

llotter
03-21-2007, 02:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Correct me if I’m wrong but is your position that while we are at war, we shouldn’t be, and you are going to support positions that will lead to defeat?

We are not at war. War has never been declared with Iraq. The occupation was illegal, and against international agreements which we have signed. Our President has no authority, to declare War, with an ideology.

and you are going to support positions that will lead to defeat?

We've already lost the "Battle" in Iraq. I do not support our troops, dying in another country's civil war, in a country which has never attacked America.


After all, the sacrifices in our civil rights are very minor compared to historical examples during wartime.

We have never declared War with Iraq. Sacrifices of our civil rights, have been sacrificed unconstitutionally, in secret, and in unlawful actions, committed against the Constitution, by the Bush Administration.

As for the point about communism and the ACLU, I was only pointing out how they are so similar to the ‘American Freedom Agenda’ and that they are in no way conservative.

That's interesting, since the founders are Republicans, who don't consider this administration, or the last Republican Majority, to be, or have been, at all conservative.

I hope most well known conservatives see through this and not only refuse to sign on but highlight just how far left it is.

I hope you recognize that this statement identifies you as a neocon, and thereby, not a conservative, at all.

Gayle in Md.

<hr /></blockquote>



Ya know, Gayle, I think you are standing on pretty weak ground if you refuse to support any undeclared wars. We lost over 54000 Americans in Korea and over 58000 in Viet-Nam in just such ‘wars’. It is a semantic distinction you are making while our soldiers are marching with guns and bombs and getting killed by the enemy…a semantic difference that undermines the chances for success. Doing things in secret is one of the most essential elements of a successful strategy to win whatever it is you want to call all that fighting. I can only guess how long this war will last or how many casualties will ensue but one thing I know for certain, presenting a united front to our enemy will bring the end closer with far fewer casualties.

There is another semantic game that both of us are playing when it comes to political definitions, whether conservative, liberal, libertarian, neo-con or whatever. This game is really of no heavy duty consequences however, no one is dying as a result. It would be nice if these discussions if we could at least agree on the meaning of these basic words rather than just continue to push each other in some erroneous pigeon holes…I would, if you want..

Gayle in MD
03-21-2007, 03:12 PM
That's fine, but I doubt it would work. You see, I believe the un-necessary occupation in Iraq, which George Bush trumped intelligence to justify, had much more to do with the Corporate Fascist/Military Industrial Complex making money off the lives and limbs of our kids, than about fighting a war with a real and present danger. I was, and am, all for going after alQaeda, and the Taliban, in Afghanistan, and bin Laden, but force feeding democracy with guns and bombs, down the throats of other countries, and especially when they do not want our presence in their country, is wrong.

Our National Intelligance Estimate, has stated that what we are doing in Iraq, has emboldened the terrorists, hurt our image in the world, increased our enemies, weakened our armed services, increased terrorist attacks around the world, and helped them recruit more terrorists into their ideology.

I have read the history of wars launched by England, Russia, and the United States, in the Middle East. It is a very unsettling story. I have always believed that the people of the world should endeavor to settle their differences without bombs and guns, unless we are threatened by occpation, or attacked by another country, on our soil. I am not for policing the world. I am for building alliances through love, assistance and compassion, not by becomming like our evil enemy. I beleive the results of our efforts, the great loss of life and limb, and treasure, was the worst foreign policy mistake in our history. I beleive that George Bush, and Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Hadley, Kristol, Feith, Bush Sr., among others, are part of an evil cabal, bent on destroying our own democracy, right here, and that their refusal to acknowledge the problem of global warming, along with their many lies, and cover ups, are proof of their only allegiance, which I believe is with the oil industry, and the Corporate Fascist Pigs who are destroying our environment, and exploiting cheap labor, as they out-source our jobs, and invite more illegal aliens to occupy our country, illegally.

I am for going after bin Laden, and every terrorist cell we can find, securing our borders, protecting the environment, insuring our children a great education, and maintaining checks and balances, the separation of church and state, our Constitution, and Bill Of Rights, and building peace through high intention, and assistance to those who are starving as we write.

No, I do not believe that my freedom to speak my mind, assists terrorism. I believe that George Bush's foreign Policy, spreads terrorism, and that he has given Iran, alQaeda, Isreal, Lybia, China, Russia, North Korea, and others, exactly what they hoped for all along. Hence, I do not support George Bush, nor do I believe there is any hope for success in Iraq, beyond the removal of Saddam, who was already on his way out anyway.

This Fiasco, was in the making for a long long time. Many knew how it would go, and many warned the administration, but they refused to listen. Since then, they have continued their lies, continued to deny reality, continued to prove their own poor judgement, and continued to frame what they have done, around a false premise, a war on a tactic, terrorism. They have made everything much much worse, and proven their incompetence at every step of their misguided way.

Gayle in Md.

llotter
03-21-2007, 06:08 PM
As I understand the ‘war’ vote, the senate intelligence committee had the same info available to them as did the president. I do concede that the president and some of his advisors might have had a predetermined desire to overthrow Saddam but I am only speculating because I think the evidence is not very conclusive. There were many in the Democrat Party, including Bill Clinton (oh how I hate to reference him for anything) who thought the same way. I remember that I was resentful of all these Jews making the case when I thought they were perceived to have a conflict of interest because that war seemed to be in Israel’s interest. I thought they should have abstained or at least not so conspicuous. These were the neocons of which I am definitely not one. I was also suspicious of the concept of a pre-emptive war just as I was back in the ‘70s when Israel pre-empted Egypt and Syria during the 6 day war.

I do not believe Bush trumped up evidence. He ran on a platform of not getting into nation building and I think that was his intent. He says 9-11 changed that in his mind because, as president, he felt a sudden and very heavy responsible for doing whatever he could to avoid future attacks from the Muslim extremists. I think his advisors moved in with their pre-emptive alternative and he adopted it. I think Bush is probably the most non-partisan president we have ever had and further, I don’t think he has done anything for personal gain nor has Cheney. I don’t think there is any hard evidence to show he either trumped up or hid evidence or profited for war, is there? I am not even sure there is any evidence at all, soft or hard, is there? As you know, I am not a Bush supporter at all and never voted for him but I am just making the case that because the Senate had all the evidence and voted overwhelmingly to go to war, it should support that vote even if they were one of the few who voted against it. Isn’t that the way our system is supposed to work? Politics is supposed to stop at the waters edge, isn’t it?

Gayle in MD
03-22-2007, 03:46 AM
Thank you for a reasoned response, free of sarcasm and insults.

As I understand the ‘war’ vote, the senate intelligence committee had the same info available to them as did the president.

First, no one has the same intelligence as the President. Second, there is proof that when Dick Cheney couldn't get our Intelligence experts to build a strong enough case for Saddam's WMD's, he recuited loyalists, from other government agencies and offices, and transfered them to the C.I.A. He hounded people already there, making quite an unprecedented number of trips, in person, pressured them, had negative intel which did not support the WMD theory, and exaggerated every fragment he could find, which suggested there might be WMD in Iraq. There were two people with Iraqi ties, one was Chalabi, who was a known liar and crook, and, the other, whose nickname I can't recall at the moment, had also been deemed by the experts as unreliable. Both their statements were exaggerated by Cheney, along with the information in the Niger documents, which were considered a joke, by the intelligence community. I have already written at length about that, and done so recently. But, there are quite a number of books, written by very respected people who were among our best intelligence experts, and also many highly respected journalists, who have written the same documentation of the manner in which Cheney and Bush trumped up intelligence, to launch this war. I've recommended many of those books, here on CCB, and there is a virtual library of dedicated, lifelong intelligence experts who have addressed the matter.

I do concede that the president and some of his advisors might have had a predetermined desire to overthrow Saddam but I am only speculating because I think the evidence is not very conclusive.

AGain, the evidence is vast, reliable, and unequivicable, they intended to overthrow Saddam, and used 9/11 as an opportunity to exploit the American horror, and patriotism which followed the even, to redirect our emotional response, by building a false case to link 9/11, to Iraq and Saddam. Again, a virtual library of books support my statements, wirtten by experts, and award winning journalists.

The evidence is vast, and reliable. You could begin to research it by reading the "Project For The New American Century" letter, which was written by the Neocons, who signed it and sent it to President Clinton. These are the same Neocons, who are part of the American Enterprise Institute, which is, btw, greatly funded by those same Corporations who are making a fortune on the war. Research is available, just google AEI, and The Project For The New American Century, or read The Rise Of The Vulcans, or Tyler Drumheller's "On The Brink"...I can give you a list of books, written by Intelligenc experts, who were either pushed out, or resigned, over what they witnessed in regard to the cherry-picking of intelligence in their predetermined project for building a case for war.

There were many in the Democrat Party, including Bill Clinton (oh how I hate to reference him for anything) who thought the same way.
First, for the sake of intelligent discussion, it is really not pertinent to bring Bill Clinton into the discussion. Bill Clinton's "Desert Fox operation, was really what destroyed everything that was left after Desert Storm. Bill Clinton's focus, was completely on bin Laden, as well it should have been. And, in fact, Bush was so determined to build a case for was, that he and Cheney actually threw out years of valuable intelligence, information, and people, on bin Laden once they were in office. Rice referred to bin Laden, alQaeda, and terrorist vigilence this way..."The President wasn't going to swat at flies." I think if you read back over much of what I have posted here over the years, you will find a great deal of information which supports the theory that the Bush Administration refused to listen to warnings of the coming attack by alQaeda, and bin Laden, including documented lies told by Rice, Bush and Cheney, regarding their refusal to put their attention on alQaeda, instead of their immediate focus on Iraq, after they took the White House.

I remember that I was resentful of all these Jews making the case when I thought they were perceived to have a conflict of interest because that war seemed to be in Israel’s interest.

You are right, and it didn't just seem to be, it was, and is, in Isreals interest, and you will also see many many Jewish names, as owners of the Corporations which have supported The American Enterprise Institute, and are also making a fortune off of this war, not to mention that Ledeem, who is the man suspected of being the go between in hiring the Italian thugs who broke into the Niger Embassy, in Italy, nothing much missing except the official stationary, and the official mailing stamp, which was the birth of the entire yellow cake theory, now has a big corner office in the American Enterprise Institute, the birth place of the War in Iraq, beginning in the early nineties. These were the same people who were pushing Bush SR., during his presidency, to occupy, and maintain a permanent American presence in Iraq.


I thought they should have abstained or at least not so conspicuous. These were the neocons of which I am definitely not one. I was also suspicious of the concept of a pre-emptive war just as I was back in the ‘70s when Israel pre-empted Egypt and Syria during the 6 day war.

Well, your suspicions are certainly not without merit, and if you haven't yet done so, then you really should make it a point to read some of the many, many books, which support your theory. Since you say you are not a neoconned, you won't have the tendency to blanketly label all the authros as kooks, or disgruntled employees, or just trying to make money off their books. It is an extremely impressive list of respected people, journalists, and experts. The picture of this administration becomes quite detailed, and I would suggest that you begin by reading "Agaist All Enemies" by Richard Clarke.

I do not believe Bush trumped up evidence.
He didn't do it, he had Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Hadley, Rice and Rumsfeld, among others, do it for him.

He ran on a platform of not getting into nation building and I think that was his intent.

It was clearly his intent to be a War President, and clearly, he intended to occupy Iraq.

He says 9-11 changed that in his mind because, as president, he felt a sudden and very heavy responsible for doing whatever he could to avoid future attacks from the Muslim extremists.

Sorry, not to be argumentative, but, if his lips are moving, he's lying, and it's just that simple.


I think his advisors moved in with their pre-emptive alternative and he adopted it.

His intention all along was to occupy Iraq.

I think Bush is probably the most non-partisan president we have ever had and further, I don’t think he has done anything for personal gain nor has Cheney. I don’t think there is any hard evidence to show he either trumped up or hid evidence or profited for war, is there?

As I have stated, there is a virtual library of evidence which provesboth, profit, and intent.

I am not even sure there is any evidence at all, soft or hard, is there? As you know, I am not a Bush supporter at all and never voted for him but I am just making the case that because the Senate had all the evidence and voted overwhelmingly to go to war, it should support that vote even if they were one of the few who voted against it.

The Senate did not have all the evidence, and much of what they were given, was trumped evidence. I can't believe that you seem to have not even heard about the vast case that this administration trumped evidence, cherry picked it, and built a case for war. And, I must say, if you think Bush is non partisan, it will be very difficult to have a reasonable debate about these issues.

Isn’t that the way our system is supposed to work? Politics is supposed to stop at the waters edge, isn’t it?

There was no link between Iraq, and 9/11. That has been proven over and over. The inspectors were asking for more time, why do you think that Bush rushed into this war, when every day there was more and more reason to believe that Saddam had no WMD's?

I have no doubt in my mind that Bush and Cheney are evil, and I have witnessed their lies, with my own eyes and ears, for all these years. There comes a time, when intense study can only lead one to conclusions which cannot be denied. This war was about oil, the rich, and the vast Military Industrial complex, much of what of refer to as the Corporate Fascist Pigs, and that is exactly what they are.
I hope Q doesn't mind my using one of his posts...there is plenty more, which proves, they all lied...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.

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



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);

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



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



Q

Post Extras:

Also, The Greatest Story Ever Sold... Frank Rich
Tripple Cross Peter Lance







Gayle in Md.

eg8r
03-22-2007, 06:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
We have never declared War with Iraq. <hr /></blockquote> Here is a great example of you twisting reality. Any time one country drops a bomb on another, then proceeds to roll through it blowing up whatever it feels necessary has certainly DECLARED WAR. You are the only one that is allowing a little common sense to get shoved aside to make way for semantics.

Here is another example... [ QUOTE ]
We are not at war...We've already lost the "Battle" in Iraq. <hr /></blockquote> Semantics. In reality neither is different when you look at the grand scheme of things and the outcome is certainly the same. I can spell it out for you if you need.

[ QUOTE ]
We have never declared War with Iraq. <hr /></blockquote> You can repeat this lie over and over till you are blue in the face, but their is a blown up country with a dead dictator that would definitely disagree with you.

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you recognize that this statement identifies you as a neocon, and thereby, not a conservative, at all.
<hr /></blockquote> It might in the fictitous small little hate-filled world that revolves around the mistruths of Gayle, but who really cares?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-22-2007, 06:51 AM
Whatever you say, Ed... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif