See other National News Articles
Title: Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted [BeAChooser is Heartbroken]
Source:
Washington Post
URL Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy ... /04/05/AR2007040502263_pf.html
Published: Apr 5, 2007
Author: R. Jeffrey Smith
Post Date: 2007-04-05 22:50:34 by ...
Keywords: None
Views: 484
Comments: 43
Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday. The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February. The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June. "This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of al-Qaeda." Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), who requested the report's declassification, said in a written statement that the complete text demonstrates more fully why the inspector general concluded that a key Pentagon office -- run by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith -- had inappropriately written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq that the U.S. intelligence consensus disputed. The report, in a passage previously marked secret, said Feith's office had asserted in a briefing given to Cheney's chief of staff in September 2002 that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was "mature" and "symbiotic," marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics. Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials, and said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the one Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups. "Overall, the reporting provides no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations," that CIA report said, adding that discussions on the issue were "necessarily speculative." The CIA had separately concluded that reports of Iraqi training on weapons of mass destruction were "episodic, sketchy, or not corroborated in other channels," the inspector general's report said. It quoted an August 2002 CIA report describing the relationship as more closely resembling "two organizations trying to feel out or exploit each other" rather than cooperating operationally. The CIA was not alone, the defense report emphasized. The Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded that year that "available reporting is not firm enough to demonstrate an ongoing relationship" between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda, it said. But the contrary conclusions reached by Feith's office -- and leaked to the conservative Weekly Standard magazine before the war -- were publicly praised by Cheney as the best source of information on the topic, a circumstance the Pentagon report cites in documenting the impact of what it described as "inappropriate" work. Feith has vigorously defended his work, accusing Gimble of "giving bad advice based on incomplete fact-finding and poor logic," and charging that the acting inspector general has been "cheered on by the chairmen of the Senate intelligence and armed services committees." In January, Feith's successor at the Pentagon, Eric S. Edelman, wrote a 52-page rebuttal to the inspector general's report that disputed its analysis and recommendations for Pentagon reform. Cheney's public statements before and after the war about the risks posed by Iraq have closely tracked the briefing Feith's office presented to the vice president's then-chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. That includes the briefing's depiction of an alleged 2001 meeting in Prague between an Iraqi intelligence official and one of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers as one of eight "Known Iraq-Al Qaida Contacts." The defense report states that at the time, "the intelligence community disagreed with the briefing's assessment that the alleged meeting constituted a 'known contact' " -- a circumstance the report said was known to Feith's office. But his office had bluntly concluded in a July 2002 critique of a CIA report on Iraq's relationship with al-Qaeda that the CIA's interpretation of the facts it cited "ought to be ignored." The briefing to Libby was also presented with slight variations to then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and then-deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley. It was prepared in part by what the defense report described as a "junior Naval Reservist" intelligence analyst detailed to Feith's office from the DIA. The person is not named in the report, but Edelman wrote that she was requested by Feith's office. When a senior intelligence analyst working for the government's counterterrorism task force obtained an early account of the conclusions by Feith's office -- titled "Iraq and al-Qaida: Making the Case" -- the analyst prepared a detailed rebuttal calling it of "no intelligence value" and taking issue with 15 of 26 key conclusions, the report states. The analyst's rebuttal was shared with intelligence officers on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but evidently not with others. Edelman complained in his own account of the incident that a senior Joint Chiefs analyst -- in responding to a suggestion by the DIA analyst that the "Making the Case" account be widely circulated -- told its author that "putting it out there would be playing into the hands of people" such as then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, and belittled the author for trying to support "some agenda of people in the building." But the inspector general's report, in a footnote, commented that it was "noteworthy . . . that post-war debriefs of Sadaam Hussein, [former Iraqi foreign minister] Tariq Aziz, [former Iraqi intelligence minister Mani al-Rashid] al Tikriti, and [senior al-Qaeda operative Ibn al-Shaykh] al-Libi, as well as document exploitation by DIA all confirmed that the Intelligence Community was correct: Iraq and al-Qaida did not cooperate in all categories" alleged by Feith's office. From these sources, the report added, "the terms the Intelligence Community used to describe the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida were validated, [namely] 'no conclusive signs,' and 'direct cooperation . . . has not been established.' " Zarqawi, whom Cheney depicted yesterday as an agent of al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war, was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts. He publicly allied himself with al-Qaeda after the U.S. invasion, in early 2004.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-2) not displayed.
.
.
.
#3. To: BeAChooser (#0)
Chooser .... ahem .... better get over here and tell us that black is white. And be sure to bring some old NewsMax and National Enquirer articles to back up your BULLSHIT. Maybe some links to a few kook blogs and magazine subscription sites too. Whatever it takes to fool people into believing the silly bullshit that gullible idiots like yourself lap up with a spoon. This is serious. Front page of the Washington Post. Some people put more credence in this than they do in the one man kook blogs you cite.
.
Chooser, better get in here and change the subject. You don't want people reading this stuff. Why don't you try to hype some other threads? Maybe you can bury this without responding.
.
Why don't you try telling us that Clinton did it too? If that doesn't work, try insulting a few people and see if you can start an off subject argument. If that doesn't work, go granular and tell us that the Bush admin never claimed there were Saddam / Al Qaeda links on Thursdays.
.
Are you going to give us some old NewsMax to refute this or not?
.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), who requested the report's declassification, said in a written statement that the complete text demonstrates more fully why the inspector general concluded that a key Pentagon office -- run by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith -- had inappropriately written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq that the U.S. intelligence consensus disputed. The report, in a passage previously marked secret, said Feith's office had asserted in a briefing given to Cheney's chief of staff in September 2002 that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was "mature" and "symbiotic," marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics. Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials, and said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the one Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups. It's Doug Feith and his Office of Special Plans that begs Congressional investigation. It's a President who blamed "faulty" CIA intel for the Iraq invsion that begs Congressional investigation. The CIA did not give the White House bad intel. That was a flagrant lie by the President. It was Doug Feith who knowingly gave the WH MANUFACTURED intel, and the WH ran with it inspite of the fact that the CIA disputed Feith's allegations. Forget about the 8 fired political appointee lawyers. They represent "background music." True evil exists on the front stage. The Democrats have been given a mandate that they should not squander. They should go for the jugulars of these known traitors and they should bring them down. Put impeachment on the front burner, Nancy. America wants it, demands it.
So BAC, seems this story just doesn't exist in Kookville. Apparently something to do with the alternate reality paradigm. Am I correct here?
.
no, cheney, actually WE led the charge for iraq. remember? cakewalk, flowers, all that? weapons of mass destruction, yellow cake, that stuff? if you've forgotten who led the charge for iraq, it's understandable, since it's been 4 years, and you've undoubtedly had all sorts of other priorities in the meantime.
So chooser, how are you going to fool people into discounting this? Are you still waiting for your talking points?
.
ROTFLOL! Then why did a dozen self-admitted members of al-Qaeda who were caught bringing explosives, chemicals and vehicles into Jordan to committ an act of mass casualty terror say they met with and were funded by al-Zarqawi prior to the invasion of Iraq? I think the author of this article is splitting mighty thin hairs. The fact is that al-Zarqawi was in Afghanistan at the same time as bin Laden ... before the invasion of Iraq. And the fact is al-Qaeda has always been an association of terrorist groups.
Chooser, go tell the guys who do your thinking for you to get your talking points loaded. You need to spew on this thread or people are going to read this story.
.
Torture?
.
Could also be that NewsMax was just filling your head with shit again when they told you this.
.
And on the very, very, very outside chance that any shred of this it true, then you should get it to Bush immediately. He needs to get on TV and relay your spew to the nation in order to save himself. His silence would almost make one think that this was more of the same shit that the GOP feeds to gullible goobers like yourself.
.
Uh...attention BACster ..."the author"of the declassified DOD report under discussion is the Acting Inspector General, Thomas F. Gimble. Hello...anyone home,boozer?
Probably some cash, maybe a babe or two.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
The most probable scenario.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Be sure to listen to Rush today. I'm sure he will be giving you and all the other easily manipulated goobers the talking points you will need to paper this over in your mind. The GOP can't let this one go by and have you guys wise up.
.
It was Doug Feith who knowingly gave the WH MANUFACTURED intel, and the WH ran with it inspite of the fact that the CIA disputed Feith's allegations. For all intents and purposes, the WH ginned up its own intel. They created their own office of I'm not sure there is a great deal left to investigate. They lied the nation into war and the whole world knows it. It would appear that the Intelligence Creator-in-Chief was Cheney.
I'm not sure there is a great deal left to investigate. They lied the nation into war and the whole world knows it. It would appear that the Intelligence Creator-in-Chief was Cheney. The whole world may know what was done, but no one has been held to account for their actions. The Iraqi peoples and American soldiers have suffered mortal consequences due to the manufactured intel that caused the Iraq invasion, yet the people who manufactured the false intel as well as the leadership who acted on what they knew to be lies walk freely and have suffered no negative consequences for their actions. IMO, GWB and Cheney should be impeached and Doug Feith and Paul Wolfowitz as directors of the Office of Special Plans should be tried for treason.
An attempted impeachment that cannot be sustained is counter-productive. The votes in the Senate are simply not there. While not usual, a person may be impeached after they leave office. Secretary of War William W. Belknap was impeached in 1876 a month after he left office. By a vote of 37-29, the Senate decided it had jurisdiction to proceed despite Belknap's resignation. There is a zero chance of sustaining a charge of treason against Feith and Wolfowitz. Treason is the one crime defined and limited by the Constitution. Treason can consist only of waging war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to her enemies. There must be at least two witnesses to the same overt act. The Framers intentionally made it extremely difficult to sustain a charge of treason, mindful of excesses regarding the charge as used by the British monarch. There have been seven treason convictions in the history of the U.S. Two [John Brown/Thomas Dorr] were for treason against a state [Virginia/Rhode Island]. Two were subsequently granted presidential pardons. The three remaining Federal convictions are from World War 2. Following the Civil War, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were indicted but neither case ever went to trial. Aaron Burr was tried for treason but not found guilty. Well known cases (Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Jonathan Pollard, et al) have relied upon other charges such as espionage or sedition. An actual charge of treason is narrowly defined, generally not applicable, and usually cannot be made. What some deserve and what is reasonably attainable may be different things. While it may be impossible to get hold of the jugular, death by a thousand cuts is still death.
a. Even trying to start impeachment proceedings would guarantee a Democratic Party sweep in 2008. Some might call that result productive. b. Treason - giving aid and comfort to the enemy - if a foreign nation wants our military to fight and die in a war for its security benefit,then that nation is our enemy and its agents who headed a department to manufacture intel for such a war are guilty of treason. Regarding the 2 witnesses - I'm sure there are people who would testify that they personally witnessed this treasonous activity - Feith and Wolfowitz didn't make a secret of it and this arrogance caused them to preen in front of many people - possible witnesses off the top of my head might be Colin Powell or perhaps Karen Kwiatkowski or maybe someone from the CIA who was forced to falsify his reports about WMD in Iraq that did not exist ...I'm sure there'd be no shortage of witnesses to come forward to help take those 2 bastard foreign agents down. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49647- 2004Dec8.html
IT has been well-established in previous threads and by BAC's own admission that he is a homosexual TREASONOUS QUEER! he has admitted to this and there is no excuse for this. As our troops die in a useless war he cheers for their deaths. There is no excuse. TREASONOUS QUEER!
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
This seems to have been the Democratic/Pelosi plan from day one, and it seems to be a good one. A lot of effort went into quieting the impeachment howels over on KOS. The Democrats then began an investigation into every ascpect of the past six years. At my last count there were fifty-two open investigations and they just began a new one into the recess appointment today. If only one in ten bears fruit Bush will be dead meat by 2008. The main problem with the plan seems to be that people don't have patience for it. They are used to getting promises without action. So far, however, the Democrats seem to be delivering - at lest to the extent that is humanly possible. A few more months of this might go a long way towards quieting the dissent. Dragging up one the Bush crimes one after the other also has the effect of killing off the last of Bush's support. We might yet see the votes for an impeachment - or the GOP itself might find it necessary to get rid of Bush.
.
there is NOBODY more on the side of George Bush than BeAChooser. meaning of course he supports Nancy Pelosi as well. He has admitted this on previous threads. He is also a TREASONOUS QUEER!. and has been since his birth. He is no good. and I can tell you that from experience. Nancy Pelosi and George Bush are on the same team. and BAC is a fellow who at a phone call will service either one of them. the man is a TREASONOUS QUEER!
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
this is actually what I was kind of hoping for. the effect of scandal after scandal is that each one pushes the previous one out of the limelight, or did when the republicans had the majority. thus something that broke a week ago became sooo last week, and forgotten. keeping them all in view and in the news is a great plan. eventually there will be something to piss everyone off.
The diehard BushBots - like those on free republic - will stay loyal to the bitter end no matter how many paper cuts. The ones who voted Bush in 2004 did so reluctantly and are long gone no matter how many investigations of Alberto Gonzales and the 8 fired political appointee lawyers take place. The reason GWB was not ousted in 2004 was not because of Bush-love, it was because the alternative - a cousin to W, an israelFirster himself - was not that different from Bush on ME meddling - so voters stuck with the devil known rather than the devil unknown. The single most important issue to American voters is the Iraq War, followed by Immigration. How different are the Democrats from the GOP on either of those 2 issues - nada. GWB is not running for office in 2008. Who cares if more people get to despiese him? The Dems would not need to do any investigations - any time that ass makes a decision or does a press conference his polls go down a notch. But here's the thing - while Democrats twiddle on their 1000 paper cuts issues, their ratings are not increasing. The public have less confidence in Congress than in GWB. So whatever the goal is that the Democrats are seeking to achieve, winning the public's confidence is not one of them. Just the very action - something decisive, "binding" and responsive to the public - like going for impeachment of the 2 most despiesed people in America if not the world who knowingly caused a war based on lies, manufactured by a DOD office of their creation - those 2 actions alone would guarantee a Democratic Party sweep in 2008. The rest is putzing, I'm sorry to tell you, but it's putzing - maybe the Democrats want to have things even Steven, equilibrium, no tipping of the boat - that way they will not be held accountable by their electorate for broken promises - the promises that were never meant to be kept from the get go. The fix is in - all of us who once voted GOP have seen it for a long while. But the Democrat voter base continues to deceive itself by thinking that "their" party is different. HA! Smell the coffee. It's not "your" party - your vote gives an elite punk official power and after that prick votes on issues as he/she pleases.
GWB is not running for office in 2008. Who cares if more people get to despiese him? The Dems would not need to do any investigations - any time that ass makes a decision or does a press conference his polls go down a notch. You need to read the papers. The Democrats have a pullout resolution in the supplemental spending bill. The Republicans are violently opposing it. I don't see how there could be more difference on the issues. GWB is not running for office in 2008. Who cares if more people get to despiese him? American Presidents are elected. This happens every four years. There are usually two parties that put up candidates for the election, the Republicans and the Democrats. George Bush, our current President is a Republican - and people identify him with the party. You ask what will be the result if people hate George Bush, and by extension his party, even more than they do now immediately prior to the next election. The probable result would be a Democratic victory. This is because people ordinarily don't vote for people they dispise. Are you following me here? If they hate the Repbublicans for their exposed corruption just prior to the election, they will be more inclined to vote for the other party - which we call the Democrats. But here's the thing - while Democrats twiddle on their 1000 paper cuts issues, their ratings are not increasing. The public have less confidence in Congress than in GWB. The polls I've seen don't show this. In fact, they show a growing identification with the Democratic party. The one I saw last week indicated about a 50% identification with Democrats and a 35% identification with Republicans. So whatever the goal is that the Democrats are seeking to achieve, winning the public's confidence is not one of them. Again, the most recent Pew poll says you are dead wrong. Just the very action - something decisive, "binding" and responsive to the public - like going for impeachment of the 2 most despiesed people in America You say the Democrats should wave their magic wand and create votes that they do not have. This isn't possible. The only way they can get the votes they need is to have Senators elected. The elections only take place every four years. The next one won't take place until 2008. They can't change that. Throwing a hissy fit over it won't change it either. The Democrats have to put bills up for a vote in the Senate to pass them. They have no choice. There is a document called the Constitution that requires them to do this. There is no leeway on this matter. Maybe if you could magically create more votes for them in the Senate they would accomodate you. Have you tried doing this? Close your eyes and wish very hard. If you can create another 12 or 13 Senators for them they can then do what you are asking.
.
b. You ask what will be the result if people hate George Bush, and by extension his party, even more than they do now immediately prior to the next election. The probable result would be a Democratic victory. This is because people ordinarily don't vote for people they dispise. Are you following me here? If they hate the Repbublicans for their exposed corruption just prior to the election, they will be more inclined to vote for the other party - which we call the Democrats. c. The polls I've seen don't show this. In fact, they show a growing identification with the Democratic party. The one I saw last week indicated about a 50% identification with Democrats and a 35% identification with Republicans. Again, the most recent Pew poll says you are dead wrong. d. You say the Democrats should wave their magic wand and create votes that they do not have. This isn't possible. The only way they can get the votes they need is to have Senators elected. The elections only take place every four years. The next one won't take place until 2008. They can't change that. Throwing a hissy fit over it won't change it either. a. And Obama has already announced that the Democrats will approve whatever GWB wants for funding the Iraq War. b. Correction - the public hate Cheney as they always have and to a lesser degree they hate GWB. That doesn't mean they hate the GOP because of the other 2 who will not be running for election in 2008. The Democrats promised they would end the Iraq War. That was the main issue that got them the majority. If they don't deliver, they will have shot themselves in the foot. The GOP made no promises. When the GWB/Cheney team leave, it's a blank slate for the others who follow. The Democrats however ran on the specific promise of ending the war. If they don't deliver, they will be judged on that single issue - the same that got them into power - it cuts both ways. c. The polls you have been monitoring are wrong. http://www.pollingreport.com/co ngress.htm Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll. March 29-April 1, 2007. N=807 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5 (for all registered voters). "Democrats gained majorities in the House and Senate in the 2006 elections. Do you think that the new Democratic majority in Congress is doing better, worse or about the same as the Republican majority that was in power before them?" All Regisrered voters 28% better/18% worse/44% same/10% unsure d. What about up and down votes on the 3 issues dear to American public's hearts? -rescinding the October 11/02 Iraq invasion resolution? - requiring GWB to get authorization from Congress to start another war - requiring Immigration laws on the books to be enforced These are but a few of the issues that the American public want Congress to vote on. What you don't want to accept is that "your" party, the Democrats, is on the same page as "the other party" - both parties don't want what is best for America. Both parties are in cinq with one another and out of step with what Americans want.
I would have to respectfully disagree. For example, if Israel wanted our military to fight and die in a Middle East war which provided a benefit to Israel, legally speaking that would not make Israel our enemy, and there would be no alleged adherence to the third nation, for example Iraq or Iran. There are few Supreme Court cases on treason because it is so difficult a case to make. Acts may satisfy criminal statutes which provide the death penalty, such as in the Rosenberg case. Treason of adherence to an enemy was old in the law. It consisted of breaking allegiance to one's own King by forming an attachment to his enemy. Its scope was comprehensive, its requirements indeterminate. It might be predicated on intellecutal or emotional sympathy with the for, or merely lack of zeal in the cause of one's own country. That was not the kind of disloyalty the framers thought should constitute treason. They promptly accepted the proposal to restrict it to cases where also there was conduct which was 'giving them aid and comfort.' * * * Every act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses. The two-witness principle is to interdict imputation of incriminating acts to the accused by circumstantial evidence or by the testimony of a single witness. The prosecution cannot rely on evidence which does not meet the constitutional test for overt acts to create any inference that the accused did other acts or did something more than was shown in the overt act, in order to make a giving of aid and comfort to the enemy. * * * It may be that in some cases the overt acts, sufficient to prove giving of aid and comfort, will fall short of showing intent to betray and that questions will then be raised as to permissible methods of proof that we do not reach in this case. But in this and some cases we have cited where the sufficiency of the overt acts has been challenged because they were colorless as to intent, we are persuaded the reason intent was left in question was that the acts were really indecisive as a giving of aid and comfort. When we deal with acts that are trivial and commonplace and hence are doubtful as to whether they gave aid and comfort to the enemy, we are most put to it to find in other evidence a treacherous intent. * * * The history of treason in this country down to the Constitution has been recently developed in Hurst, Treason in the United States, (1944) 58 Harv.L.Rev. 226. We do not stop to explore that field. But Professor Hurst's researches make plain that prior to the revolution the influence of 25 Edw. III was strong in the colonies and that, if anything, the scope of the offense was somewhat broadened. The Revolution changed matters. The Continental Congress recommended more restrictive legislation to the colonies which limited treason to levying war and adhering to the enemy, giving him aid and comfort. Id., p. 247. No form of treason by compassing was retained. Id., p. 252. Distrust of constructive treason was beginning to be voiced ( id., pp. 253, 254) though in some colonies treason was so broadly defined as to include mere utterances of opinions. Id., pp. 266 et seq. 'Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.' To constitute that specific crime for which the prisoners now before the court have been committed, war must be actually levied against the United States. However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, the distinct offences. The first must be brought into operation by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed. So far has this principle been carried, that, in a case reported by Ventris, and mentioned in some modern treatises on criminal law, it has been determined that the actual enlistment of men to serve against the government does not amount to levying war. It is true that in that case the soldiers enlisted were to serve without the realm, but they were enlisted within it, and if the enlistment for a treasonable purpose could amount to levying war, then war had been actually levied. It is not the intention of the court to say that no individual can be guilty of this crime who has not appeared in arms against his county. On the contrary, if war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors. But there must be an actual assembling of men for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war. Crimes so atrocious as those which have for their object the subversion by violence of those laws and those institutions which have been ordained in order to secure the peace and happiness of society, are not to escape punishment because they have not ripened into treason. The wisdom of the legislature is competent to provide for the case; and the framers of our constitution, who not only defined and limited the crime, but with jealous circumspection attempted to protect their limitation by providing that no person should be convicted of it, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court, must have conceived it more safe that punishment in such cases should be ordained by general laws, formed upon deliberation, under the influence of no resentments, and without knowing on whom they were to operate, than that it should be inflicted under the influence of those passions which the occasion seldom fails to excite, and which a flexible definition of the crime, or a construction which would render it flexible, might bring into operation. It is therefore more safe as well as more consonant to the principles of our constitution, that the crime of treason should not be extended by construction to doubtful cases; and that crimes not clearly within the constitutional definition, should receive such punishment as the legislature in its wisdom may provide.
I agree with your point but would add another contributing reason. At the nominating convention, Kerry stepped up to the mike, saluted, and said something to the effect that he was John Kerry and he was reporting for duty. He invested a lot of his political capital in his military heroism. Under scrutiny, three purple hearts without a scratch to show for it failed to impress many of us retired military vets. The swiftboat group did significant damage.
Watergate did not kill Nixon with one big crushing blow but with a seemingly unending series of revelations of misdeeds and corruption and coverups. Even the GOP might not find it so easy to get rid of Bush. There is no way the Dems will allow that to happen unless Cheney goes first. If Bush/Cheney become an anchor which threatens the political aspirations of enough GOP incumbents, they will act in their interest. Politicians don't much give a crap about the people, but they are highly motivated about getting re-elected. I don't think the Dems want to get rid of Bush. They want to investigate this administration until election day. They want the evening news to lead with a new revelation of administration scandal night after night after night.
No, there are over 400 Democratic Congressmen and fifty Democratic Senators. Obama has no real authority over them. They vote on resolutions and each indidividual member can vote as they choose. Obama is running for President. That is the job Bush holds now. He will say a lot of things trying to conform to what he thinks the country wants. This doesn't mean the Democrats have to follow. What about up and down votes on the 3 issues dear to American public's hearts? Yes, Republican supporters want this. And it is a constant propaganda ploy on the net. You are not the only one using it. But as you know, there are not enough votes to support this sort of resolution - so it will automatically lose. (I explained how the members of the Congress and the Senate must vote on issues in my last post.) Were the Democrats to lose, you and every other GOP shill on th net would take the vitory and try to reverse the current momentum with it. Why should the Democrats fall for a dumb trick like that? Especially when there are other EFFECTIVE ways to accomplish the goal? The fact that there are EFFECTIVE ways to do this is precisely the reason you, Badeye and the rest are shrilly screaming for this INEFFECTIVE method to be put in place. As far as your poll hocus pocus goes, Congressional approval has always been low. People traditionally rank their local reps highly and give very low rankings to the body in general. It is much higher than it was when controlled by the GOP (about 20%) and it is back to it's historic average level. The real measure is how people see the parties - the averrage person doesn't even know what Congress is doing during any given month. You are a good expample of this - you thought the Senate investigate people and you didn't realize that Congress had to approve isssues by a vote. The preception of the parties has reversed (50 - 35) and if still in motion in favor of the Democrats. If you doubt this, there was an election in 2006 where the Democrats defeated the Repbublicans and basically reversed the power structure in the legislative body. You can find this by googling "election 2006".
.
I don't think the Dems want to get rid of Bush. They want to investigate this administration until election day. They want the evening news to lead with a new revelation of administration scandal night after night after night. This is exactly what I am thinkng. An impeachment effort would be polarizing and the outcome is unpredictable -- on many levels. Look how the Gingritch witch hunt blew up in their faces. Armed with the light of day, the Democrats can make Bush and Cheney absolute pariahs by 2008. I am thinking the actual tactic is to force the Republicans to remove Bush and Cheney as they did with Nixon - or perhaps face a lurid show trial during the final weeks of the run to the election. Someone also made a good point to me last night. Bush and Cheney did lie us into the war, there is no doubt about that. The problem is that there is no smoking gun and this allows the GOP to keep the BeAChoosers of the world in the boat and to keep the matter out of the Congressional impeachment court. This smoking gun shouldn't be too hard to find however as the past six years are sifted through and people go under oath. This apparently is the holy grail. Conclusive proof that that Bush or Cheney, and not just Fox News or Rumsfeld, lied us into war will finish these guys very quickly. They would probably just step down to end the matter ASAP. This may be the Democratic plan A. But simply making Bush and Cheney inneffective and using them as an example of what the GOP really stands for might be enough. It is not as satisfying as an impeachment would be right now, but it may confer more long term benefits. Look at how it is actually a good thing that Kerry lost. He would have simply been torn to shreds by the GOP controlled Congress and left with the blame for the loss in Iraq. What is unfolding now is actually better in the long run.
.
the only thing BAC knows much about is Jeff Gannon's private parts. I caution everyone against taking the guy seriously.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
:) great gif That artist who posts his work on Rense, is VERY creative.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
The real measure is how people see the parties - the averrage person doesn't even know what Congress is doing during any given month. You are a good expample of this - you thought the Senate investigate people and you didn't realize that Congress had to approve isssues by a vote. If you doubt this, there was an election in 2006 where the Democrats defeated the Repbublicans and basically reversed the power structure in the legislative body. You can find this by googling "election 2006". a. I'm not a GOP "shill" and if you bothered to read my posts here you would recognize that fact. Btw you better get used to dealing with independent voters like myself and others on this forum - it's people like me whose votes in 2008 who will determine whether "your" party wins the Oval Office in 2008 or a Majority in Congress. Lock step Democrats like you who resort to making derogatory comments about independents like me doesn't do "your" party any favors. b. What the fudge are you talking about that I am ignorant of how Congress works? I am one of the best contributors of political articles and on point political information links on this forum ( no one does it better than Brian and robin of course). Nonetheless my contributions both in posting articles/links as well as discussing/anaylzing politics does not happen by luck or by accident. On one occasion as I recall, I made some type of statement about how Nancy and the House were failing to impeach GWB and haul his a** away and Brian corrected me that the Senate needed to do the actual impeachment process/removal and I immediately thanked him for catching my oversight. Big deal. But as childish immature people are apt to do, you and your fellow DemBot Brigade seized on this tiny error as evidence that I'm not an informed voter. You carry this scrapper oversight around with you next to your heart as though it's the Star Africa diamond trophy. Get a clue - embellishing my single oversight to be something more than it was does not make you look smart or me ill-informed, if that's what you are after. As for the lack of an up and down vote on 3 most important issues to America, you refuse to admit that it's because "your" party does not want to reveal that its own members would show themselves to be a part of the war monger pro illegal immigration brigade. There's trickery afoot all right but it is not related to the GOP or GOP shills - it's about "your" party tricking deaf and blind DemBot supporters into thinking the Democratic Party is different from the GOP on matters of war and illegal immigration. If the Democrats "defeated the Republicans and basically reversed the power structure in the legislative body" in 2006, as you claim, then why can't the all powerful Democratic Party win the majority on the 3 most important issues Americans want resolved? Think about that for a second - incumbency won the 2006 elections and party "majorities" changed only slightly from one to another as it did in 2004. Incumbency is the winner 98% of the time because of campaign funds from special lobby interests. America is the real loser as a result. Regarding the lack of differences between parties on the most important issues to Americans, here's some tips to see where "your" party stands: Hint #1: You can google AIPAC in news and discover what "your" party sets as their main priority for foreign policy - many of the Dem leadership were blubbering havnagela along with the Cheneyites at the annual AIPAC conference a couple of weeks ago. Hint #2: Google Congresswoman Nancy Boyda and immigration and you'll find that within the Democratic Party Boyda is one of the few who is in step with the vast majority of what Americans believe. According to a report card tracking site re: politicians' positions on immigration, Boyda scored better than 226 other House Democrats and she only pulled off a B+ at that. I saw her interviewed on CNN on Friday and she said leadership in her party and most in her party did not agree with her and she was only one of 3 people in the House Democrats who were responding to what Americans want.
#4. To: BeAChooser (#0)
#5. To: BeAChooser (#0)
#6. To: BeAChooser (#0)
#7. To: nolu_chan, aristeides, bluedogtxn, Brian S, robin, christine, Diana, kiki, rowdee, Mekons4, AGAviator, Neil McIver, SKYDRIFTER, Burkeman1, angle, randge, Fred Mertz (#0)
(Edited)
The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al- Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.
#8. To: BeAChooser (#0)
#9. To: ... (#0)
"This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq."
#10. To: BeAChooser (#0)
#11. To: ..., ALL (#0)
Zarqawi, whom Cheney depicted yesterday as an agent of al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war, was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts. He publicly allied himself with al-Qaeda after the U.S. invasion, in early 2004.
#12. To: BeAChooser (#0)
#13. To: BeAChooser (#11)
Then why did a dozen self-admitted members of al-Qaeda who were caught bringing explosives, chemicals and vehicles into Jordan to committ an act of mass casualty terror say they met with and were funded by al-Zarqawi prior to the invasion of Iraq?
#14. To: BeAChooser (#11)
Then why did a dozen self-admitted members of al-Qaeda who were caught bringing explosives, chemicals and vehicles into Jordan to committ an act of mass casualty terror say they met with and were funded by al-Zarqawi prior to the invasion of Iraq?
#15. To: BeAChooser (#11)
Then why did a dozen self-admitted members of al-Qaeda who were caught bringing explosives, chemicals and vehicles into Jordan to committ an act of mass casualty terror say they met with and were funded by al-Zarqawi prior to the invasion of Iraq?
#16. To: BeAChooser (#11)
I think the author of this article is splitting mighty thin hairs.
#17. To: ... (#13)
#18. To: all (#0)
#19. To: ... (#14)
Could also be that NewsMax was just filling your head with shit again
#20. To: BeAChooser (#0)
#21. To: scrapper2 (#7)
The CIA did not give the White House bad intel. That was a flagrant lie by the President.
propaganda intel and said what they wanted to hear.
#22. To: nolu_chan (#21)
For all intents and purposes, the WH ginned up its own intel. They created their own office of propaganda intel and said what they wanted to hear.
#23. To: scrapper2 (#22)
MO, GWB and Cheney should be impeached and Doug Feith and Paul Wolfowitz as directors of the Office of Special Plans should be tried for treason.
#24. To: nolu_chan (#23)
(Edited)
#25. To: ..., BeAChooser (#0)
#26. To: nolu_chan (#23)
While it may be impossible to get hold of the jugular, death by a thousand cuts is still death.
#27. To: ..., BeAChooser (#26)
#28. To: ... (#26)
At my last count there were fifty-two open investigations and they just began a new one into the recess appointment today.
#29. To: ..., nolu_chan, aristeides, bluedogtxn, Burkeman1, robin, leveller, randge, christine, rowdee, Mekons4, Brian S (#26)
Dragging up one the Bush crimes one after the other also has the effect of killing off the last of Bush's support. We might yet see the votes for an impeachment - or the GOP itself might find it necessary to get rid of Bush.
#30. To: scrapper2 (#29)
How different are the Democrats from the GOP on either of those 2 issues - nada.
#31. To: ... (#30)
a. The Democrats have a pullout resolution in the supplemental spending bill. The Republicans are violently opposing it. I don't see how there could be more difference on the issues.
#32. To: scrapper2 (#24)
b. Treason - giving aid and comfort to the enemy - if a foreign nation wants our military to fight and die in a war for its security benefit, then that nation is our enemy and its agents who headed a department to manufacture intel for such a war are guilty of treason.
CRAMER v. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 1 (1945)
============ 'Aid and comfort' was defined by Lord Reading in the Casement trial comprehensively, as it should be, and yet probably with as much precision as the nature of the matter will permit: '... an act which strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemies of the King in the conduct of a war against the King, that is in law the giving of aid and comfort' and 'an act which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the King and of the country to resist or to attack the enemies of the King and the country ... is ... giving of aid and comfort.' Lord Reading explained it, as we think one must, in terms of an 'act.' It is not easy, if indeed possible, to think of a way in which 'aid and comfort' and be 'given' to an enemy except by some kind of action. Its very nature partakes of a deed or physical activity as opposed to a mental operation.
Thus the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy - making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength - but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason. EX PARTE BOLLMAN, 8 U.S. 75 (1807)
#33. To: scrapper2 (#29)
The reason GWB was not ousted in 2004 was not because of Bush-love, it was because the alternative - a cousin to W, an israelFirster himself - was not that different from Bush on ME meddling - so voters stuck with the devil known rather than the devil unknown.
#34. To: ... (#26)
Dragging up one the Bush crimes one after the other also has the effect of killing off the last of Bush's support. We might yet see the votes for an impeachment - or the GOP itself might find it necessary to get rid of Bush.
#35. To: scrapper2 (#31)
And Obama has already announced that the Democrats will approve whatever GWB wants for funding the Iraq War.
#36. To: nolu_chan (#34)
Watergate did not kill Nixon with one big crushing blow but with a seemingly unending series of revelations of misdeeds and corruption and coverups.
#37. To: ..., BeAChooser (#0)
#38. To: angle (#18)
#39. To: ..., Brian S (#35)
(Edited)
Were the Democrats to lose, you and every other GOP shill on th net would take the vitory and try to reverse the current momentum with it. Why should the Democrats fall for a dumb trick like that?
Postscript: the reason Obama knows that the Democrats will roll over and continue to fund GWB's Iraq war and surge is because Rahm and Nancy and Harry and Chuckie have already told them all what the game plan is and how they are supposed to vote when all is said and done. I take it you weren't invited to that party meeting?
#40. To: ..., ALL (#14)
You are just embarrassing yourself, ... I already posted articles from a dozen mainstream sources (including MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, CSPAN, THE WASHINGTON POST, etc) that say this happened. Your red herring about Newsmax is getting old and ... to be honest ... rather pathetic. You need new material for you comedy act.
"Then why did a dozen self-admitted members of al-Qaeda who were caught bringing explosives, chemicals and vehicles into Jordan to committ an act of mass casualty terror say they met with and were funded by al-Zarqawi prior to the invasion of Iraq?"
Could also be that NewsMax was just filling your head with shit again when they told you this.
#41. To: angle, ..., ALL (#19)
Guess you still were snoring when I posted ... articles from MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, CSPAN, THE WASHINGTON POST, and half a dozen other mainstream sources talking about the Jordan chemical bomb plot. Hangover???
Could also be that NewsMax was just filling your head with shit again
The most probable scenario.
#42. To: Red Jones, ALL (#25)
Red, I've won when I've reduced you to making this your ONLY contribution to this forum in thread after thread. It's rather pathetic. ROTFLOL!
IT has been well-established in previous threads and by BAC's own admission that he is a homosexual TREASONOUS QUEER!
#43. To: BeAChooser (#42)
I'm glad you don't take it personal & get upset. a man's sexual orientation is his own business. and if you're not loyal to our country - that is your business too. But it is my business to tell people that you are not credible - that is the nature of how TREASONOUS QUEER!s are. If you don't like me reminding people of it, then why did you admit to being a TREASONOUS QUEER! in the first place? I'm in favor of letting people make up their own minds. But they have a right to know about you.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest