U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
"Scooter" Libby Indicted!!!!!
- Thread starter U2democrat
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
blueyedpoet
Refugee
Can anyone imagine if Al Gore's chief of staff were to have been indicted during Clinton's years? The Newts and the congress republicans would've been demanding that Clinton be impeached.
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
It would be
deep
Blue Crack Addict
blueyedpoet said:
VRWC
don't get hysterical
do you think they are capable of demanding an impeachment on charges
that came from an investigation that found no evidence of wrong doing
but poor Libby was just tripped up under questioning and may have given a wrong answer on something that was not about what the investigation began about?
Get real, these guys are innocent until you find them in bed with a dead girl or live boy.
I for one am NOT gloating. And I am on the leftish side. And I hate to say it, anybody who feels "giddy" about this whole thing should feel ashamed of themselves. Things in this country are far too serious for that. This is a very tough thing for me to say, considering how bitter I have felt over the past 6 yrs watching Our Glorious Leader get away with things that border (IMO) on the verge of treason. While remembering the media creating artifical "scandals" out of luggage or real estate transactions that happened 20 yrs before Bill Clinton even saw the inside of a Guv's office, years BEFORE Monicagate. I have often dreamed of the criminal behavior of Dubya coming back to haunt him, and then slowly realizing that due to a man named Rupert Murdoch, it would never ever happen .
If this has happened a year ago, when the body count on all sides was lower in Iraq, the hurricanes had not yet hit, and the campaigns were in full swing, I might have experienced one moment of "giddiness." But things have sunk far too
low for that.
Yesterday, by a divinely inspired fluke, (I am sure it was Divinely inspired) I was in the library in the way home from work to pay off a fine on some overdue stuff, and had this urge to rent a DVD. I go over to the shelves, and one of the first things my eyes fall upon is "Mr. Smith Goes To Washinton." I am a film buff, and this was one of those great all-time classics that I had always wanted to see but never got around to it. I was thinking of the potential fallout from this, oddly enough. The film has gone down in folklore until many people actually don't remember what the film is really about. Most people (like me) think it is about a "little guy", a honest ordinary American, who goes to DC to plead a passionate cause with the poliical fat cats and wins. An inspiring, heartwarming story about something that could only happen in America: a lone person who is angry about the State of the country, fights a battle, and wins. Kind of like Bono making the rounds in DC with DATA, and actually coming up with appropriated funds (a signed check) for the Millenium Challenge account, not just allocations (empty words.) Or the origional MR. Brockovitch. This film has become, over time, something like its director Frank Capra's other classic: "It's A Wonderful Life." Which came out around the same time, just before WWII.
Well, I recommend that everybody go out and RUN to their nearest video store and rent this NOW..if they don't own it. The film is SO relevant for our times that it should be required viewing for all. It is a much more darker and complicated film than folklore has sanitized it as. The premise of "Mr Smith Goes To Washington" is this:
What if one completely honest person really was elected to public office? And not only honest and righteous and humble of character, and wanting to do good, but actually really patriotic and such a believer in his country that he is willing to risk all? It would be a miracle. It's unthinkable. This film is kind of like the story of Christ wrapped up in a political parable.
Let me just give a little bit of a summary and high points of the film. As I watched it last night, I almost cried. And I realized why it would not help or be right to "gloat" about what happened today.
I don't remember the details (the opening of the film moves VERY fast) but the movie begins with a key Senator dying at a most importune moment, according to a Midwestern Governor. There is a potential scandal brewing around this guy and he needs some kind of miracle to cover his butt with the press, and he is stumped on who to recommend as a candidate from his state. He goes home and eats dinner with his kids, who rave over this Youth Leader that they all idolize, Mr Smith. The Guv puts this down to childish fancy, of course, but is so desperate that he decides to secretly check this guy out in his natural habitat. He goes to a Smith event and discovers that not only the youth of his state, but people all over the country, adore and idolize Smith..he is a genuine folk hero. (This is all a bit fanciful today, adoring crowds coming up to him in the street and the media gushing about him, etc, it might just have been metaphorical Hollywood license....but I've read about Capra and he was a bit of an idealist himself) but we can all think of people we like to think are "honest" compared to others, from what we can see. My current choice, based on the little we know, would be Eliot Spitzer or Barack Obama. And on the right, my personal Republican hero, Bob Dole. I say "honest" to a degree, of course.)
Hot dog! Problem solved. Mr Smith is the Guv's nominee for the Senate, (or however this process works, this was the part I don't remember--how he actually got to office) but everyone is stunned. The DC scenes leading up to Smith's trip to Washingon are searing. The Jean Harlowe character (I think that was her) , the aide to the Seantor that Smith is replacing, is a tough as nails cynical hack who laughingly dubs Smith "Daniel Boone" and we see scenes of various media and Washington pols laughing and preparing their knives. We assume we know the kind of cynical climate that is politcs but to actually see it in the context of someone we, the audience, have come to think of as "good" and knowing what lies in store for him, it's devestating. Becuase Capra assumes that the audience, like him, have not become cynical and must have some little faith that the there is good in the country's leaderhip, and thus something good aobut the state of America, still. And beyond that, the state of humanity. (This is one of the film's tragedies: Jimmy Stewart 's Smith was America back then....its projection of itself. Mr Smith and Mickey Mouse. That's not who we were, of course, and we knew it, but we still had enough faith back then to hope that someday, that is who we still could be. Could a film like this be made today? Could a characte rlike Smith even be taken seriously? Nope. )
ON his first day in office, Smith, instead of heading to his Ivory Tower on Capitol Hill to collect the spoils of power and settle into Roman pomposity, decides to do the tourist thing in DC like the ordinary citizen he likes thi think he still is. This is the only part of the film that is dated....the montage of patriotic images seems to me to indicate that at the time the film had a slight anti-Commie suplot. But Communism is not mentioned, so we can take this as we will. ) While he takes 4 hours to see the sights, the Aide goes nuts, and when he quietly goes through the door of his office, she treats him as if he was a little child. "Stay right there, Mr Smith!" then ducks into another room and yells over the phone to her contact: "He's here! Daniel Boone! We've got him!"
God, you cringe.
Well, when he goes to the Seante, it appears his big issue is "relief" (what we today call the role of the "Welfare State", ie Big Government.) This is at the tail end of the Depression of course, but we can take this as we will. What is the role and nature of the gov't in caring for its citizens. The Senators are incredulous. If you really want to see how a filibuster operates, get this movie, not C-Span! The climate grows more and more hostile on bith sides of the aisle as the icredulous Senators express their contemot for sucha buffoon slipping into their cozy little circle. And we, the audience, start to see how Smith A(nd thus, we, the public, ) are dangerous. How they DON"T want us. How someone who actually cares aobut the people is reperesenting is dangerous. YOu get a crash course in the state of politcs, interest groups, oursleves. The rest of the film is all Smith's epic filbuster about "relief", and due to Capr'as skillful handling, even if you don't agree with all he says, you are made to feel he is a hero. Because you can see he really believes and hopes and trusts and now feels betrayed. As time goes on, the relief issue is suashed over the Senate's growing desire to see him ousted from the floor and his office. Whereupon Smith actually pulls a copy of the COnsitution from his pocket and ends up giving a speech about "love thy neighbor." Again, today he is too one-domensional to be beleived as anything other than a metaphor for the best in oursleves, but Stewart's performance (srely one of the great perfprmances of all time) pulls us in. At the end, relaizing his labors are dooming him and feeling his faith shattered by these wolves with mocking smiles, he faints on the Senate floor. Wherupon the Governor who put him up for office, to deflect attention away from his own iniquities, rushes into the Senate chamber and in total remorse confesses his crimes to all and sundry.
If only it works out that way. It doesn't, of course.
But I kept thinking: what are We, the public, doing to ensure our officials are are acocuntable for their actions? What are We doing as the guardians of virtue? Have we become too passive in demanding such accountabity? The answer is a resouding YES. I fully see that the adage is true: we get only the gov't we desire.
When you read a USA Today article that the war in Iraq barely registers in the public consciousness even as the US troop toll passes 2000, that appalls you, even if youre against the war. It is impossible for me to register such apathy in my mind. Even with all the other things on our plate, WAR is WAR. And it did not start yesterday.
This is getting too long...I might finish this post later. I think I was going to talk about the low point we have hit but it's another essy in itself. I was thinking along spiritual lines and the will to do things.
I now have to do the rounds of my favorite news sites (left and right) and find out what the hell actually happened here. Nowadays, for big dramatic events lik ehtis, I like to find out about it first from FYM..I love politcal debates among U2 fans....who follow the "politcal" band..there's no debate like debate among U2 nuts! Our megalomanical egos take a cue from our beloved B I think, and the longer the fan, the bigger the ego.
I stand guilty, being a fan longer than most on here, though comapred to some posters, I am much younger...
If this has happened a year ago, when the body count on all sides was lower in Iraq, the hurricanes had not yet hit, and the campaigns were in full swing, I might have experienced one moment of "giddiness." But things have sunk far too
low for that. Yesterday, by a divinely inspired fluke, (I am sure it was Divinely inspired) I was in the library in the way home from work to pay off a fine on some overdue stuff, and had this urge to rent a DVD. I go over to the shelves, and one of the first things my eyes fall upon is "Mr. Smith Goes To Washinton." I am a film buff, and this was one of those great all-time classics that I had always wanted to see but never got around to it. I was thinking of the potential fallout from this, oddly enough. The film has gone down in folklore until many people actually don't remember what the film is really about. Most people (like me) think it is about a "little guy", a honest ordinary American, who goes to DC to plead a passionate cause with the poliical fat cats and wins. An inspiring, heartwarming story about something that could only happen in America: a lone person who is angry about the State of the country, fights a battle, and wins. Kind of like Bono making the rounds in DC with DATA, and actually coming up with appropriated funds (a signed check) for the Millenium Challenge account, not just allocations (empty words.) Or the origional MR. Brockovitch. This film has become, over time, something like its director Frank Capra's other classic: "It's A Wonderful Life." Which came out around the same time, just before WWII.
Well, I recommend that everybody go out and RUN to their nearest video store and rent this NOW..if they don't own it. The film is SO relevant for our times that it should be required viewing for all. It is a much more darker and complicated film than folklore has sanitized it as. The premise of "Mr Smith Goes To Washington" is this:
What if one completely honest person really was elected to public office? And not only honest and righteous and humble of character, and wanting to do good, but actually really patriotic and such a believer in his country that he is willing to risk all? It would be a miracle. It's unthinkable. This film is kind of like the story of Christ wrapped up in a political parable.
Let me just give a little bit of a summary and high points of the film. As I watched it last night, I almost cried. And I realized why it would not help or be right to "gloat" about what happened today.
I don't remember the details (the opening of the film moves VERY fast) but the movie begins with a key Senator dying at a most importune moment, according to a Midwestern Governor. There is a potential scandal brewing around this guy and he needs some kind of miracle to cover his butt with the press, and he is stumped on who to recommend as a candidate from his state. He goes home and eats dinner with his kids, who rave over this Youth Leader that they all idolize, Mr Smith. The Guv puts this down to childish fancy, of course, but is so desperate that he decides to secretly check this guy out in his natural habitat. He goes to a Smith event and discovers that not only the youth of his state, but people all over the country, adore and idolize Smith..he is a genuine folk hero. (This is all a bit fanciful today, adoring crowds coming up to him in the street and the media gushing about him, etc, it might just have been metaphorical Hollywood license....but I've read about Capra and he was a bit of an idealist himself) but we can all think of people we like to think are "honest" compared to others, from what we can see. My current choice, based on the little we know, would be Eliot Spitzer or Barack Obama. And on the right, my personal Republican hero, Bob Dole. I say "honest" to a degree, of course.)
Hot dog! Problem solved. Mr Smith is the Guv's nominee for the Senate, (or however this process works, this was the part I don't remember--how he actually got to office) but everyone is stunned. The DC scenes leading up to Smith's trip to Washingon are searing. The Jean Harlowe character (I think that was her) , the aide to the Seantor that Smith is replacing, is a tough as nails cynical hack who laughingly dubs Smith "Daniel Boone" and we see scenes of various media and Washington pols laughing and preparing their knives. We assume we know the kind of cynical climate that is politcs but to actually see it in the context of someone we, the audience, have come to think of as "good" and knowing what lies in store for him, it's devestating. Becuase Capra assumes that the audience, like him, have not become cynical and must have some little faith that the there is good in the country's leaderhip, and thus something good aobut the state of America, still. And beyond that, the state of humanity. (This is one of the film's tragedies: Jimmy Stewart 's Smith was America back then....its projection of itself. Mr Smith and Mickey Mouse. That's not who we were, of course, and we knew it, but we still had enough faith back then to hope that someday, that is who we still could be. Could a film like this be made today? Could a characte rlike Smith even be taken seriously? Nope. )
ON his first day in office, Smith, instead of heading to his Ivory Tower on Capitol Hill to collect the spoils of power and settle into Roman pomposity, decides to do the tourist thing in DC like the ordinary citizen he likes thi think he still is. This is the only part of the film that is dated....the montage of patriotic images seems to me to indicate that at the time the film had a slight anti-Commie suplot. But Communism is not mentioned, so we can take this as we will. ) While he takes 4 hours to see the sights, the Aide goes nuts, and when he quietly goes through the door of his office, she treats him as if he was a little child. "Stay right there, Mr Smith!" then ducks into another room and yells over the phone to her contact: "He's here! Daniel Boone! We've got him!"
God, you cringe.
Well, when he goes to the Seante, it appears his big issue is "relief" (what we today call the role of the "Welfare State", ie Big Government.) This is at the tail end of the Depression of course, but we can take this as we will. What is the role and nature of the gov't in caring for its citizens. The Senators are incredulous. If you really want to see how a filibuster operates, get this movie, not C-Span!
The climate grows more and more hostile on bith sides of the aisle as the icredulous Senators express their contemot for sucha buffoon slipping into their cozy little circle. And we, the audience, start to see how Smith A(nd thus, we, the public, ) are dangerous. How they DON"T want us. How someone who actually cares aobut the people is reperesenting is dangerous. YOu get a crash course in the state of politcs, interest groups, oursleves. The rest of the film is all Smith's epic filbuster about "relief", and due to Capr'as skillful handling, even if you don't agree with all he says, you are made to feel he is a hero. Because you can see he really believes and hopes and trusts and now feels betrayed. As time goes on, the relief issue is suashed over the Senate's growing desire to see him ousted from the floor and his office. Whereupon Smith actually pulls a copy of the COnsitution from his pocket and ends up giving a speech about "love thy neighbor." Again, today he is too one-domensional to be beleived as anything other than a metaphor for the best in oursleves, but Stewart's performance (srely one of the great perfprmances of all time) pulls us in. At the end, relaizing his labors are dooming him and feeling his faith shattered by these wolves with mocking smiles, he faints on the Senate floor. Wherupon the Governor who put him up for office, to deflect attention away from his own iniquities, rushes into the Senate chamber and in total remorse confesses his crimes to all and sundry. If only it works out that way. It doesn't, of course.
But I kept thinking: what are We, the public, doing to ensure our officials are are acocuntable for their actions? What are We doing as the guardians of virtue? Have we become too passive in demanding such accountabity? The answer is a resouding YES. I fully see that the adage is true: we get only the gov't we desire.
When you read a USA Today article that the war in Iraq barely registers in the public consciousness even as the US troop toll passes 2000, that appalls you, even if youre against the war. It is impossible for me to register such apathy in my mind. Even with all the other things on our plate, WAR is WAR. And it did not start yesterday.
This is getting too long...I might finish this post later. I think I was going to talk about the low point we have hit but it's another essy in itself. I was thinking along spiritual lines and the will to do things.
I now have to do the rounds of my favorite news sites (left and right) and find out what the hell actually happened here. Nowadays, for big dramatic events lik ehtis, I like to find out about it first from FYM..I love politcal debates among U2 fans....who follow the "politcal" band..there's no debate like debate among U2 nuts! Our megalomanical egos take a cue from our beloved B I think, and the longer the fan, the bigger the ego.
I stand guilty, being a fan longer than most on here, though comapred to some posters, I am much younger...
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
*Sits here thinking about all the stuff these people are in trouble for*
Soooooooo...tell me again why people supported this administration at all?
Personally, while I hoped for the day when people would realize that this administration is full of people who aren't really all that bright, at the same time, I didn't want it all to come about like this. It really, really frightens me that these people are doing these sorts of things...I can't believe they think they can get away with it all. I definitely hope they get the appropriate punishments for their moronic actions.
Angela
Soooooooo...tell me again why people supported this administration at all?
Personally, while I hoped for the day when people would realize that this administration is full of people who aren't really all that bright, at the same time, I didn't want it all to come about like this. It really, really frightens me that these people are doing these sorts of things...I can't believe they think they can get away with it all. I definitely hope they get the appropriate punishments for their moronic actions.
Angela
Bluer White
New Yorker
Moonlit_Angel said:
Way to sensationalize. Libby isn't being indicted for releasing classified information, which can't even be proved. He's being indicted for perjury/obstruction of justice. If he's found guilty, he should pay the consequences. No one disagrees with that.
Staffers initiate "leaks" to the press all the time, it's part of the job. This time Libby may have went a step too far, outing a partisan paper pusher from the CIA. But really it's more embarrassing that frightening.
Judah
War Child
Bluer White said:
Well, I think you're kind of missing the bigger picture. The frightening part is the context: the selling of the war and what the White House Iraq Group's members were willing to do to ensure anyone who publicly got in their way was taken care of...using the media, information from fake documents, what ever...
These are the President's men and women: just embarassing you say? Wow.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Bluer White said:
No. You're flat out wrong. An ordinary common or garden leak to the press is totally different to blowing the cover of an undercover agent.
It is evident to me that this couple were targetted cos they weren't toeing the Bush/Cheney line. It's Rovian slimeball dirty tricks, and anyone that can't see that is just thick stupid.
The obviously 'outed' the name of the agent firstly in order to intimidate and purge dissident elements within the CIA who failed to go along with their 'analysis' of the situation regarding in Iraq, and secondly to bamboozle the American public into supporting the war case.
The 'partisan paper pusher' bullshit (as you put it) is nothing more than a SLUR against someone's character and reputation because they disagreed with Bushco. Even though they were totally and utterly VINDICATED and proven 110% CORRECT.
But hey, thanks for taking the effort to spew the Fox RW talking points upon us. Much appreciated.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Judah said:
Exactly!
deep
Blue Crack Addict
financeguy said:
100% should be the goal
that extra 10% confuses me.
is it everything that is knowable (100%)
plus predictions and revelations that will become true?
Bluer White
New Yorker
financeguy said:
I agree that the Wilsons' were targetted. I agree that "Saddam has uranium from Niger" should not have been presented at the State of the Union and to the Congress/UN, as ONE component of the case for war. And thank you for the regularly scheduled right wing conspiracy retort.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Bluer White said:
Then it seems we are in (partial) agreement.
financeguy said:
The case had already been made for war in the United States back in September/October of 2002 several months before these incidents. On October 10, 2002 both the United States House and Senate overwhelmingly approved giving the President the authorization to go to war. While debate would of course not cease after that point in the media, there was no need to rev up support for approval because in the United States it had already been given with the passing of this resolution in congress. No new resolution within congress or vote was required in order to invade Iraq from the perspective of the United States.
Of course getting more support on the international scene was still an issue.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Bluer White said:
I actually wasn't trying to sensationalize anything...just merely commenting on the fact that these people are, well, idiots.
Angela
kellyahern
Blue Crack Supplier
nathan1977 said:
Lay off Scooter. His biggest problem was having a sister named Skeeter...who subsequently disappeared without a trace.
Conspiracy? You be the judge!
Skeeter, we hardly knew ye...
Skeeter was soooooo annoying
As for Scooter . . .
But he'll be okay. His uncle owns the theater.
Sherry Darling
New Yorker
Quickly, since I'm on my way out the door.
It's never a good thing for a nation to see such highly place staffers go down. If this were a petty partisan technicality, I would not be in favor of it, I would be concerned about the loss of resources and time that could be better spent.
As others have pointed out, what must NOT be lost here is the connetion of the crimes of Rove and Libby (I say that pre-charge because Fitzgerald cited considerable concrete evidence) to justifying a war that did not need to happen.
I'd love to hear more from Bush's supporters about this. Not one-liners, etc, but a sustained defense, if that's possible.
It's never a good thing for a nation to see such highly place staffers go down. If this were a petty partisan technicality, I would not be in favor of it, I would be concerned about the loss of resources and time that could be better spent.
As others have pointed out, what must NOT be lost here is the connetion of the crimes of Rove and Libby (I say that pre-charge because Fitzgerald cited considerable concrete evidence) to justifying a war that did not need to happen.
I'd love to hear more from Bush's supporters about this. Not one-liners, etc, but a sustained defense, if that's possible.
Sherry Darling said:
As I said before, the need to go to war had already been justified and approved by the United States congress by October 10, 2002. The events involved(or surrounding) with the indictment happened after this point in time. President Bush did not need to seek any further approval or have another vote in congress, so the idea that information from Niger was needed to justify the war was simply false.
But this does not change the fact that if anyone committed criminal acts they should be charged.
The war itself was a necessity given the fact that Saddam failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD as well as failing to comply with 16 different UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations, vital to the security and stability of the region and the planet.
Unfortunately for anyone wishing Saddam's regime had not been removed from power, Saddam himself is now facing trial in Iraq. The Iraqi people having voted in January elections for a temporary government, and approved the constitution last week. Now Iraqi's will be voting for a permanent government in December. The political track is moving along faster in Iraq than it did in either post-war Germany or post-war Japan after World War II.
Dreadsox said:
The main case for war used from the September 12, 2002 speech at the UN to the October 10, 2002 congressional resolution was Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm and comply with UN resolutions. If other evidence was thrown in that the administration KNEW was false and used as part of the case then that would be a serious problem at that point. But there is simply no evidence of that. Intelligence every day turns out to sometimes be false once more accurate observations can be made. That is the nature of intelligence.
The NIGER issue which is what this whole case revolves around occured after the congressional resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority.
The main case for war was Saddam, his behavior, and failure to comply, not that intelligence exhibit A shows what looks like to be a WMD plant next to Building 43C.
STING2 said:
Please do not treat me like an idiot. I have been in this forum and chatted with you enough on this topic. I do not need another resolution lecture.
The September 12th speech was not a war speech. It was to seek resolution 1444. If that was the war speech it would not have been necessary for Powell to present bogus information later on.
Dreadsox said:
The September 12th speech re-stated the problems and essentially the solution for solving them. Resolution 1441(passed in November 2002) was a diplomatic way of offering Saddam a last chance to comply with the United Nations or face the only serious consequences left that could be imposed on Saddam.
The Powell speech would never of happened had the administration not made the mistake of looking into the possibility of a second resolution after 1441 simply to help Tony Blair and build additional international support in the weeks just prior to launching the invasion. The administration already had received both domestic and international authorization for military action months earlier through the October 10, 2002 congressional resolution and the November 8, 2002 1441 United Nations Resolution.
japes4
The Fly
If Bush is guilty of selling the American people a war based on misinformation and false pretenses, then Clinton is guilty of the same thing.
There is very little difference between Bush's argument that Saddam was a threat and what Clinton had been saying for years. The only difference is that Bush decided to act on that threat.
Now, if the intelligence turned out to be wrong, then it was a grievous error on the part of the entire world intelligence community. Otherwise there would've had to of been a mass conspiracy on the part of the United States, Britain, Israel, and the U.N. to cook up false intelligence to make Saddam seem more dangerous than he really was.
That kind of scenario is a little far-fetched, IMO.
There is very little difference between Bush's argument that Saddam was a threat and what Clinton had been saying for years. The only difference is that Bush decided to act on that threat.
Now, if the intelligence turned out to be wrong, then it was a grievous error on the part of the entire world intelligence community. Otherwise there would've had to of been a mass conspiracy on the part of the United States, Britain, Israel, and the U.N. to cook up false intelligence to make Saddam seem more dangerous than he really was.
That kind of scenario is a little far-fetched, IMO.
Last edited:
STING2 said:
And what you state as fact is an opinion.
Many Legal experts as you are well aware, do not feel 1441 gave the US the right to invade.
As past precident of the Korean Cease Fire, the Security Council, not the member states, have the right to declare an end to the cease fire.
And I for one agree with this and believe in my heart, mind and soul, that the ONLY reason they did not go forward for a CLEAR resolution after 1441 is because they were afraid of the VETO.
The final resolution would have made the actions more firm, given broader support, and EVEN with the veto, it would have demonstrated that the US attempted to get UN backing for the war.
Last edited:
STING2 said:
So you do not think that it is remotely possible that the information was not shared three months prior? You believe that the state of the Union was the first time the Senators and Congressman on the intelligence oversite committees heard this info?
Or is there the remote possibility that the people who voted for war were given the same intelligence, months before the state of the union?
And lets be real, there was a mid-term election, and the piece of shite senators and congressman were worried about the election, and how it would look if they did not stand firm with the elections.
And let's be even more real, the democrats running for President were to chicken shit to vote the way they knew they should have.
It was timing.....pure and simple.
But I for one, believe that the executive branch did not just up and share the info in January with the whole world, before sharing it with the congress.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
I do not think that the issue of Iraq's movements towards procuring Uranium are relevent in this case (including the seperate intelligence that the British government used to make that link, that it has stood by to this day).
