"Scooter" Libby Indicted!!!!! - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-28-2005, 09:20 PM   #46
Blue Crack Supplier
 
kellyahern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 8 years and I still can't think of anything witty to put here
Posts: 34,698
Local Time: 07:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


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.
__________________

__________________
kellyahern is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 08:07 AM   #47
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 07:48 AM
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.
__________________

__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 03:22 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Sherry Darling
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.
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.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 04:21 PM   #49
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Nobody in here questions your timeline.....

But.....

If the administration made its case to the Senators using bogus information.....isn't that important?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 04:40 PM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Nobody in here questions your timeline.....

But.....

If the administration made its case to the Senators using bogus information.....isn't that important?
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 is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 05:20 PM   #51
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2



The NIGER issue which is what this whole case revolves around occured after the congressional resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority.


So you know for certain...that the administration had not presented the NIGER information to the Intelligence Committee....ect to make their case, before the Oct. 10th vote?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 05:23 PM   #52
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


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.
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 is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 06:00 PM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


So you know for certain...that the administration had not presented the NIGER information to the Intelligence Committee....ect to make their case, before the Oct. 10th vote?
No I don't, but the State Of the Union Address, where the information was used, that everyone talks about, occured in 2003.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 06:15 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


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.
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.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 10:50 PM   #55
The Fly
 
japes4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Big Lemon (New York)
Posts: 78
Local Time: 11:48 AM
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.
__________________
japes4 is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 10:59 PM   #56
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


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.
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.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 11:04 PM   #57
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


No I don't, but the State Of the Union Address, where the information was used, that everyone talks about, occured in 2003.
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.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 11:06 PM   #58
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by japes4
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.
The difference is the Clinton Administration would have worked through the UN until there was a clear resolution authorizing force.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 11:11 PM   #59
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 06:48 AM
The evidence of this administration's corruption is coming to the forefront. So let's discuss resolutions and Bill Clinton. After all, that's what's really relevant in this case.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 11:16 PM   #60
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:48 PM
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).
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com