"Scooter" Libby Indicted!!!!! - Page 5 - 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 10-29-2005, 11:31 PM   #61
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
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).
The German's predicted 2005-2006 if I am not mistaken.

However, if you are going to bring up the vote of the congress, it should be open that there may have been false information intentionally shared with them.

The fact that they went out of their way to sacrafice Plume and virtually everyone she had connections with, leads me to believe that they knew it was false, or did not want it proven to be false. Either way, there would be no reason to try and out her.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 12:11 AM   #62
The Fly
 
japes4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Big Lemon (New York)
Posts: 78
Local Time: 04:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


The difference is the Clinton Administration would have worked through the UN until there was a clear resolution authorizing force.
That resolution would have never come, not in a million years. Too may personal bank accounts were at stake.
__________________

__________________
japes4 is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 12:21 AM   #63
The Fly
 
japes4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Big Lemon (New York)
Posts: 78
Local Time: 04:12 AM
In regard to the Plume leak:

I think Bush's handlers simply overplayed their hand. Joe Wilson was a critic of White House policies. Rove and his minions tried to discredit him. In this attempt, the fact that his wife was once covert agent for the CIA was leaked. But as it turned out, it wasn't a crime since she hadn't been one recently (lucky for Republicans, not so lucky for the Democrats who were looking for anything that will stick to Bush).

So now they're pursuing Libby, who may have possibly committed a crime during the investigation (Democrats up, Republicans down).

Its just like Clinton and Monicagate all over again, if you can't get someone on the initial charge, get them with the cover-up. Politics as usual.
__________________
japes4 is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 01:24 AM   #64
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:12 PM
I believe the best description for all of those and quite possibly this is exponential stupidity.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 03:39 AM   #65
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


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.

The same "legal experts" could argue that resolution 678 did not authorize the use of military force to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991.

The Security Council DID authorize the use of military force with resolution 1441! There was NEVER any intention for there to be another resolution at all, until for politcal reasons it was looked into because Tony Blair was having a difficult time domestically and they thought perhaps they could get more support than they already had. Instead, it turned into an attempt by France to essentially reverse the position it had taken in November 2002.

From a legal standpoint, resolution 1441 was not even necessary.

In any event, the fact that the United Nations has passed three different resolutions approving the occupation drives home the point that the invasion was legal and 1441 indeed authorized it. There was never any attempt at a resolution to condemn the invasion and call for an immediate withdrawal. Some will say thats because of the United States veto power, but United States veto power has never stopped UN countries from attempting to pass resolution after resolution condemning Israel. The United Nations would never approve of an occupation brought about through illegal means. The occupation in Iraq has been approved not once but three different times. Resolution 1441 authorized the use of military force against Iraq and the invasion was launched in March 2003. Later in 2003 the United Nations approved the occupation. Its an open and shut case.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 03:51 AM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


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.
The administration did not use the Niger case as its primary reason for the need to invade Iraq. It was piece of intelligence, but far from being anything approaching the central case for military action. I don't recall an Congressman stating that the only reason that they voted for the resolution was the Niger inteligence or that if that intelligence had not been part of the case, they would voted against the resolution.

Yep, I have heard the excuse that if the vote on the resolution had taken place after the election then more Democrats would have voted against it. No one can ever say that for sure though because it did not happen and I don't recall any congressman stating they would have changed their vote if it had simply taken place after the election was over. One can speculate forever on whether the vote would have been any different or the same if it had taken place after the election. It obviously would still have passed by good margin. So yep, lets keep it real, the vote occured and the resolution was overwhelmingly passed.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 03:56 AM   #67
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


The difference is the Clinton Administration would have worked through the UN until there was a clear resolution authorizing force.
Resolution 1441 that authorized the use of force against Iraq in 2003 was just as clear as resolution 678 that authorized the use of force to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991. Oh and the Clinton administration continued to use resolution 678 as the authorization for its subsequent military action against Saddam for the full 8 years Clinton was in office. Bush could have used 678 as well, but he actually went further than the Clinton administration and got a new resolution which this time was passed by a 15-0 vote in the Security council.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 07:39 AM   #68
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by japes4


That resolution would have never come, not in a million years. Too may personal bank accounts were at stake.
However, and I agree it would never have passed, but in the world's view the US would have actually DONE everthing it could, rather than relying on a ambiguously worded resolution.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 07:43 AM   #69
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Resolution 1441 that authorized the use of force against Iraq in 2003 was just as clear as resolution 678 that authorized the use of force to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991. Oh and the Clinton administration continued to use resolution 678 as the authorization for its subsequent military action against Saddam for the full 8 years Clinton was in office. Bush could have used 678 as well, but he actually went further than the Clinton administration and got a new resolution which this time was passed by a 15-0 vote in the Security council.
You and I have been down this road. We disagreee and I have cited int he past, numerous legal scholars to back my opinion up. You did not change my mind, and I did not change yours.

It gets old. Notice, I am giving my opinions on Clinton, which you quote, and then say the same old thing to me. It gets old. I know your position. I respect your position. I disagree with it.

If it was so clear that they could use force, they would not have been entertaining the idea of another vote....So why were they if it was so clear. It does not make sense.

Enough....

You are diverting it from the real story.....

That you and I both know that the information the President presented in January had to have been in their hands long before the President mentioned it in the State of the Union. That the President very likely had that information given to at a minimum, the intelligence committee, and that very clearly, the administration was not looking to hard to prove the intelligence false.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 07:49 AM   #70
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The administration did not use the Niger case as its primary reason for the need to invade Iraq. It was piece of intelligence, but far from being anything approaching the central case for military action. I don't recall an Congressman stating that the only reason that they voted for the resolution was the Niger inteligence or that if that intelligence had not been part of the case, they would voted against the resolution.

Yep, I have heard the excuse that if the vote on the resolution had taken place after the election then more Democrats would have voted against it. No one can ever say that for sure though because it did not happen and I don't recall any congressman stating they would have changed their vote if it had simply taken place after the election was over. One can speculate forever on whether the vote would have been any different or the same if it had taken place after the election. It obviously would still have passed by good margin. So yep, lets keep it real, the vote occured and the resolution was overwhelmingly passed.
Thinking that pieces of intelligence not mentioned (GEE COULD IT HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME) influence the votes is silly. I worked in my congressman's office for a year and a half. They do not have to publicly go on record to talk about the intelligence data.

For months this administration claimed to have concrete evidence.

I am keeping it real. Clearly the vote out of context of what was going on at the time is a beatiful thing for your position.

However, I think it BRILLIANT how the administration timed EVERYTHING perfectly. I cannot wait to read the book years from now on how it was timed. I have spent my life reading about the politics in Washington, it is what I love. You want to place a bet that I am right, that they used the context of what was going on to get the vote?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 10:01 AM   #71
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,882
Local Time: 11:12 PM
This thread is getting off topic. The indictment is not about faulty intelligence. It is not about outing a covert agent - after 22 months the special prosecutor has not found evidence to support this claim. The indictment is about the cover-up of a non-crime - Libby's own personal notes are inconsistent with his testimony and that of several reporters - about information that Libby had security clearance for. Unfortunately for Libby, perjury and obstruction are very serious charges, and in my opinion, are indefensible.
__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 02:04 PM   #72
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:12 PM
Quote:
"They will offer more lectures, and
legalisms, and carefully worded denials. We offer another way, a
better way, and a stiff dose of truth."
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 02:11 PM   #73
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


You and I have been down this road. We disagreee and I have cited int he past, numerous legal scholars to back my opinion up. You did not change my mind, and I did not change yours.

It gets old. Notice, I am giving my opinions on Clinton, which you quote, and then say the same old thing to me. It gets old. I know your position. I respect your position. I disagree with it.

If it was so clear that they could use force, they would not have been entertaining the idea of another vote....So why were they if it was so clear. It does not make sense.

Enough....

You are diverting it from the real story.....

That you and I both know that the information the President presented in January had to have been in their hands long before the President mentioned it in the State of the Union. That the President very likely had that information given to at a minimum, the intelligence committee, and that very clearly, the administration was not looking to hard to prove the intelligence false.
The only reason the administration sought another resolution was because Tony Blair was having domestic difficulties and wanted one. The resolution is as clear as the resolution that authorized force to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait. That resolution origionally had the words military force in its body, but the Soviet Union demanded the words be removed and you arrive at a resolution that is as clear as resolution 1441 in regards to the use of military force.

Any arguements used to claim that resolution 1441 did not authorize the coalition to take military action can be used to say that resolution 678 did not authorize the coalition then to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait with military action. The legal scholars you cited are simply wrong.

The United Nations would never approve an occupation 3 different times that brought about through illegal means. No one presented a resolution to condemn the invasion or call for a withdrawal. Its an open an such case. The United States and other member states of the coalition did the right thing, and operated with the approval of the United Nations Security council in invading Iraq and continue to operate in Iraq with the approval of the United Nations Security Council.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 02:22 PM   #74
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Thinking that pieces of intelligence not mentioned (GEE COULD IT HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME) influence the votes is silly. I worked in my congressman's office for a year and a half. They do not have to publicly go on record to talk about the intelligence data.

For months this administration claimed to have concrete evidence.

I am keeping it real. Clearly the vote out of context of what was going on at the time is a beatiful thing for your position.

However, I think it BRILLIANT how the administration timed EVERYTHING perfectly. I cannot wait to read the book years from now on how it was timed. I have spent my life reading about the politics in Washington, it is what I love. You want to place a bet that I am right, that they used the context of what was going on to get the vote?
Can you name a single Congressman or Senator who would have voted differently if the vote had simply taken place after the election? Can you name a single Congressman or Senator who voted for the resolution based on the information from Niger or would not have voted for the resolution if they did not have the information from Niger?

There are already plenty of books out there now that in some ways are more fictional than fact about events years ago. I don't doubt you'll be able to find a book to read 10 years from now to support what ever position you like.

The fact is, the Congress should be ready to vote on a national security issue any time the President decides that it is necessary, even if its the night before the election. The resolution would have passed if it was held on October 25, November 8, December 8 period! The only question would have been the margin by which the resolution passed.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 02:27 PM   #75
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:12 PM
OK...my sources are bad, you are 100% correct. Let's move on, because this is going nowhere.

Happy now?

Clearly any source, book, or position other than yours is a work of fiction.

There!

Can we get back to the thread...?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox 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 11:12 PM.


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