Kucinich Offers Impeachment Articles Against Bush

[goofyjumper 0]

Quote

wow - a lot of people that failed civics, or a lot that know how to vote repeatedly in polls.

WOW! You must be the 4.5% that still support Bush.

-----------------
I love and Miss you so much Honey!
Orfun #3 ~ Darla

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

wow - a lot of people that failed civics, or a lot that know how to vote repeatedly in polls.

WOW! You must be the 4.5% that still support Bush.

I'm part of the 4.5% that understands that impeachment is for actual crimes. It's not a recall process when you don't agree with the guy and are mad that he got Congress to do his bidding. That's what the elections are about.

And I know that a resolution in the summer before he is termed out is hot air, not a serious move. It's like every time a Congressman offers a bill in committee to appease his constituites, but does absolutely nothing more and lets it died on the spot.

[cumplidor 0]

Do you think that lying to Congress for the purpose of launching an invasion is an actual crime?
Or do you not think he was lying?

[kelpdiver 2]

I expect Congress to know the difference between lies and propaganda.

If they really insist they were lied to, they've had years to do something about it. Instead Pelosi choose to move on.

[cumplidor 0]

Quote

If they really insist they were lied to

So does this mean to say you do not believe that the Administration intentionally deceived the public and congress to support the invasion of Iraq?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

If they really insist they were lied to

So does this mean to say you do not believe that the Administration intentionally deceived the public and congress to support the invasion of Iraq?

I'd say that it's "pretty well confirmed".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

If they really insist they were lied to

So does this mean to say you do not believe that the Administration intentionally deceived the public and congress to support the invasion of Iraq?

As answered in a parallel thread, I don't believe Congress was deceived. Unless they're unfit for duty, they knew the story, but the Bush propaganda let them make the vote they want to make.

But later, when it's no longer the overwhelming wish of the public, they can feign deceit and say they wouldn't have done it.

It's politics, not treason.

[mnealtx 0]

Agreed

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,119]

>Unless they're unfit for duty, they knew the story . . .

As several investigations have revealed, the president had access to far more in-depth intelligence than Congress did. Thus they had to trust him to some extent.

That they trusted him too much is a valid criticism. But it's not valid to claim "Congress knew everything the president did, and could make their own decisions."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Unless they're unfit for duty, they knew the story . . .

As several investigations have revealed, the president had access to far more in-depth intelligence than Congress did. Thus they had to trust him to some extent.

That they trusted him too much is a valid criticism. But it's not valid to claim "Congress knew everything the president did, and could make their own decisions."

In your opinion only.

If I could read through the lines 3000 miles away with no intel, so can they.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

As several investigations have revealed,

Where?

We are all engines of karma

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

As several investigations have revealed,

Where?

The Title 50 Agencies are part of the Executive Branch not Congress, i.e., it doesn't need a study or investigation. Access to the vast majority of all source intelligence and analysis is limited to the Title 50 agencies.

But if you are genuinely interested a few good places to start would be:

-- The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (your tax dollars funded it);

--United States Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq ;

-- Discussion of redactions on CIA documents presented to the Senate Intelligence Committee (who are cleared);

-- CFR report on National Intelligence Estimates, of particular note is discussion on State INR getting the 'aluminum tubes' portion correct and being relegated to a footnote. Discussion from The National Journal.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Unless they're unfit for duty, they knew the story . . .

As several investigations have revealed, the president had access to far more in-depth intelligence than Congress did. Thus they had to trust him to some extent.

That they trusted him too much is a valid criticism. But it's not valid to claim "Congress knew everything the president did, and could make their own decisions."

Sources please.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

As several investigations have revealed,

Where?

The Title 50 Agencies are part of the Executive Branch not Congress, i.e., it doesn't need a study or investigation. Access to the vast majority of all source intelligence and analysis is limited to the Title 50 agencies.

But if you are genuinely interested a few good places to start would be:

-- The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (your tax dollars funded it);

--United States Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq ;

-- Discussion of redactions on CIA documents presented to the Senate Intelligence Committee (who are cleared);

-- CFR report on National Intelligence Estimates, of particular note is discussion on State INR getting the 'aluminum tubes' portion correct and being relegated to a footnote. Discussion from The National Journal.

VR/Marg

Please help me here. I do not have the time to go through your links right now (as you know)

Can you tell me, in YOUR opinion, based on information you posted, do you think Bush "lied" to go to war?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Please help me here. I do not have the time to go through your links right now (as you know)

Ahhhhh Poor Marc.....whats wrong...Lush Rimjob has not made a synopsis for you yet??

Since he is a true believer and a deadender.. I doubt he ever will face the truth....hence you wont have to hear the ugly truth from your "truthsayer"

[billvon 3,119]

>Sources please.

Marg provided several (and you said you couldn't be bothered to check them anyway) so I won't repeat them. Instead here's a short quote from one.


Memo by Alfred Cumming, Specialist in Intelligence and National Security - Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade (via CRS)

==========
Limitations on Congressional Access to Certain National Intelligence

By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community. The President's position also affords him the authority - which, at certain times, has been aggressively asserted (1) - to restrict the flow of intelligence information to Congress and its two intelligence committees, which are charged with providing legislative oversight of the Intelligence Community. (2) As a result, the President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods. They, unlike Members of Congress, also have the authority to more extensively task the Intelligence Community, and its extensive cadre of analysts, for follow-up information. As a result, the President and his most senior advisors arguably are better positioned to assess the quality of the Community's intelligence more accurately than is Congress. (5)
============

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Please help me here. I do not have the time to go through your links right now (as you know)

Can you tell me, in YOUR opinion, based on information you posted, do you think Bush "lied" to go to war?

As always, my opinion – only that – is that you're not going to find the answer to your question in any report on pre-OIF intelligence and intelligence analysis. And it makes sense, if one considers that the Republican controlled 108th & 109th Congress were unlikely to initiate investigation of a sitting Republican President. The recently released Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence was originally a charge of a Republican controlled Senate (2004 - 108th Congress) … that took a while to get anything released, & it focused on intelligence.

One will find that the Executive Branch had orders of magnitude more information (both all source intelligence and analyses) than Congress, which is (again) something of a truism as the Title 50 agencies are part of the Executive Branch.

One is also likely to find discussion and documentation that intelligence analysts and policy makers reviewing the all source intelligence and analyses were inclined to be less skeptical or diligent than they should have been ... or minimize/dismiss/belittle analyses that did not fit the political goals (justifying war), e.g., the infamous State INR and DOE NNSA analysis on the aluminum tubes that was relegated to a footnote to the NIE and challenges to the alleged “mobile biological weapons labs” that were for hydrogen generation.

One is also likely to find examples of intelligence that should have been discarded or independently confirmed (e.g., CurveBall) but were instead accepted, challenges dismissed/ignored, and used. Did the President himself actively engage in that? Probably not - more likely as a logistical factor than intentional choice or action. Did his advisors/appointees fail? Yes. Since he chose them does he have some responsibility? Not completely … but he probably should have chosen others or listened more actively to the Colin Powell's, the Michael May's (former director of LLNL, i.e., the DOE nuclear weapons lab) and the Matt Meselson's (who advised President Nixon on abrogating the US offensive biological weapons program).

One will find indication that intelligence selected and analysis crafted to present the worst case. Reconciling whether it was more because of a desire/implicit expectation/explicit indications to suit political goals (justifying war) or because the intelligence community just had a major intelligence failure with 9-11, along with the still unresolved "Amerithrax" anthrax incidents, is unlikely to be answered with any certainty until 25+ years from now when classified and FOUO documents and memos are declassified or released through FOIA, if ever. Intelligence analysis is supposed to present the worst case, the best case, the most likely case, and provide some confidence measure; the latter is oft more art than science. What one finds in the reports is examples is which the only analysis that made it to policy makers was the worst case analysis with lowest confidence and that those low confidence estimates were sometimes lost along the human chain as the analysis made it to policy makers.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Please help me here. I do not have the time to go through your links right now (as you know)

Can you tell me, in YOUR opinion, based on information you posted, do you think Bush "lied" to go to war?

As always, my opinion – only that – is that you're not going to find the answer to your question in any report on pre-OIF intelligence and intelligence analysis. And it makes sense, if one considers that the Republican controlled 108th & 109th Congress were unlikely to initiate investigation of a sitting Republican President. The recently released Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence was originally a charge of a Republican controlled Senate (2004 - 108th Congress) … that took a while to get anything released, & it focused on intelligence.

One will find that the Executive Branch had orders of magnitude more information (both all source intelligence and analyses) than Congress, which is (again) something of a truism as the Title 50 agencies are part of the Executive Branch.

One is also likely to find discussion and documentation that intelligence analysts and policy makers reviewing the all source intelligence and analyses were inclined to be less skeptical or diligent than they should have been ... or minimize/dismiss/belittle analyses that did not fit the political goals (justifying war), e.g., the infamous State INR and DOE NNSA analysis on the aluminum tubes that was relegated to a footnote to the NIE and challenges to the alleged “mobile biological weapons labs” that were for hydrogen generation.

One is also likely to find examples of intelligence that should have been discarded or independently confirmed (e.g., CurveBall) but were instead accepted, challenges dismissed/ignored, and used. Did the President himself actively engage in that? Probably not - more likely as a logistical factor than intentional choice or action. Did his advisors/appointees fail? Yes. Since he chose them does he have some responsibility? Not completely … but he probably should have chosen others or listened more actively to the Colin Powell's, the Michael May's (former director of LLNL, i.e., the DOE nuclear weapons lab) and the Matt Meselson's (who advised President Nixon on abrogating the US offensive biological weapons program).

One will find indication that intelligence selected and analysis crafted to present the worst case. Reconciling whether it was more because of a desire/implicit expectation/explicit indications to suit political goals (justifying war) or because the intelligence community just had a major intelligence failure with 9-11, along with the still unresolved "Amerithrax" anthrax incidents, is unlikely to be answered with any certainty until 25+ years from now when classified and FOUO documents and memos are declassified or released through FOIA, if ever. Intelligence analysis is supposed to present the worst case, the best case, the most likely case, and provide some confidence measure; the latter is oft more art than science. What one finds in the reports is examples is which the only analysis that made it to policy makers was the worst case analysis with lowest confidence and that those low confidence estimates were sometimes lost along the human chain as the analysis made it to policy makers.

VR/Marg

Thanks for taking the time. what you post makes sense.

Marc

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Glandu 0]

totally agree.

[billvon 3,119]

>If I could read through the lines 3000 miles away with no intel, so can they.

Right. But if you had intel, and it was your job to act on it? And it was wrong? I suspect you might have more trouble 'reading between the lines.'