Originally posted by: Giancarlo
Why Bush hasn't been impeached? Well he hasn't committed any wrong-doing. You can keep ranting that Bush lied, but he never lied under oath. Clinton on the other hand did. Nixon lied too. Both Nixon and Clinton broke the law. Don't get me wrong, I'm not republican nor am I democrat. I'm a guy with a moderate mind.
Conjur. Me. All the others in the thread who've refuted your empty bluster with facts. It wasn't just me.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
"We?" Do you have a frog in your pocket or are you attempting speak French?Originally posted by: Bowfinger
ROFL!!! What a lame response. You didn't address a single point. Once again, we've nailed you with facts, and once again, you fly the coop because you can't refute them. I'd offer a few choice comments, but we all know you love to dish it out, but you can't take it.
You mean other than provide several points which you still evade, "moron"? :roll:You didn't do squat besides attempt to ride on conjur's coat-tails, moron.
Absolutely. I think that's even in the Constitution, next to the jury of one's peers section.Besides that, let's get down to brass tacks here. conjur asking for an "independent" commission is no different than whining because aliens with 100 tentacles didn't oversee the process.
Let's have a brief lesson in logical fallacies. See how ChickenLittle ignores all the very real examples of the deficiencies in the Senate SCI investigation, instead inventing a false position for his opponent? This is called a straw man. It is a form of lying. It suggests CL knows he has a weak position.What conjur is really saying is that he didn't like the findings of the SIC.
Now Chicken proceeds to attack his straw man. Huff!!! Puff!!! BAM - Slash - POW!!! Down it goes. Down goes the straw man. Chicken is victorious!Because IF an 'independent" commission would have come up with the same findings he and the rest of the conspiracy manufacturing crew would search dillgently for 6 degrees of separation of the commission members, find tenuous associations, and then point their fingers screaming that the commission wasn't really "independent" after all. What he is really asking for is an 'independent" commission who will come up with findings that satisfy his partisan bias. So cut the crap.
Doh! That's exactly the point. The only reason no one's "proved" BushCo lied is because they haven't been subject to a substantial, independent investigation. "Bi-partisan" (but with a Republican majority, plus all the other defects I listed) is in no way, shape, or form the same as "independent". Your diversionary squawking makes it quite clear you understand Bush and his minions would never survive such an investigation.A bi-partisan commission is as indepndent as it gets in this case. Learn to deal with it.
Bzzt! Another wrong answer. This just ain't your day. We -- yeah, "we", learn to deal with it -- are pointing out how you automatically, unthinkingly reject every piece of evidence contradicting your Bush faith.Another weak and sad response against those who don't cow-tow to the same fcked up opinions you and the other loonie-lefties on this board adhere too. More whining from them too.You're afflicted with cognitive dissonance just as badly as Cad. Get well soon.
Perhaps. I will point out you posted at least once in the interim, however. Maybe you only "twitch in anticipation of laying your weak smack down" about those threads where you haven't already been owned.As usual, you're wrong once again. Some of us actually have a life outside of ATP&N and don't hover over the keyboard all day, like you, twitching in anticipation of attempting to lay some weak smack downTastesLikeCAD? CHICKENsortaGUY?
(Looks like Chicken ran away again. I imagine he'll be back in a future thread, belligerently spouting the same BS and dodging all the evidence he's still wrong.)
Holy ego trip, Boy Blunder! You sure smacked down your straw man.and failing miserably in the process.
:roll:Congrats on your failure yet again. Keep trying though. Being wrong never deterred you and your toadie crew from acting ignorant before and I doubt such failures will curtail your ignorance in the future either.
So all your blustery response, Blowfinger, comes down to the above statement.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Let's have a no-holds-barred investigation of Bush and his minions, then tell me he didn't lie his way to war.
I don't have top put words in your mouth to verify what I'm saying. Your responses make it clearly evident. Your call for an "independent" investigation is a strawman because if that same SIC had to come a conclusion of your liking you wouldn't be making such a request. Instead you'd have been crowing about their findings all over this forum as if the were the last and final word and the truth of all thruths.Originally posted by: conjur
Oh, look at little TrollsLikeChicken putting words in my mouth. Go troll and apologize elsewhere.
We have all kinds of proof. You're just unwilling to admit it as it would mean you have been supporting and apologizing for a war criminal for years now.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't have top put words in your mouth to verify what I'm saying. Your responses make it clearly evident. Your call for an "independent" investigation is a strawman because if that same SIC had to come a conclusion of your liking you wouldn't be making such a request. Instead you'd have been crowing about their findings all over this forum as if the were the last and final word and the truth of all thruths.Originally posted by: conjur
Oh, look at little TrollsLikeChicken putting words in my mouth. Go troll and apologize elsewhere.
Just face up to it. You have no proof that Bush lied and all the demands for an independent investigation (i.e. - a witch hunt) doesn't and won't change that fact.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So all your blustery response, Blowfinger, comes down to the above statement.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Let's have a no-holds-barred investigation of Bush and his minions, then tell me he didn't lie his way to war.
And it demonstrates what I've said already. You and conjob don't actually want an investigation, independent or otherwise. You want a witch hunt to back up your pre-existing and predjudiced opinions about Bush. You've already made up your mind and are deperately searching for someone to shore up that predjudical bias.
Hyperbole will get you....nowhere. Keep jumping up and down like a wildman on that conclusions mat though.Originally posted by: conjur
We have all kinds of proof. You're just unwilling to admit it as it would mean you have been supporting and apologizing for a war criminal for years now.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't have top put words in your mouth to verify what I'm saying. Your responses make it clearly evident. Your call for an "independent" investigation is a strawman because if that same SIC had to come a conclusion of your liking you wouldn't be making such a request. Instead you'd have been crowing about their findings all over this forum as if the were the last and final word and the truth of all thruths.Originally posted by: conjur
Oh, look at little TrollsLikeChicken putting words in my mouth. Go troll and apologize elsewhere.
Just face up to it. You have no proof that Bush lied and all the demands for an independent investigation (i.e. - a witch hunt) doesn't and won't change that fact.
Sorry, but that's just wrong. The SIC wasn't tasked to determine how "policymakers" subsequently used the intel provided. However, it was tasked to determine if there was influence in the intelligence agencies themselves to alter or cherrypick their findings and communicate them based on any pressure that may have been applied. None was found to be present, as the findings specfiically state. So please stop with this latest in a long line of conjur strawmen on this subject.And, btw, that Senative committee wasn't tasked with determining the WH's role in the matter and how it affected the intelligence outcome.
If you want to know what took this country into war in Iraq, send a letter to your buddy bin Laden.If Ken Starr was appointed to investigate some hanky-panky, then surely this country deserves a *full* and *independent* investigation into what took this country to war in Iraq that has cost 1,670 American soldiers their lives, over 22,000 Iraqi civilians their lives, and $175 billion of deficit spending to-date.
If you want to know what took this country into war in Iraq, send a letter to your buddy bin Laden.
Erm...I've been in that light since the Clinton investigation began. I've never claimed the Clinton investigation was anything other than a witch hunt. (Pssst. I voted for Clinton both times and if he could run again I'd vote for him again as well. I also never voted for Bush.) It's precisely because I understand exactly what Starr was doing that I also see the reverse being requested now.Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
So you are admitting to the fact that Starr's "investigation" was a witch hunt. Welcome to the light. Be sure to get yourself a good pair of polarized sunglasses so that you can get used to FINALLY having your eyes opened again.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So all your blustery response, Blowfinger, comes down to the above statement.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Let's have a no-holds-barred investigation of Bush and his minions, then tell me he didn't lie his way to war.
And it demonstrates what I've said already. You and conjob don't actually want an investigation, independent or otherwise. You want a witch hunt to back up your pre-existing and predjudiced opinions about Bush. You've already made up your mind and are deperately searching for someone to shore up that predjudical bias.
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
If you want to know what took this country into war in Iraq, send a letter to your buddy bin Laden.
I'm sorry that I seem to have forgotten.....
What did Iraq do to help OBL again?
I don't call the Downing Street Minutes (and the BBC video: Iraq, Tony, and the Truth) hyperbole. I call it the beginning to the unraveling of the lies.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Hyperbole will get you....nowhere. Keep jumping up and down like a wildman on that conclusions mat though.
They, themselves, said it wasn't their task in that phase to determine White House culpability.Sorry, but that's just wrong. The SIC wasn't tasked to determine how "policymakers" subsequently used the intel provided. However, it was tasked to determine if there was influence in the intelligence agencies themselves to alter or cherrypick their findings and communicate them based on any pressure that may have been applied. None was found to be present, as the findings specfiically state. So please stop with this latest in a long line of conjur strawmen on this subject.
MR. RUSSERT: With all this being said, the second phase of your investigation as to whether or not the Bush administration deliberately altered, massaged the data, the intelligence in order to mislead the American people. Why shouldn't the American people have the benefit of your report before the November election?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Well, let's forget the election for a moment, and I know that sounds like a frivolous thing to say, but it needs to be made very clear here that--two things. Number one, I think, is the fact that Pat Roberts and I worked very closely together with a lot of pressure from people from both of our membership, colleagues.
SEN. ROBERTS: Yeah, we felt pressured.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Yeah, we felt pressure to, you know, not do--put out this report that we did. Nevertheless, we were, in fact, under committee rules, and it was my hope from the very beginningýand we did not prevail because we are in the minority on the committee and in the Senate--to take up this whole question of what the administration said, what the administration did during this entire time. We actually only did prewar intelligence. That's all we did. The whole subject of what was the administration's role, what influence did they bring upon the American people, what pressure did they or did they not bring was never really gone into.
MR. RUSSERT: Why not, Senator?
SEN. ROBERTS: We agreed that our first mission was to get the report done that we, you know, had to do. I thought it could be done in six months. We hit a little bit of a rocky path at first. There were some politics involved and all of that. And then I said we ought to be able to do this in six months. Well, then it became nine months and then it became a year. Every member had their say. We had to work with the CIA, and as a result, our staffers had to go back thousands and thousands and thousands of pages to get it right. We are doing...
MR. RUSSERT: Was there any political--was there any political pressure from the White House not to do the second part...
SEN. ROBERTS: None. None.
MR. RUSSERT: ...of the investigation until after the election?
SEN. ROBERTS: None. And they didn't even know about the second part of the--and now this thing has morphed into a change as to whether or not the administration has magnified or has changed it or has manipulated it. The whole key was the use of intelligence. And so consequently that is ongoing right now, as I speak, by our staff, as well as a--other priority goal which is to get at the reform measures that we must do on a very careful and deliberate basis. But even as I'm speaking our staff is working on phase two and we will get it done.
MR. RUSSERT: Before the election?
SEN. ROBERTS: I don't know if we can get it done before the election. It is more important to get it right. Understand, too, that it is going to an independent commission after we get our work done. So we haven't heard the end of this by any means.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Yeah. I absolutely agree with Pat Roberts that doing it right is more important than meeting the "election deadline." I've always felt that. I mean, there's enormous feeling about that out in the country. But we--our job is to do our work correctly. The report that we put out is the most extensive, most analytical report of the intelligence community that's been out, I think even including the Church report. It's respected. But we did not do the handling of intelligence, the use of intelligence, the misuse of intelligence. None of that did we do.
The committee is also looking into the possibility that the CIA and other intelligence agencies shifted emphasis on their own to please those in the White House who welcomed a stern warning about the Iraqi threat. Among the specific questions being pursued:
? Why did a declassified summary of a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq conclude that Saddam's regime possessed chemical and biological weapons while the classified NIE stated that such a conclusion was subject to debate? (The NIE is a document authored by the CIA that pools U.S. intelligence on a country to assess its military capabilities.)
? Why did some intelligence reports to the White House omit or downplay testimony by captured al-Qaeda members that there was no alliance between the terror group and Saddam's regime?
? Did the CIA adequately explore alternative explanations for the lack of any "smoking gun" evidence before the war that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons stockpiles?
The Senate intelligence report indirectly indicts Bush. It notes that there was one area where the intelligence community was correct: the supposed relationship between Hussein and Al Qaeda. "The Central Intelligence Agency," the report says, "reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship." This means that when Bush said before the war that Saddam Hussein was "a threat because he's dealing with Al Qaeda," he was not basing this significant assertion on the findings of the US intelligence community. And he ignored the intelligence when he called Saddam Hussein "an ally" of Al Qaeda during his May 1, 2003, speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.
The Senate intelligence committee also reports that the CIA's "assessment that Saddam Hussein was most likely to use his own intelligence service operatives to conduct attacks was reasonable, and turned out to be accurate." Yet before the war the Bush White House declared there was a "high risk" that Hussein would hand over his WMDs to terrorists--presumably Al Qaeda--who would use them against the United States. What was the basis for this claim? Not the available intelligence. And the report notes that the CIA's "assessments on Iraq's links to terrorism were widely disseminated" to policymakers. Perhaps Bush neglected to read them--as he neglected to read the National Intelligence Estimate. (Don't believe that? Click here.)
My "buddy"? :roll: You're the one with the love affair with terrorists. It's people like you that support U.S. foreign policy that results in greater threats to us and the world.If you want to know what took this country into war in Iraq, send a letter to your buddy bin Laden.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
If you want to know what took this country into war in Iraq, send a letter to your buddy bin Laden.
I'm sorry that I seem to have forgotten.....
What did Iraq do to help OBL again?
I'm sorry. I don't recall claiming that Iraq helped OBL. Nevertheless, OBL is why we are in Iraq. Without his dastardly deed on 9/11, we wouldn't be there right now because the admin would never have been able to drum up any support to invade Iraq otherwise.
btw, disregarding or denying that fact does nobody any favors in the 'looking halfway intelligent' department.
It wasn't their task to determine WH culpability (nice try at using such a broad and non-specific term)...in regard to how the WH used the intel after the fact. I already stated that above. However, your claim is that the WH put presure on the intelligence agencies and the SIC did look into that issue and the report stated that was not the case. So deal with it. All your ambulatory gesticulations and appeals to authority DO NOT CHANGE THAT FACT.Originally posted by: conjur
I don't call the Downing Street Minutes (and the BBC video: Iraq, Tony, and the Truth) hyperbole. I call it the beginning to the unraveling of the lies.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Hyperbole will get you....nowhere. Keep jumping up and down like a wildman on that conclusions mat though.
They, themselves, said it wasn't their task in that phase to determine White House culpability.Sorry, but that's just wrong. The SIC wasn't tasked to determine how "policymakers" subsequently used the intel provided. However, it was tasked to determine if there was influence in the intelligence agencies themselves to alter or cherrypick their findings and communicate them based on any pressure that may have been applied. None was found to be present, as the findings specfiically state. So please stop with this latest in a long line of conjur strawmen on this subject.
That's it. Act ignorant about bin Laden's role in getting the US in Iraq.My "buddy"? :roll: You're the one with the love affair with terrorists. It's people like you that support U.S. foreign policy that results in greater threats to us and the world.If you want to know what took this country into war in Iraq, send a letter to your buddy bin Laden.
And, btw, WTF did bin Laden have to do with Iraq? Oh, I know. NOT A SINGLE THING!
That's it. Act ignorant about bin Laden's role in getting the US in Iraq.
Puhleeze. You been brainwashed by Michael Moore.Originally posted by: prominance
Saddam was put in power thanks to the US.
Bush Sr. created a million excuses to go to war with Iraq in the 90s
Bush Jr. Created one that turned out to be bull
The Bush family built their wealth from Saudi Bussiness relationships
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Puhleeze. You been brainwashed by Michael Moore.Originally posted by: prominance
Saddam was put in power thanks to the US.
Bush Sr. created a million excuses to go to war with Iraq in the 90s
Bush Jr. Created one that turned out to be bull
The Bush family built their wealth from Saudi Bussiness relationships
Do some actual research, find out some facts first, then come back.
My blind Independent Party rhetoric?Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Puhleeze. You been brainwashed by Michael Moore.Originally posted by: prominance
Saddam was put in power thanks to the US.
Bush Sr. created a million excuses to go to war with Iraq in the 90s
Bush Jr. Created one that turned out to be bull
The Bush family built their wealth from Saudi Bussiness relationships
Do some actual research, find out some facts first, then come back.
Can you dipute the accusations with anything other than your party-blind loyalty and rhetoric?
You just don't get it, do you? You contradicted yourself even! :laugh:Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It wasn't their task to determine WH culpability (nice try at using such a broad and non-specific term)...in regard to how the WH used the intel after the fact. I already stated that above. However, your claim is that the WH put presure on the intelligence agencies and the SIC did look into that issue and the report stated that was not the case. So deal with it. All your ambulatory gesticulations and appeals to authority DO NOT CHANGE THAT FACT.
Go ahead, TLC. Tell me what bin Laden's role was in the U.S. invading Iraq? Esp. considering that in March 2002, the Propagandist said about bin Laden: ""Frankly, I'm not concerned about him."That's it. Act ignorant about bin Laden's role in getting the US in Iraq.
And the left wonder why they get no respect.
Wow. Jethro Tull had a song for people like you. What was it called...oh, yeah - Thick As A BrickOriginally posted by: conjur
You just don't get it, do you? You contradicted yourself even! :laugh:Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It wasn't their task to determine WH culpability (nice try at using such a broad and non-specific term)...in regard to how the WH used the intel after the fact. I already stated that above. However, your claim is that the WH put presure on the intelligence agencies and the SIC did look into that issue and the report stated that was not the case. So deal with it. All your ambulatory gesticulations and appeals to authority DO NOT CHANGE THAT FACT.
How could they have determined the WH's role if they weren't tasked to determine that for that phase? There is much more to go.
Go ahead, TLC. Tell me what bin Laden's role was in the U.S. invading Iraq? Esp. considering that in March 2002, the Propagandist said about bin Laden: ""Frankly, I'm not concerned about him."[/quote]That's it. Act ignorant about bin Laden's role in getting the US in Iraq.
And the left wonder why they get no respect.
I don't think you do. You see, NEITHER of those was looked into. Not in the level of detail that is necessary to conduct a proper investigation. Come on, TLC. Chalabi had people dealing with Feith and Libby DIRECTLY! You're telling me no pressure was exerted?? :roll:Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Wow. Jethro Tull had a song for people like you. What was it called...oh, yeah - Thick As A BrickOriginally posted by: conjur
You just don't get it, do you? You contradicted yourself even! :laugh:Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It wasn't their task to determine WH culpability (nice try at using such a broad and non-specific term)...in regard to how the WH used the intel after the fact. I already stated that above. However, your claim is that the WH put presure on the intelligence agencies and the SIC did look into that issue and the report stated that was not the case. So deal with it. All your ambulatory gesticulations and appeals to authority DO NOT CHANGE THAT FACT.
How could they have determined the WH's role if they weren't tasked to determine that for that phase? There is much more to go.
Do you even comprehend the difference between how the WH used the intel after it was provided to them and whether or not they influenced the intelligence agencies to cherry pick intel? I'm asking because you apparently have decided to remain utterly clueless about that difference.
Hint: The latter was looked into the the SIC. The former was not.
Got it yet?
Once again for the reading impaired - If bin Laden had not attacked the US the admin would never have had the public support to go into Iraq.Go ahead, TLC. Tell me what bin Laden's role was in the U.S. invading Iraq? Esp. considering that in March 2002, the Propagandist said about bin Laden: ""Frankly, I'm not concerned about him."That's it. Act ignorant about bin Laden's role in getting the US in Iraq.
And the left wonder why they get no respect.