why hasn't GWB been impeached?

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Pabster
Christ, Zebo, you're a Bush hater too?

Bush isn't going anywhere...except down in the history books as the greatest President since Reagan.

LMAO!! Sorry, but the historians have already labeled him the worst President in history.

Yeah Liars don't do so well in histories eyes look at nixon and johnson.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Bush isn't going anywhere...except down in the history books as the greatest President since Reagan.

That's not saying much. Aside from being far more likable than Bushwhacko as a person, Reagan was a bit dim on the details of such major abuses of power and U.S. law like the Iran Contra scandal. Need a refresher course?

Iran-Contra Affair, American political scandal of 1985 and 1986, in which high-ranking members in the administration of President Ronald Reagan arranged for the secret sales of arms to Iran in direct violation of existing United States laws. Profits from the $30 million in arms sales were channeled to the Nicaraguan right-wing ?contra? guerrillas to supply arms for use against the leftist Sandinista government. This, too, was in direct violation of U.S. policy. The chief negotiator of these deals was Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, a military aide to the National Security Council. North reported his activities initially to National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane, the council's head, and subsequently to his successor, Vice Admiral John M. Poindexter. The sale of arms to Iran was initiated at the suggestion of the Israeli government with the dual goal of bettering relations with Iran and of obtaining the release of American hostages held in Lebanon by pro-Iranian terrorists. North was instrumental in setting up a covert network for providing support to the contras, with its own ship, airplanes, airfield, and secret bank accounts.

In November 1986 a Lebanese magazine disclosed that the United States government had negotiated an arms deal with Iran. Later that month Attorney General Edwin Meese verified that millions of dollars from these sales had been sent to the contras in direct violation of the Boland Amendment, which Congress had passed in 1984 and which prohibited direct or indirect U.S. military aid to them. As new details of the widening scandal emerged, a series of congressional and legal investigations began. In February 1987 the Tower Commission, a special panel headed by former U.S. Senator John Tower of Texas, issued a report castigating President Reagan and his advisers for their lack of control over the National Security Council. The Congressional Joint Investigative Committee collected more than 300,000 documents, conducted more than 500 interviews and depositions, and listened to 28 witnesses in 40 days of public hearings. In November 1987 the committee reported that the president bore the ultimate responsibility for the implementation of his administration's policies but found no firm evidence that he had known of the diversion of funds to the contras. In May 1989 North was tried and convicted of obstructing Congress and unlawfully destroying government documents, but his conviction was subsequently overturned. A guilty decision on Poindexter's actions was also later reversed. The scandal's reverberations concerning the ultimate responsibility for the operation continued into the 1990s. In December 1992 President George Bush, who had been vice president under Reagan and who had also been implicated, but not charged, in the scandal, issued pardons to many of the top government officials who had been charged or convicted for their role in the Iran-Contra affair. Independent prosecutor Lawrence E. Walsh published his final report on the investigation of the affair in January 1994. Walsh concluded that there was no evidence that Reagan had broken the law, but he noted that Reagan may have participated in, or known about, a cover-up.

There are also strong suggestions that good old Ollie hated the idea of deadheading empty planes back from Nicaragua so they loaded up with conveniently available white powder to sell to American kids to raise yet more illegal funds for their various illegal activiites.

All of that said, Reagan wasn't as bad as the paranoid megalomaniac speed freak, Nixon, and Bush is far worse than Nixon. Even John Dean, Nixon's freaking Whitehouse Counsel knows that. :Q

John Dean knows what happens behind closed doors at the White House. As counsel to President Richard Nixon, he witnessed the malignant influence of excessive secrecy and its corruption of good intentions. Pundits and partisans can point fingers. Only Dean can reveal with true insider knowledge the dangers of a presidency that has crossed the line.

In Worse than Watergate, Dean presents a stunning indictment of George W. Bush's administration. He assembles overwhelming evidence of its obsessive secrecy and the dire and dangerous consequences resulting from a return to Nixonian governing. Worse than Watergate connects the dots, explaining the hidden agenda of a White House shrouded in secrecy and a presidency that seeks to remain unaccountable. Dean lays out a blistering case against President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, revealing, among other facts, even criminal offenses:

[*]How the Bush administration has shamelessly exploited the 9/11 tragedy, while secretly working to scuttle all efforts to discover why America was so unprepared, and covering up the fact that President Clinton and his advisers privately warned of the serious problem.

[*]How Bush's deeply flawed secret decision making is costing American blood and well-being abroad and the loss of civil rights and liberties at home, while only making Americans more vulnerable to terrorism.

[*]How Bush's and Cheney's blatant and unchecked uses of Nixonian stonewalling, obfuscation, and deceit have concealed government business that the public has a right to know.

[*]How Bush and Cheney have taken a Nixonian approach to any and all efforts of Congress and the news media to check their uses and abuses of power.

Worse than Watergate brilliantly reveals the serious dangers of a president who, like Nixon, is a gambler and believes he is above the law. John Dean lays out an irrefutable case that the tactics of the Bush administration are, in intent and reach, the most potentially dangerous threat to American life in recent political history. Shocking and revelatory, Worse than Watergate is the book the Bush team doesn't want you read.

Now, can you still repeat such a stupid remark with a straight face? :roll:

 

[Pabster]

Yeah, I can say it with a straight face. Obviously a whole lot of Bush haters here...

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, I can say it with a straight face.

... and sober at the same time? A-freaking-mazing!!! :shocked:

Obviously a whole lot of Bush haters here...

Nah... Maybe it's his rotting sense of humor. It smells like a big ol' pile of... < sounds like >... BUSHWIT !!! :laugh:

 

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, I can say it with a straight face. Obviously a whole lot of Bush haters here...

Pabster, ya gotta know that it's a cesspool of lib hatemongers that hang out here in AT P&N. Their fits and convulsions get worse every day that Bush is in the oval office. They don't have an idea, method or better plan to do anything so they resort to the attack mode. They beauty of it is that this has backfired on them in 2002, 2004 and soon to be, 2006. Hmmm, maybe even a BIGGER majority of Republicans in both the Senate and House. Gotta love them having ol' screaming Howard Dean running the whacko show! Get a clue folks, people don' like the crying, sniveling, pit bull attack-mode politics.
I feel so much better! Now back to the regularly scheduled Bush-bash/let's attack anything that's good, party.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, I can say it with a straight face. Obviously a whole lot of Bullsh*t haters here...

Fixed.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Buz2b
Pabster, ya gotta know that it's a cesspool of lib hatemongers that hang out here in AT P&N. Their fits and convulsions get worse every day that Bush is in the oval office. They don't have an idea, method or better plan to do anything so they resort to the attack mode. They beauty of it is that this has backfired on them in 2002, 2004 and soon to be, 2006. Hmmm, maybe even a BIGGER majority of Republicans in both the Senate and House. Gotta love them having ol' screaming Howard Dean running the whacko show! Get a clue folks, people don' like the crying, sniveling, pit bull attack-mode politics.
I feel so much better! Now back to the regularly scheduled Bush-bash/let's attack anything that's good, party.

Yeah, it doesn't take long to see AT is more and more like the New York Times every day. Ah well.

 

[sbacpo]

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, I can say it with a straight face. Obviously a whole lot of Bush haters here...

Pabster, ya gotta know that it's a cesspool of lib hatemongers that hang out here in AT P&N. Their fits and convulsions get worse every day that Bush is in the oval office. They don't have an idea, method or better plan to do anything so they resort to the attack mode. They beauty of it is that this has backfired on them in 2002, 2004 and soon to be, 2006. Hmmm, maybe even a BIGGER majority of Republicans in both the Senate and House. Gotta love them having ol' screaming Howard Dean running the whacko show! Get a clue folks, people don' like the crying, sniveling, pit bull attack-mode politics.
I feel so much better! Now back to the regularly scheduled Bush-bash/let's attack anything that's good, party.

Nailed it. :thumbsup:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Buz2b
Pabster, ya gotta know that it's a cesspool of lib hatemongers that hang out here in AT P&N. Their fits and convulsions get worse every day that Bush is in the oval office. They don't have an idea, method or better plan to do anything so they resort to the attack mode. They beauty of it is that this has backfired on them in 2002, 2004 and soon to be, 2006. Hmmm, maybe even a BIGGER majority of Republicans in both the Senate and House. Gotta love them having ol' screaming Howard Dean running the whacko show! Get a clue folks, people don' like the crying, sniveling, pit bull attack-mode politics.
I feel so much better! Now back to the regularly scheduled Bush-bash/let's attack anything that's good, party.

Yeah, it doesn't take long to see AT is more and more like the New York Times every day. Ah well.

Yep, reporting the truth the brainwashed Bush worshippers can't bear to hear.

You're like a guy who bought a car, bragged to all your friends about how great it is, and then figured out you got swindled on a lemon. Your ego won't let you admit you were conned, so you just get louder and louder bragging about your crapbox, even as it falls apart around you. Time to face the truth, kids. George isn't that new 'vette you thought you bought; he's a rotted-out K car with about 300,000 miles on him.


(Hint: instead of your knee-jerk compulsion to attack anyone who questions your god in the White House, how about turning on your brain for a couple of seconds to think about what we're saying. I don't hate Bush at all, but I am appalled at the harm he is doing to this country. It will take decades to fix the damage he's caused ... if it's not already too late.)

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

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.

"We?" Do you have a frog in your pocket or are you attempting speak French?

Conjur. Me. All the others in the thread who've refuted your empty bluster with facts. It wasn't just me.

I know you hate everything left, but the left column is where you'll find the IDs of the people who post each message. You should check it out; it may help you keep the discussions straight. There are even little pictues for you reading-impaired Bush followers.

You didn't do squat besides attempt to ride on conjur's coat-tails, moron.

You mean other than provide several points which you still evade, "moron"? :roll:

It is interesting that you now recognize both Conjur and I are involved. That nicely exposes your previous line above as the "belligerent fvckwit" behavior you love to attack in others.

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.

Absolutely. I think that's even in the Constitution, next to the jury of one's peers section.

• Any President accused of crimes, whose party controls both Houses of Congress, shall be entitled to a superficial investigation by partisan associates, will be allowed to artificially define the scope and duration of the investigation, and will not be required to testify under oath. All others shall be investigated by an independent prosecutor, or by aliens with 100 tentacles.

You better save those "moron" barbs for yourself.

What conjur is really saying is that he didn't like the findings of the SIC.

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.

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.

Now Chicken proceeds to attack his straw man. Huff!!! Puff!!! BAM - Slash - POW!!! Down it goes. Down goes the straw man. Chicken is victorious!

Great work, Boy Blunder. You really knocked the stuffing out. That straw man will never bother BushWorld again. ...

Meanwhile, back in Reality City, the real points remain unscratched. The straw man is a lie. Conjur did not really suggest those absurd claims. Why, oh why, did Chicken strive so mightily to slay the decoy he erected? Because it is a childish attempt to divert the discussion, a burst of noise and hot air to distract the inattentive.

A bi-partisan commission is as indepndent as it gets in this case. Learn to deal with it.

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.

You're afflicted with cognitive dissonance just as badly as Cad. Get well soon.

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.

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.

TastesLikeCAD? 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.)

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 down

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.

and failing miserably in the process.

Holy ego trip, Boy Blunder! You sure smacked down your straw man.

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.

:roll:

How about we withhold judgment until after you actually address any of the points I raised? My guess is you, as a self-admitted fraud and hypocrite (and self-evident liar), will continue to divert and distort instead of acknowledging the simple truth, so evident to everyone else: Bush & Co. lied to America to sell their attack on Iraq, and this could be proven with an independent investigation given the same funding, authorities, and prosecutorial zeal as Starr's investigation of Clinton. The only reason BushCo has not been investigated this way is because of heaping helpings of Republican dishonor and partisan hypocrisy.

Let's have a no-holds-barred investigation of Bush and his minions, then tell me he didn't lie his way to war.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So all your blustery response, Blowfinger, comes down to the above statement.

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.

Noting that for all his squawking and flapping, Chicken still hasn't addressed the points raised. Chicken just parrots the same irrelevent duhversion over and over.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
How do you explain Chalabi and the INC and people like "Curveball"? Chalabi and the INC were kicked out by the CIA in 1996. They were brought back in by Feith. And, we now know that almost all of the "intelligence" came from one or two sources, one of which was "Curveball". To lay the blame on intel on members of the Clinton administration is total hogwash.

They were brought back in under Clinton's watch because after '98 they felt they were not getting any intel in what was happening in Iraq.

Whoa. Stop RIGHT HERE.

The INC was brought back in under THIS president's watch, NOT Clinton. This is proof-positive you've not read one word of:

THE STOVEPIPE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How conflicts between the Bush Administration and the intelligence community marred the reporting on Iraq?s weapons.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Donald Rumsfeld has his own special sources. Are they reliable?
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

If Special Plans was going to search for new intelligence on Iraq, the most obvious source was defectors with firsthand knowledge. The office inevitably turned to Ahmad Chalabi?s Iraqi National Congress. The I.N.C., an umbrella organization for diverse groups opposed to Saddam, is constantly seeking out Iraqi defectors. The Special Plans Office developed a close working relationship with the I.N.C., and this strengthened its position in disputes with the C.I.A. and gave the Pentagon?s pro-war leadership added leverage in its constant disputes with the State Department. Special Plans also became a conduit for intelligence reports from the I.N.C. to officials in the White House.

There was a close personal bond, too, between Chalabi and Wolfowitz and Perle, dating back many years. Their relationship deepened after the Bush Administration took office, and Chalabi?s ties extended to others in the Administration, including Rumsfeld; Douglas Feith, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy; and I. Lewis Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney?s chief of staff. For years, Chalabi has had the support of prominent members of the American Enterprise Institute and other conservatives. Chalabi had some Democratic supporters, too, including James Woolsey, the former head of the C.I.A.

There was another level to Chalabi?s relationship with the United States: in the mid-nineteen-nineties, the C.I.A. was secretly funnelling millions of dollars annually to the I.N.C. Those payments ended around 1996, a former C.I.A. Middle East station chief told me, essentially because the agency had doubts about Chalabi?s integrity.

The new Pentagon papers - By Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/


And how about this:

http://cjr.org/issues/2005/3/letters.asp

Chalabi also claims that the Silberman-Robb commission found that INC-related sources had a minimal impact on the Bush administration's pre-war assessments. This is true only with respect to the formal intelligence assessments the commission was charged with examining. His assertion sidesteps two equally critical issues:

-The commission did not examine the use of INC-supplied defectors? claims by the Bush administration, which also was receiving some materials directly from the INC's U.S.-funded Information Gathering Program -- unfiltered for accuracy by the Intelligence Community. In a June 26, 2002, letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee staff, the INC itself reported that it was providing information directly to a senior official in the office of the vice president and to another one in the office of the secretary of defense.

Libby and Feith. Boom! PNAC.

More points Chicken keeps evading.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
No, there hasn't been an independent investigation into the intel. And, the investigation that has been done did not address the pressure applied by the WH on intelligence agencies.

Huh? What are you talking about? The SIC is a bipartisan committee.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38459-2004Jul9.html

And what did the report find:

""The Commission has found no evidence of 'politicization' of the Intelligence Community's assessments concerning Iraq's reported WMD programs,"

iow, the report claims that they found no evidence the White House put pressure on the intelligence agencies. The CIA was feeding fauly info to Bush so it was little more than a case of dumb and dumberer.

Why do you think little Dougie went running away when the AIPAC scandal started making the papers?

Maybe for the same reasons the MSM dropped the reporting on the AIPAC scandal as a non-issue when they found it had roots in the Clinton admin?

First, Conjur is right. That was not an independent investigation. Second, to suggest the Senate SCI investigation was comparable to the Whitewater witch hunt is disingenuous, to say the least.

Off the top of my head, the Senate SCI investigation was far inferior because:

• Its scope was controlled by the White House.
• It was chaired by a Republican and had a Republican majority.
• It had a fraction of the budget.
• It was allowed a fraction of the time.
• Bush and Cheney were allowed to testify together.
• Bush and Cheney were NOT required to testify under oath.
• Bush and Cheney were allowed to testify in private.

There are also several quotes from your link that suggest the partisan bias of the Committee. For example:

In the news conference, Roberts and Rockefeller displayed the partisan differences that have surfaced over the issue of political pressure on the CIA, a subject that Rockefeller said had produced "major disagreements" on the committee. He said he felt "that the definition of pressure was very narrowly drawn in the final report" and that statements by Tenet and other CIA officials indicated that such pressure existed.

And:

[ Sen. Carl M. Levin ] added: "But I think it's also clear that they were shaping intelligence in order to meet the policy needs of the administration. There can't be much doubt about that as an explanation. ... As a matter of fact, Tenet himself said, and this report reflects that, that he was told by analysts that they were under tremendous pressure."

And:

Levin said that "many, many questions that we have asked the CIA remain unanswered. . . ." But one question that was answered only Wednesday, he said, "demonstrates that it was the administration, not the CIA, that exaggerated the relations between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. [ ed: so much for your insipid "Jedi mind tricks" misdirection. ] "

All of the above and more were corroborated many times by many independent sources. BushCo willfully manipulated intelligence analysis and knowingly deceived Congress, the American public, and the world about the etent and certainty of their many claims against Iraq. In short, they LIED. Give us $70M and an independent prosecutor with the same partisan zeal as Ken Starr, and half this administration will wind up behind bars.

Still more points Chicken dodged.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Still more points Chicken dodged.

Regurgitating conjob's posts? Is that the only thing you can do is ride his tattered coat tails?

I've already addressed the analyst's statement about "pressure." It's not my fault you can't read, moron.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Still more points Chicken dodged.

Regurgitating conjob's posts? Is that the only thing you can do is ride his tattered coat tails?

I've already addressed the analyst's statement about "pressure." It's not my fault you can't read, moron.

No, "moron", that was my post. Let my point you again to the column on the left where it shows posters' IDs. That, and the "Originally posted by ..." lines provide helpful information ... once you learn to read.

You're batting about 0 for 1000 this week. You haven't been right about anything. You also haven't addressed my points or Conjur's points, no matter how many times you squawk otherwise. There is one thing we can agree on, however. You are a fraud.

So be it. You just keep evading and duhverting and "disassembling" [ sic ] -- it's the only card you have. Meanwhile, we'll keeping laughing our asses off at how lame you and the other Bush worshippers are. You haven't a (Chicken) leg to stand on, but you valiantly keep flapping and squawking your little hearts out, hoping the noise will mask you complete lack of substance. ROFL.

It's only a flesh wound, Sir TCL. Get well soon.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, I can say it with a straight face. Obviously a whole lot of Bush haters here...

Pabster, ya gotta know that it's a cesspool of lib hatemongers that hang out here in AT P&N. Their fits and convulsions get worse every day that Bush is in the oval office. They don't have an idea, method or better plan to do anything so they resort to the attack mode. They beauty of it is that this has backfired on them in 2002, 2004 and soon to be, 2006. Hmmm, maybe even a BIGGER majority of Republicans in both the Senate and House. Gotta love them having ol' screaming Howard Dean running the whacko show! Get a clue folks, people don' like the crying, sniveling, pit bull attack-mode politics.
I feel so much better! Now back to the regularly scheduled Bush-bash/let's attack anything that's good, party.

Your just a hit and run artist. Typical right winger, your opinion is right and the "libs' are hatemongers. Well, newsflash, people don't like liars and crooks either.

For you

I will laugh in your face come 2006.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Christ, Zebo, you're a Bush hater too?

Bush isn't going anywhere...except down in the history books as the greatest President since Reagan.

Anybody with any decency in them would dislike Bush. The more you know about them the more you see that they think they are above the law.

Bush will go down in the history book alright, as one of this nations most corrupt presidents.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Still more points Chicken dodged.

Regurgitating conjob's posts? Is that the only thing you can do is ride his tattered coat tails?

I've already addressed the analyst's statement about "pressure." It's not my fault you can't read, moron.

No, "moron", that was my post. Let my point you again to the column on the left where it shows posters' IDs. That, and the "Originally posted by ..." lines provide helpful information ... once you learn to read.

Pssst. Hey Mr. Density:

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
How do you explain Chalabi and the INC and people like "Curveball"? Chalabi and the INC were kicked out by the CIA in 1996. They were brought back in by Feith. And, we now know that almost all of the "intelligence" came from one or two sources, one of which was "Curveball". To lay the blame on intel on members of the Clinton administration is total hogwash.

They were brought back in under Clinton's watch because after '98 they felt they were not getting any intel in what was happening in Iraq.

Whoa. Stop RIGHT HERE.

The INC was brought back in under THIS president's watch, NOT Clinton. This is proof-positive you've not read one word of:

THE STOVEPIPE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How conflicts between the Bush Administration and the intelligence community marred the reporting on Iraq?s weapons.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Donald Rumsfeld has his own special sources. Are they reliable?
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

If Special Plans was going to search for new intelligence on Iraq, the most obvious source was defectors with firsthand knowledge. The office inevitably turned to Ahmad Chalabi?s Iraqi National Congress. The I.N.C., an umbrella organization for diverse groups opposed to Saddam, is constantly seeking out Iraqi defectors. The Special Plans Office developed a close working relationship with the I.N.C., and this strengthened its position in disputes with the C.I.A. and gave the Pentagon?s pro-war leadership added leverage in its constant disputes with the State Department. Special Plans also became a conduit for intelligence reports from the I.N.C. to officials in the White House.

There was a close personal bond, too, between Chalabi and Wolfowitz and Perle, dating back many years. Their relationship deepened after the Bush Administration took office, and Chalabi?s ties extended to others in the Administration, including Rumsfeld; Douglas Feith, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy; and I. Lewis Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney?s chief of staff. For years, Chalabi has had the support of prominent members of the American Enterprise Institute and other conservatives. Chalabi had some Democratic supporters, too, including James Woolsey, the former head of the C.I.A.

There was another level to Chalabi?s relationship with the United States: in the mid-nineteen-nineties, the C.I.A. was secretly funnelling millions of dollars annually to the I.N.C. Those payments ended around 1996, a former C.I.A. Middle East station chief told me, essentially because the agency had doubts about Chalabi?s integrity.

The new Pentagon papers - By Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/


And how about this:

http://cjr.org/issues/2005/3/letters.asp

Chalabi also claims that the Silberman-Robb commission found that INC-related sources had a minimal impact on the Bush administration's pre-war assessments. This is true only with respect to the formal intelligence assessments the commission was charged with examining. His assertion sidesteps two equally critical issues:

-The commission did not examine the use of INC-supplied defectors? claims by the Bush administration, which also was receiving some materials directly from the INC's U.S.-funded Information Gathering Program -- unfiltered for accuracy by the Intelligence Community. In a June 26, 2002, letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee staff, the INC itself reported that it was providing information directly to a senior official in the office of the vice president and to another one in the office of the secretary of defense.

Libby and Feith. Boom! PNAC.

More points Chicken keeps evading.

You regurgitated conjur's post. It was not your content besides your inane commentary.

Now are you finished looking like a blithering idiot yet? With your track record, that's highly doubtful.

You're batting about 0 for 1000 this week. You haven't been right about anything. You also haven't addressed my points or Conjur's points, no matter how many times you squawk otherwise. There is one thing we can agree on, however. You are a fraud.

And your comment proves you haven't read squat in this thread and you're just adhering to a fantasy world, the same one you "Aunties" seem to live in constantly.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Pabster
Christ, Zebo, you're a Bush hater too?

Bush isn't going anywhere...except down in the history books as the greatest President since Reagan.

Anybody with any decency in them would dislike Bush. The more you know about them the more you see that they think they are above the law.

Bush will go down in the history book alright, as one of this nations most corrupt presidents.

That says a lot about his supporters, eh?

 

[wirelessenabled]

Maybe he will be if Kerry is really going to do this.

Hopefully the fireworks will begin soon

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
Maybe he will be if Kerry is really going to do this.

Hopefully the fireworks will begin soon

We need someone to fall on their political sword to start the ball rolling!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
Maybe he will be if Kerry is really going to do this.

Hopefully the fireworks will begin soon

"So far neither government has disputed the accuracy of the memo."

 

[MrPALCO]

The real question is, when will we see the evil left punished.

Republicans are good. Democrats are evil.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
The real question is, when will we see the evil left punished.

Republicans are good. Democrats are evil.

Once again, as always, PALTROLL is PALTROLL.

The Quest...it's a beautiful thing

Go back to your quest. You obviously haven't found any correct answers, yet.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
The real question is, when will we see the evil left punished.

Republicans are good. Democrats are evil.

Don't hold your breath.....no, I've got a better idea. Hold your breath, LMAO. :laugh:

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Still more points Chicken dodged.

Regurgitating conjob's posts? Is that the only thing you can do is ride his tattered coat tails?

I've already addressed the analyst's statement about "pressure." It's not my fault you can't read, moron.

if you want people to take you seriously I suggest you refrain from personal attacks.