Haha, hold on.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/09/white.house.reporter/index.html - http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/09/white.house.report er/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/09/white.house.report er/index.html -

The part about his other job had just recently been broken on air, with very little said. I am searching for a good article about that part as well.

Part II

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/15/guckert/ - http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/15/guckert/

Dune wrote: For all of you who may not know yet. A reporter, often scrutinized for asking soft-balled questions to the president, yet earning the nickname "Bulldog" has been proven to be a fake. Not only is Jeff Gannon not this reporter's real name, he is actually a homosexual prostitute (male escort).

Funny, I didn't see the Homosexual Escort part in the story linked.  COuld you please provide a link to the PROVEN homosexual prostitute information please?

Regardless of his 'day job' and the fact that he got all of his stories hours before anyone else, maybe having to do with his 'buddies' in the office, how did this guy get a security pass from secret service? He needs a tag, a real I.D., passport, press confirmation, and S.S. number to get clearance into anything press-president related. Certainly, under the Clinton administration this would be an impeachable offense, yet there is hardly anything in the news about this. What a biased liberal media we have.

Well, let's look at these issues...  First off, NO ONE has ever accused him of "getting the stories" hours before anyone else.  He's not even been accused of anything really.  He reports for a PAC and thus had been granted press corps access.

As for the "liberal media..."

• Dan Rather and "Docu-gate."  Forged documents used to attempt to influence an election mid-stream.
• Media outlets all "leaked" exit poll information from the state of Pennsylvania HOURS before they are allowed to by law, because is showed Kerry winning Pennsylvania by a landslide (the margin narrowed and Kerry won by a slight margin).
• The Media refused to call the states of Florida or Ohio for Bush until they had NO CHOICE but to do so.
• The Major newspapers have an overwhelming Liberal bias in terms of numbers of columnists.  The ratio is actually 3 to 1 Liberal over conservative.
• The Major media have yet to report a story about how things are going on the ground in Iraq that doesn't paint us in the light of Vietnam.  Reports come in dayt after day about how the war is being won and how the Iraqi People want us there until they can take care of themselves.
• The Major media today reported that Greenspan "refused to call Social Security a crisis" when , in fact he said that there was a crisis, and that the words used to describe it was less important than the fact that the system is broken and needs fixing.

Yeah, the media leans heavy to the left...  Wake up and smell the roses.  For example, look at all the forumer Clinton Administration people who have recieved Jobs working in the media...

Hell, the same can be said about Salon.com, and Ameriblog.  Both are Left wing bent.

Having seen the "evidence" I gotta say it looks bad.  But there is more to this story.

Of course, it's not as bad as a state government official having a homosexual relationship with one of his appointees...  Oh, wait...  that was a Democrat in New Jersey...

Of course it's not as bad an a president lying under oath and committing a felony...  Oh wait...  that was a democrat...  No wonder the media didn't report it.

It's just sex unless it's a conservative...  THEN it's a issue.

I find it laughable that anyone could possibly argue that the media doesn't bend left...

I hate politics.

So many lies, so much crap.

Just remember this: There are liers and frauds on BOTH ENDS OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM.

Clinton isn't the only president within the last few years to lie to the people, and Clinton's lies never got anyone killed.

What's worse is your focus on his sexual history. What is important is that the man was given clearance by republicans, as it seems, when he shouldn't have. There is a serious breach in security that seems to have just been 'okayed.' Yet, nothing will happen.

No the democrats always dodge the FACT that clinton commited a felony and didn't just lie about sex, he committed purgery by LYING UNDER OATH.

Again, it's bad and it looks bad for the group he reports for and the white house which issued him press access.

However, look at the people in the press corps...  They lie on a regular basis.  The White House recently contacted the New York Times and DEMANDED a correction be made about a story that was published that was patently false...  The NYT retracted the statement soon afterwords.

Look at the Clinton News Network, run by Ted Turner, a self professed Socialist.

Look at the 3 to 1 ratio of nationally published commentators in favor of Liberals... 

Yes, this is a bad story for the White House, but it's not as bad as Clinton committing purgery.

Dune wrote: That's definitely your opinion. There shouldn't have been an investigation or impeachment hearing because clinton was getting nookie. That's a privacy issue. Anyways, you can cry foul play from the liberal media all you want, fact is. If the government and administration did allow him to pass for propaganda reasons, that is a huge felony, also punishable by impeachment.

How is it a felony?  What law was broken?  Please refere me to the US Code that was broken here.  Who issued the Press pass?  Is George W. Bush's signature on that document?  If not, then how is it that he's impeachable on this?

As for Clinton.  It was never about getting nookie.  You liberals made it about getting Nookie.  The FACTS are that he was asked, under oath if he had a sexual relationship with Monica and he committed purgery under oath, which IS a felony and he was held in contempt of court and disbarred for doing so.

As for this press guy.  We need to see where his press creds came from and who gave them out before we start talking about impeachment.

Oh, and if Bush lied about WMDs, like you liberals always like to say he did, how about these people who "lied about WMDs?"

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Kerry Lied, They died!  Nope...  That's not the chant...

Hillery Lied, they died!  Nope...  that's not it either...

Bill Lied, they died...  Nope...

It's only a lie when A conservative says it.  It's only "felony" when a conservative did it.  It's not only sex, but rather criminal activity is a conservative does it.

It was the right wing neocons that brought up the investigation in the first place. An investigation that received more negative coverage from the biased media than the lies that spewed from Bush. We let the blind lead the blind.

Clinton took a beating in the media, that much is true.  But lets look at the media and it's reaction to presidents going back a few years...

Carter = Great.  <- Singlehandedly did more damage to American foreign policy than ANY OTHER PRESIDENT at that point.  Allowed the Shaw in Iran to be over run by Communist rebels and saw the current Radical Islamic government put in power.  Stood by as American hostages were held by terrorists for over 440 days and did nothing.  Oversaw the worst econonmy since the great depression.

Regan = Cowboy, senile, dangerous.  Singlehandedly did more to bring the soviet union down than ANY OTHER PRESIDENT SINCE WW2.  Spurned the economy on from the worst it ahd been since the Great depression (the "Missery INdex was created during the Carter Administration), and yet Reagan was an "airhead" according to Katie Curic <sp>, we was going to blow the whole world up, he was crazy and we read it day after day in the media.

Clinton = Great president, but a man with flaws.  Stood by and let Al Quieda attack us EIGHT TIMES and did nothing.  Offered Osama Bin Laden three times and declined saying "we didn't have enough" to keep him.  Caused the last resessionby signing the largest tax increase in the history of the USA.  Given credit for issues like Wefare reform and such which were in the REPUBLICAN Contract with America as written by Newt and the boys...  No reporting on the connections between Ross Perot and Hillery-care (The Perot Group was to be a MAJOR player in the Socialistic healthcare program), no reporting on the FELONY committed.  Nothing...  We heard a lot of scandal!  But little truth.

Bush = Stupid, Liar, War monger.  So far every American has recieved a tax cut or two, over 30 Million people have been liberated from terroristic and despotic regimes, Terrorists have been unable to strike the homeland again since 2001, The economy is posting BETTER numbers than durring the Clinton Administration, People have voted in Afganistan and Iraq, and someone is finally looking into fixing social security so people like me and anyone 20 to 35 years old will actually be gettgin something...

Tell me again about the right-wing media.

BTW Dune...

You didn't comment on this:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Kreeper-X

First off, what does this have to do with the whitehouse (defacto) hiring a stooge to aske pop-up questions? It has nothing to do with Clinton, Salon.com, or anyone else. Why does every "we caught the whitehouse in another scandal" thread turn into WHAT ABOUT CLINTON? I think it is rich that he is not only a ringer, but a homosexual escort also. The armies of compassion led by James Dobson will not approve.

Those senators you list were just a stifled by the whitehouse information stifling machine as the rest of the world. The whitehouse ignored any information that went against their designs. There was a report found last week that had been buried by the whitehouse, where Richard Clarke sent a warning to them months before 9/11 warning them to get serious about al-Qaeda. Condoleeeza Rice then stated to the 9/11 commission and said it didn't exist. But, it did.

So if they were caught red-handed suppressing information, just like Clarke said, why shouldn't I believe him? Why shouldn't I also believe him when he said that he warned the Whitehouse over and over that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or al-qaeda, and they attacked in spite of his expert opinion?

Clarke was the smartest man in the world on al-Qaeda and Bush ingored him. So what that some senators agreed with Bush's reasoning for attacking Iraq after they got half the truth?

I would have said those quotes to if my own president was saying them. If you want to have a quote war we can do that, but a lot more conservatives fell for that WMD crap then democrats.

Since when did Reagan help out our economy and bring down the USSR. The Soviet Union bankrupted itself, I mean, unless you want to fight that one out with about a million poly sci and economy specialists.  

goodsmitty wrote: Kreeper-X First off, what does this have to do with the whitehouse (defacto) hiring a stooge to aske pop-up questions? It has nothing to do with Clinton, Salon.com, or anyone else. Why does every "we caught the whitehouse in another scandal" thread turn into WHAT ABOUT CLINTON?

Because of the double standard in the media and in the outlook of the people on the left.  Dune posted that GWB should be inpeached because of this scandal, based on a blogger's post, and that it's somehow a felony to grant creds to a reporter for a political group.

No one on the left will ever look at EVERYONE ELSE in the press room and notice that they are all slanted left.  They all ask questions aimed at tearing the administration down.  At one memorable press conference, EVERY SINGLE QUESTION ASKED by the press corps involved "would you like to appologize to the familiies of those who died in battle since we can't find WMDs?"  I kid you not.  They all had the same talking points and were under orders to all ask the same questions...

So honestly, I can see why the white house would grant access to someone with a "friendly" ear... 

No one in the media thought it was a scandal when every member of the Clinton Administration, and even his wife were out in the media blasting every single person who crossed Bubba Clinton as a liar or a whore or what not.  But it's a scandal if someone asks friendly questions of the administration?

I think it is rich that he is not only a ringer, but a homosexual escort also. The armies of compassion led by James Dobson will not approve. Those senators you list were just a stifled by the whitehouse information stifling machine as the rest of the world. The whitehouse ignored any information that went against their designs. There was a report found last week that had been buried by the whitehouse, where Richard Clarke sent a warning to them months before 9/11 warning them to get serious about al-Qaeda. Condoleeeza Rice then stated to the 9/11 commission and said it didn't exist. But, it did.

Please Link me to this document and also to the direct quote of Secretary Rice where she said that document didn't exist.  Oh, and please give me the page number in the 9/11 commission report that points this stuff out.

So it's all the Bush Administration's fault that 9/11 happened, eh?  Wait let me guess, it was all an oil scheme.  Kinda hard to have an oil scheme when we have yet to see a single drop of ANY Iraqi oil in our nation, and the Iraqi companies are the one's making the money...

So if they were caught red-handed suppressing information, just like Clarke said, why shouldn't I believe him? Why shouldn't I also believe him when he said that he warned the Whitehouse over and over that al-Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11 or Iraq, and they attacked in spite of his expert opinion?

Clark is also a confirmed liar.  He stated on one occation to the Press that the Bush Administration had done more to combat terrorism than the Clinton Administration.  Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11?  Osama Bin Laden announced in a tape that they did.  Which is it?  Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq?  How about the fact that they gave aid to terrorists all over the world, paying the families of suicide bombers, plotting assassinations, and took in the Al-Qaeda leader who was injured in the Afgahn war and treated him for his injury, or the fact that that Al-Qeada leader is currently the head of the terrorist factions in Iraq right now?

Clarke was the smartest man in the world on al-Qaeda and Bush ingored him. So what that some senators agreed with Bush's reasoning for attacking Iraq after they got half the truth?

Hmmm.. Did Bill Clinton get half of the truth while he was president?  How about Al Gore when he was Vice President?  How about John Kerry who served on the intellegence committee (when he would show up anyway)? 

The fact is that EVERYONE thought that Saddam had these weapons and there is PROOF that he had them if you people on the left would jsut wake up.

What killed the Kurds?  What did Saddam use against the Iranians in the Iraq / Iran war?  Yep, WMDs.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002[QUOTE]

Were these members of the CLINTON administration all hoodwinked by the lies of the Bush Administration?  Please answer me that.

Dune wrote: I would have said those quotes to if my own president was saying them. If you want to have a quote war we can do that, but a lot more conservatives fell for that WMD crap then democrats.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Did the Bush Administration fool these members of the Clinton Administration that had the same intellegence as the Bush Administration?

Since when did Reagan help out our economy and bring down the USSR. The Soviet Union bankrupted itself, I mean, unless you want to fight that one out with about a million poly sci and economy specialists.

Look at it, my friend.  The Soviets bankrupted themselves doing what?  Gearing up for WAR with the USA.  Reagan used the SDI initiative to force them even further along that path.

The Democrats confronted Reagan on a daily basis.  Democrats wanted a nuclear freeze with the soviets (which they would not ahve honored)...  The fact that the USA was gearing up for a war with the soviets for the first time since WW2 forced thier hand.  We were no longer playing to "co-exist" like the democrats wanted, but we were playing to win.

As for the Economy, look back at the Carter Administration.  Look at the economic indicators...  Look at the Gas lines...  Look at the double digit unemployment.  Reagan entered office by an electoral land slide and within four years we were out of that slump and he laid the groundwork for the 90's...  If not for Reagan and his tax policies, the 90's would never have happened.

Kreeper-X,

Posting the same message over and over must be a conservative tactic. It is annoying and doesn't make your argument any more powerful. I answered why they don't matter, they were subject to the same information suppression as the U.N., NATO, and the American people.

You can find Rice caught in a lie here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=ahGqbmVbo0og - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=ahGq bmVbo0og

//A newly declassified memo shows that the Bush administration was warned about the threat posed by al- Qaeda in January 2001, five days after President George W. Bush took office.

Rice, now secretary of State, testified last year before the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks that she never received any specific warning of an attack by the terrorist network headed by Osama bin Laden. She has said that she and other administration officials received only general warnings, including one in a daily intelligence briefing on Aug. 6, 2001. //

Now, answer one of my ON TOPIC questions, and I will address another of your OFF TOPIC diversions:

Q Is the whitehouse press conference: A) the venue for the American public to get answers through the media, or B) a spin room for special interests, bought and paid for by the same administration that is holding the press conference?

A or B, it is simple.

I think that Kreeper-X should post Democratic Quotes on Weapons of Mass Destruction at least 50 or 60 more times.  That'll assuredly make Bush's prostitute (Jeff Gannon) be a non-issue.

Haha, true.

Just for your information, because I think you lack it on this issue. The Soviet Union were in a constant power struggle and war with many countries, including one Afghanistan, under the power of Osama Bin Laden and the newly formed Al-Queda forces which we supplied with weapons and training. The Soviets bankrupted themselves in wars with the Czech, the Kuz, and in the Republic of Georgia. They spent billions of dollars a month fighting all of these wars....a track we are likely to fall on.

As for the quotes, lets see them again, I mean, the Dems did say those things, so of course this is their fault. It's not like the conservatives didn't spew them for years as well.

I'm still laughing at all of the new Jeff Gannon stuff coming out.  I hope he got to spend the night at the White House.  I really, really do.  This whole story is priceless. 

"Fool...me once...shame on, uh, me!?!  Fool me once, ya ain't gonna fool me again."

President George W. Bush

"The Liberal Left-Wing Media is behind this.  It also made up those lies about me being a druggie and a draft dodger."

Rush Limbaugh

"Those six pack abs and firm buttocks never fooled me for one second.  I knew he was some kind of girlie man."

Vice President Richard Cheney

"Well, I'd root around in a Iraqi trash dump just to find his phone number."

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

"He called me a little cherub."

Senior Advisor to the President Karl Rove

"HA! HA!"

Nelson Muntz  The Simpsons

Dazed wrote: Belt #2 wrote: Just remember this: Liars and frauds make up BOTH ENDS OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM. Thought I would fix that for you ;-)

*999999

Gotpaint92 wrote: goodsmitty wrote: Kreeper-X, Posting the same message over and over must be a conservative tactic. It is annoying and doesn't make your argument any more powerful. Yes good Idea go and flame someone who has been at this forum for over 2 years longer than you and has at least apears to have an IQ which some of you left seem to lack.  You all are trying to burn Kreeper-X for telling what's what as some of you left who cannot understand that Clinton was never fit to be the leader of any country.  You bush-bashers try to imagine what would have happened on 9/11 if Clinton was still the president or if gore had won the election.  they wouldn't have given the order to ground all planes they would have sat on their ass sucking their thumb in a bunker.  Quick thinking on the bush admistration's part saved many lifes.  Did you really thing the Al-Queda would have just stoped at the trade centers and the pentagon if the planes had stayed in the air?

Hey Dune, I am being accused of flaming again, so we must be winning!

Kreeper posted the same message over and over and it gets old, no flames intended.

I apologize for this being so long, but Darur is putting me to the test:

Here is just one example of Dubya being wrong:

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.

It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President **edited** Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.

In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)

Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.

Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.

But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.

Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Darur,

Joe Wilson was the ambassador to Niger and personally investigated the claims that uranium (yellow cake) was missing and had been sold to Iraq. He reported to the white house that it was all accounted for. He reminded them after he was watching the buildup for the war, based on the renewed claims of Iraq buying uranium from Niger. Bush used the uranium claims to garner support for the war in his speech in Cincinnati, in spite of being told that the link did not exist by the very man sent to investigate the claims.

Bush had his opportunity to present his evidence to the 9/11 commission, and he had none. Again, suppression of evidence.

As an intersting side note, Joe Wilson's wife was one of the CIA's top spies in Africa. Her cover was blown the day after this went to press in the NYTimes. He claims that the only people who knew of her existence was the Vice President and his cabinet, and that they blew her cover out of retribution for this letter.

That is the wrong way to bow out, mister, you are supposed to accuse me of flaming you now!

For more of your reading pleasure:

//On July 14, 2003, an article by a syndicated columnist appeared in newspapers across the country identifying Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA operative specializing in Weapons of Mass Destruction. The columnist quoted “senior administration officials” as his sources. Plame is the spouse of long-time State Department veteran Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson recently wrote an op-ed disputing the White House's claims about potential uranium exports from Niger to Iraq, sparking the current debate about whether the White House knowingly manipulated information about Iraq's nuclear program. The disclosure of Plame's identity was part of an apparent attempt to impugn Wilson's credibility and to intimidate others from speaking out against the Administration.

"This is one of the most reckless and nasty things I’ve seen in all my years of government," Schumer said. "Leaking the name of a CIA agent is tantamount to putting a gun to that agent’s head. It compromises her safety and the safety of her loved ones, not to mention those in her network and other operatives she may have dealt with. On top of that, the officials who have done it may have also seriously jeopardized the national security of this nation."//

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/07/cs072403.html - http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/07/cs072403.html

goodsmitty wrote: Posting the same message over and over must be a conservative tactic. It is annoying and doesn't make your argument any more powerful. I answered why they don't matter, they were subject to the same information suppression as the U.N., NATO, and the American people.

Who suppressed that information?  The Bush administration?  Look again at the quotes...  President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore...  Almost every one of these quotes is BEFORE the Bush administration took office in January of 2001.

Who suppressed thier information?

You can find Rice caught in a lie here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=ahGqbmVbo0og - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=ahGq bmVbo0og

Interestingly enough, when I visit that link, nothing comes up but a blank screen on bloomburg.

A newly declassified memo shows that the Bush administration was warned about the threat posed by al- Qaeda in January 2001, five days after President George W. Bush took office. Rice, now secretary of State, testified last year before the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks that she never received any specific warning of an attack by the terrorist network headed by Osama bin Laden. She has said that she and other administration officials received only general warnings, including one in a daily intelligence briefing on Aug. 6, 2001.

What did that document say?  Can you link me to that document so I might read it and see that they were indeed informed that Al-Qeada intended to hijack several plane on September 11th of 2001 and crash them into the world trade center and the pentagon.  I HIGHLY doubt that is what this document says.

Is this the "Al-Queda determined to strike inside the US" document?  If so that's already been discredited as it was not a specific warning of ANY specific attack or plan of attack, mearly a "They want to hit us" memo...

Now, answer one of my ON TOPIC questions, and I will address another of your OFF TOPIC diversions: Q Is the whitehouse press conference: A) the venue for the American public to get answers through the media, or B) a spin room for special interests, bought and paid for by the same administration that is holding the press conference? A or B, it is simple.

It's both A & B.  It's A as is it's intended to be just that, a way for the White house to get answers to the public through the media.  It's B in that the Media themselves spin that information as much and as often as they want. 

Yes, if this guy really is who the bloggers think he is, then it's bad and needs to be looked into.  But notice...  If he lied to cover up his sex acts, it's not so bad since that's what your guy did. 

I contend that every member of the media should immediately inform the public who they voted for and who they support in elections as a condition of thier jobs.  It'd show you that the media bias is there and it is real.

I've answered you question, now answer me.  Was the Clinton administration lied to by the Bush administration about WMDs when they said THE EXACT SAME THINGS that this administration has said in regard to this issue?  Yes or no.

Dune wrote: Haha, true. Just for your information, because I think you lack it on this issue. The Soviet Union were in a constant power struggle and war with many countries, including one Afghanistan, under the power of Osama Bin Laden and the newly formed Al-Queda forces which we supplied with weapons and training. The Soviets bankrupted themselves in wars with the Czech, the Kuz, and in the Republic of Georgia. They spent billions of dollars a month fighting all of these wars....a track we are likely to fall on.

Not true...  Yes they spent some money and stressed thier reserves, but it was the arms race with the US that bankrupted the USSR.  Afghanistan didn't defeat the soviet union.  They pestered them until they decided that it wasn't worth the effort.

As for the quotes, lets see them again, I mean, the Dems did say those things, so of course this is their fault. It's not like the conservatives didn't spew them for years as well.

Here'e the point of the quotes that you and Dune are not wanting to answer.  Bush said these things and he decided to take action.  Clinton said those same things and EVERYONE in his administration and party at the time said the same things.  The Difference is that the democrats decided not to do anything about them.

Bush decided to take action on this intellegence in a Post 9/11 world.  The risk of sitting around and doing nothing far outweigh the risks involved in going in and not finding what we're looking for.

So, I ask you again to tell me why Bush is a liar when he said that there were WMDs in Iraq and Clinton is not when he said there were WMDs in iraq?

goodsmitty wrote: Hey Dune, I am being accused of flaming again, so we must be winning! Kreeper posted the same message over and over and it gets old, no flames intended.

Answer the question and I'll stop posintg it.  You liberals can never answer a straight question, so we gotta keep hammering on it until you do.  So answer the question.

goodsmitty wrote: Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council. It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me. In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President **edited** Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office. After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government. The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival. I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place. Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired. (As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.) Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip. Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure. I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country. Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa. The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case. Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government. The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted. I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed. But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons. Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant... Also an obviously unbiased appointee of the Carter Administration. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company HAHAHAH!  The New York times is so unbiased...

Please look at the parts in red and see where your arguement falls apart.

He sat and drank tea with politicians, and concluded that nothing happened.  He never wrote a paper or report that would prove his side of the arguement.  He claims that the evidence of his trip has been covered up.

He then says that Iraq had WMDs and had used them and was a danger, but that the best way to deal with him was to talk to him for another what?  20 years or so.

Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN and the US in the face of the cease-fire agreement signed to end the Gulf War.  For 12 years we **edited**-footed around the issue and let the UN tell Saddam "I'm going to count to three and you better turn those WMDs over."  12 years and 17 resolutions had passed, and in the face of BRITISH intellegence, a post 9/11 mentality, and the fact that Saddam was in violation of the cease fire agreement, we took him out.

I noticed that you did not redden the crux of his letter:

For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.

or,

Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

He was sent personally by **edited** Cheney, who was awaiting his findings. Evidently Cheney didn't pass it on to the boss. Joe states that he never typed a written report, but gave his finding to the boss at the state department, who would deliver:

a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

Kreeper-X wrote: Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN and the US in the face of the cease-fire agreement signed to end the Gulf War.  For 12 years we **edited**-footed around the issue and let the UN tell Saddam "I'm going to count to three and you better turn those WMDs over."  12 years and 17 resolutions had passed, and in the face of BRITISH intellegence, a post 9/11 mentality, and the fact that Saddam was in violation of the cease fire agreement, we took him out.

So we put pressure on Saddam, he let in the weapons inspectors who found nothing, and we attacked him for not complying with the resolutions of the past. Seems logical to me.

You are posting so many arguments that I cannot keep up. Let me post a final reply for the night that sums them up.....

1. Those quotes have no bearing on the argument. Everyone knows that Saddam had WMD and used them in the past. However, the U.N. inspectors report that they could find none prior to the war, and that the Iraqis were complying with the inspections. I think this answers your question,

2. The content of the memo doesn't matter. What matters is that Clarke stated under oath that the memo existed and Rice testified that it did not. It did.

3. Was the Clinton administration lied to by the Bush administration about WMDs when they said THE EXACT SAME THINGS that this administration has said in regard to this issue?  Yes or no.

No. The mistake that the world (including Clinton) made was not enforcing the U.N. resolutions against Iraq. The months in the buildup before the war showed what can happen with the threat of military action. When we started to build up forces in Kuwait, Saddam let the inspectors go where ever they wanted to (and they found nothing). If they were complying with the inspections at that time, and the inspectors found nothing, why did we need to invade them? I feel that this is the heart of the anti-war in Iraq movement.

Now, my next question back on topic:

Bush won the hearts sans minds of the conservatives with all of his morality, praying, ethics, etc. Yes or no, hiring a stooge to ask loaded questions at white house press conferences is unethical.

/Going to bed now. Must go to church in the morning where people who read my letters to the editor pray that God will cure me of my evil open-mindedness (liberalism) and tolerance./

Don't need to go to church here goodsmitty, no god!

Anyways, it's impossible to argue with someone who just posts quotes and rhetoric about the past administration.

Hades, how much? I mean, on a cop's salary, I'm not sure if I can afford you.

spot reserved for witty political statement

im to tired to start with this kind of stuff right now.

Dune wrote: Don't need to go to church here goodsmitty, no god! Anyways, it's impossible to argue with someone who just posts quotes and rhetoric about the past administration. Hades, how much? I mean, on a cop's salary, I'm not sure if I can afford you.

Even more accurately, it's impossible to argue with someone so close-minded that they will not allow anything to challenge their beliefs or consider that they may be wrong. In two years I have stepped back from a point twice because someone provided the data that made me re-assess my contentions. I can say that I have yet to see one of the neocons do the same.

Insert perceived inflammatory meaning of above statement here and rant for two pages about taking back the forum from prepubescent flamers. I have a garage door to hang!

Flame ON!

I have a hang over to work off, good luck with the garage.

goodsmitty wrote: so we put pressure on Saddam, he let in the weapons inspectors who found nothing, and we attacked him for not complying with the resolutions of the past. Seems logical to me. You are posting so many arguments that I cannot keep up. Let me post a final reply for the night that sums them up.....

Allow me to retort.

The arms inspectors were not allowed full and unrestricted access to every site they wanted to insect.  Saddam used those inspectors in a cat and mouse game for 12 years while he conspired with the UN to form the Oil for Food program.  He let them inspect places he knew were clean and kept them out of areas where he either had weapons or wanted someone to think he had...  It's not the rosey picture you like to paint of a Kind and decent man (Saddam) who was bullied by the US for his lunch money... 

We HAVE his scientists...  You know, the ones that were working on his nuclear program?  Yeah, those scientists.  They've taken us to the palces where the Plans and materials were hidden.  Did he have the Bomb?  No.  Did he have the plans and the money and the desire to have the bomb?  Yep.  He had the plans and means to reconstitute any of this WMD programs within months if the world turned a blind eye to his country...

Second, Saddam VIOLATED the Gulf War cease-fire agreement by firing on American and British planes patroling the UN backed No-Fly zones on an almost daily basis.

Third, while the UN **edited**-footed around for 12 years, over 300,000 people died at the hands of Saddam and his regime.  He repeatedly amassed troops on the boarders of his neighbors, and even conspired to assassinate an ex-president.

Yes, we took him out.  Unlike democrats like Carter and Kennedy and Clinton...  We took action were we deemed it was necessary.

If there were, indeed, no WMDs in Iraq at any time, then why the cat and mouse game.  It took us two years to search the country...  The inspectors took 12...  Why give a despotic dictator 10 years to play an international game of musical chairs, all the while slaughtering his own people and bribing world officials to gather more money and time?

goodsmitty wrote: I noticed that you did not redden the crux of his letter...

You're right.  Here, I shall quote the "crux" of his letter:

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

For eight days, he drank sweet mint tea with government officials and confirmed that nothing had happened because they told him so.  Some investigation.  Get this guy the Medal of Honor!

Smile, it's okay to be wrong.

goodsmitty wrote: 1. Those quotes have no bearing on the argument. Everyone knows that Saddam had WMD and used them in the past. However, the U.N. inspectors report that they could find none prior to the war, and that the Iraqis were complying with the inspections. I think this answers your question,

Wrong.  If Bush is a Liar, then so is Clinton.  Answer the question.  Was Clinton hoodwinked by the Bush Administration even before there was a Bush Administration?  Yes or no.  thanks.

2. The content of the memo doesn't matter. What matters is that Clarke stated under oath that the memo existed and Rice testified that it did not. It did.

And we ALL know just how honest democrats are under oath, right.  I mean come on... 

Rice testified that there was NO SPECIFIC note detailing any SPECIFIC attack that was ever given to the Administration.  That's true.  The Memo that Clarke referes to is the infamous "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US" memo.  It said NOTHING specific other than that they expected an attack on the homeland by Al-Qeada.  Man, you should do a little research before you start throwing stones in a glass house.  Read the 9/11 commission report in regard to this issue instead of the Liberal talking points memos from Boxxer and Kennedy...

3. Was the Clinton administration lied to by the Bush administration about WMDs when they said THE EXACT SAME THINGS that this administration has said in regard to this issue?  Yes or no. No. The mistake that the world (including Clinton) made was not enforcing the U.N. resolutions against Iraq. The months in the buildup before the war showed what can happen with the threat of military action. When we started to build up forces in Kuwait, Saddam let the inspectors go where ever they wanted to (and they found nothing). If they were complying with the inspections at that time, and the inspectors found nothing, why did we need to invade them? I feel that this is the heart of the anti-war in Iraq movement.

So when Bill Clinton said:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

He was telling the truth and when Bush said it  it was a Lie?

Now, my next question back on topic: Bush won the hearts sans minds of the conservatives with all of his morality, praying, ethics, etc. Yes or no, hiring a stooge to ask loaded questions at white house press conferences is unethical.

What if that is the case?  Clinton tried to win everyone back to his side by attending church every sunday and carrying a bible with the bigget gold cross emblazed upon it's cover for all the cameras to see...  In fact, the media relentlessly force-fed us "Clinton's faith" on a nightly basis.  It was hard to turn on the news and see a rapist and a liar and a felon being pushed on us as a troubled man and a faithful man.

Unethical?  You mean like getting your willy washed under the desk in the oval office?  You mean like ordering the IRS to audit all of your enemies?  You mean like accepting campaign money at a fund raiser in a Buddist Monestary?  You mean like lying under oath? 

YES.  The situation, if it is indeed as bad as it looks, needs to be looked into and investigated.  BUt Bush doesn't sign off on the press corps.  How is it his fault and how is it that he's unethical?  You have ZERO evidence that Bush did ANYTHING to get this guy in there...

On the other hand, there is a LOT of credible evidence that Bill Clinton is a rapist...

/Going to bed now. Must go to church in the morning where people who read my letters to the editor pray that God will cure me of my evil open-mindedness (liberalism) and tolerance./

I love the idea that only the left is tolerant...  The left is ONLY tolerant when you agree with them.  If you don't agree with the left or you accuse a felon of being a felon, you lefties get all flustered and start throwing names like "Whore" and "war mongerer" and "liar" around...  If you're so tolerant, tolerate the opinions and beliefs of those of us who don't agree with you.

The modern Democratic party is the one that's closed minded and intolerant...

goodsmitty wrote: Even more accurately, it's impossible to argue with someone so close-minded that they will not allow anything to challenge their beliefs or consider that they may be wrong. In two years I have stepped back from a point twice because someone provided the data that made me re-assess my contentions. I can say that I have yet to see one of the neocons do the same.

As have I.  I was once a Democrat.  If I had been old enough, I'd have been politically inclined in High-School, I'd have voted for Clinton back in 92...  Truth is that I'm more Libertarian now that anything else, though I still lean a little to the right.

My problem has never been with anyone disagreeing with teh Current Administration.  It's been with the Hate and the retoric of their arguement.  If you have a point or a plan, then tell us.  The Democrats haven't had a plan or a point for the last 12 years...  Clinton is looked on by so many lefties as a great man and look at what he did in office.  He signed REPUBLICAN bills.  He committed PURGERY, and he dodged scandal after scandal.

Then, here comes the 2004 election.  Suddenly Democrats abandon their stance on the issue of military service...  Clinton was a draft dodger and actually attended a protest of the Vietnam war in Moscow...  Suddenly because Bush served in the National Guard he was a coward, but Clinton was a great man.

See my issue with the left now-a-days?  It's all "say one thing, change my mind and say something else when it's politically expedient."

John Kerry was a perfect example of this in practice.  He couldn't make up his mind about anything other than that he hated Bush and so should you. 

Insert perceived inflammatory meaning of above statement here and rant for two pages about taking back the forum from prepubescent flamers. I have a garage door to hang!

Love you to man, but I don't swing that way.

Okay, let me compare arguments:

You argue that a quote from 10 years ago by Clinton, under a different context, which I cannot explain in any smaller words and still make sense, means he supported a war 10 years later and is a liar.

I argue that Bush lied because the man that VP Cheney sent to investigate told them that their pretenses were false, and they tried to suppress him. But his letter says he drank tea and is therefore useless.

You argue that Clinton getting caught adultering and then trying to appear "reborn" is the same as Bush who was ELECTED BECAUSE OF HIS "MORALITY" and is just as unethical. Clinton was trying to save face, Bush was snookering the do-gooders for votes.

I am sorry that you cannot see the difference in these arguments. Try posting the same thing over and over, and you'll win the debate. It works for the white house, heck, people still believe that Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

I'm outa here.

goodsmitty wrote: Okay, let me compare arguments: You argue that a quote from 10 years ago by Clinton, under a different context, which I cannot explain in any smaller words and still make sense, means he supported a war 10 years later and is a liar.

No.  I'm not saying he supported the war or anything like that.  Clinton had the SAME information that the Bush Administration has.  He came to the same conclusions that Bush has.  He stated as much time and time again.

What I'm saying is that YOU are calling Bush a Liar for saying the EXACT same things that Clinton did and believing the EXACT same thing that Clinton did.  The difference, as always, is that the republican acts and the democrats appease.

The point is that if you call Bush a liar becaues he said there are WMDs in Iraq, then Clinton too is a liar since he said the EXACT SAME THING.

It's not rocket science Goodsmitty...  If Bush lied, so did Clinton and Kerry and Al Gore and Hillary, and Albright, and Kennedy, and on down the line.

I argue that Bush lied because the man that VP Cheney sent to investigate told them that their pretenses were false, and they tried to suppress him. But his letter says he drank tea and is therefore useless.

There is no written report.  The man says, himself, that the extent of his investigation was to sit down with a few people and talk and drink tea.

The British Intellegence services STILL stand by that information to this day.

You argue that Clinton getting caught adultering and then trying to appear "reborn" is the same as Bush who was ELECTED BECAUSE OF HIS "MORALITY" and is just as unethical. Clinton was trying to save face, Bush was snookering the do-gooders for votes.

What was it that Clinton was trying to do if not "snooker the do-gooders for votes?"  It's one thing if a man is religious and let's it be known that he is.  It's another to pretend to be religious to make the do-gooders think you're trying to change your ways by becoming a good little chior boy...

I am sorry that you cannot see the difference in these arguments. Try posting the same thing over and over, and you'll win the debate. It works for the white house, heck, people still believe that Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

If anyone thinks that Iraq was involved in 9/11 they are idiots.  NO ONE in the Bush administration EVER came forward and claimed that to be the case.  Iraq was HIGH on the list of suspects, but it was QUICKLY determined that it was Al-Qeada... 

I'm sorry that your arguement is without merit. 

I'll say it again, as for the reporter and the story that is breaking around him and his press access...  It is bad.  But you democrats have a long way to go before you can cry out in righteous indignation when you had, just a scant few years ago, defended everything that a Lying felon and rapist did.

You lost the right to cry out in righteous indignation about military service when you publicly backed a man who ran to Canada to dodge the draft and flew to Moscow to protest the war.  When you guys said it didn't matter if Clinton dodged the draft, you forfitted any right to cry about anyone elses choice of service to his or her country.

So, go ahead and keep shouting out at the top of your collective lungs about how Bush lied (clinton did too) and how it's all for Halliburton (Clinton gave a lot of no-bid contracts to them too)...  It's why you lost the last election and seats in both the house and the senate.  It's why democrats will continue loosing...  You can't win an election on hate of your opponent alone.

Kreeper-X wrote: goodsmitty wrote: Okay, let me compare arguments: You argue that a quote from 10 years ago by Clinton, under a different context, which I cannot explain in any smaller words and still make sense, means he supported a war 10 years later and is a liar. No.  I'm not saying he supported the war or anything like that.  Clinton had the SAME information that the Bush Administration has.  He came to the same conclusions that Bush has.  He stated as much time and time again. What I'm saying is that YOU are calling Bush a Liar for saying the EXACT same things that Clinton did and believing the EXACT same thing that Clinton did.  The difference, as always, is that the republican acts and the democrats appease. The point is that if you call Bush a liar becaues he said there are WMDs in Iraq, then Clinton too is a liar since he said the EXACT SAME THING. It's not rocket science Goodsmitty...  If Bush lied, so did Clinton and Kerry and Al Gore and Hillary, and Albright, and Kennedy, and on down the line. I argue that Bush lied because the man that VP Cheney sent to investigate told them that their pretenses were false, and they tried to suppress him. But his letter says he drank tea and is therefore useless. There is no written report.  The man says, himself, that the extent of his investigation was to sit down with a few people and talk and drink tea. The British Intellegence services STILL stand by that information to this day. You argue that Clinton getting caught adultering and then trying to appear "reborn" is the same as Bush who was ELECTED BECAUSE OF HIS "MORALITY" and is just as unethical. Clinton was trying to save face, Bush was snookering the do-gooders for votes. What was it that Clinton was trying to do if not "snooker the do-gooders for votes?"  It's one thing if a man is religious and let's it be known that he is.  It's another to pretend to be religious to make the do-gooders think you're trying to change your ways by becoming a good little chior boy... I am sorry that you cannot see the difference in these arguments. Try posting the same thing over and over, and you'll win the debate. It works for the white house, heck, people still believe that Iraq attacked us on 9/11. If anyone thinks that Iraq was involved in 9/11 they are idiots.  NO ONE in the Bush administration EVER came forward and claimed that to be the case.  Iraq was HIGH on the list of suspects, but it was QUICKLY determined that it was Al-Qeada...  I'm sorry that your arguement is without merit.  I'll say it again, as for the reporter and the story that is breaking around him and his press access...  It is bad.  But you democrats have a long way to go before you can cry out in righteous indignation when you had, just a scant few years ago, defended everything that a Lying felon and rapist did. You lost the right to cry out in righteous indignation about military service when you publicly backed a man who ran to Canada to dodge the draft and flew to Moscow to protest the war.  When you guys said it didn't matter if Clinton dodged the draft, you forfitted any right to cry about anyone elses choice of service to his or her country. So, go ahead and keep shouting out at the top of your collective lungs about how Bush lied (clinton did too) and how it's all for Halliburton (Clinton gave a lot of no-bid contracts to them too)...  It's why you lost the last election and seats in both the house and the senate.  It's why democrats will continue loosing...  You can't win an election on hate of your opponent alone.

Context, Context, Context. I AM SORRY that you don't understand the meaning of this word. Did Clinton land on a carrier in a green flight suit? That is the point that Bush's "War Record" became an issue. He was trying to be something he isn't-brave.

You are only fixated on the tea comment, he's a surfer for pete's sake, he drinks tea.

Enjoy your life of concrete thinking, but please don't start reading the bible, or you will be stoning people to death and poking out eyes and teeth because it says so. It must make life much easier when you don't have to be burdened with thought.

Hades wrote: Where is my pass into the White House? I am a better male prostitue than Gannon.

I was just thinking that.  Gannon isn't even that cute.  I would totally not hire him.

goodsmitty wrote: Context, Context, Context. I AM SORRY that you don't understand the meaning of this word. Did Clinton land on a carrier in a green flight suit? That is the point that Bush's "War Record" became an issue. He was trying to be something he isn't-brave.

A lot braver than Clinton who never learned to fly fighter jets or even btohered to serve his country.

A lot braver than Clinton who never once acted against Al-Qeada even though they were routinely attacking us and our interests.

The ONLY reason Bush's war record came up was that demo-commies thought they could score political points.  Notice how you guys cried about dirty tricks when the TRUTH about Kerry's record started filtering out... 

You are only fixated on the tea comment, he's a surfer for pete's sake, he drinks tea.

His quote.  The extent of his investigation was to sit around drinking tea with people and talking to them.  He didn't visit any of the plants, or the mines, or examine paper-trails or interogate anyone.  He had friendly little chats over tea... 

Enjoy your life of concrete thinking, but please don't start reading the bible, or you will be stoning people to death and poking out eyes and teeth because it says so. It must make life much easier when you don't have to be burdened with thought.

Words to live by.  You might want to think about that yourself.  BTW, you never answered the question about weither or not Clinton Lied about WMDs.

Notice the level of intollerance of an opposing idea in his post.  I thought you were so tollerant?  What happened?  Facts are tricky things, because they aren't open to interpretation.  They simply are.  There is no context... 

As for the bible, I'm a recovering Christian...  I like how you try to belittle an opponent in a debate by bashing a religion that he doesn't even believe in...  Good try.  I happen to be an agnostic conservative.

Okay, I thought I have answered this four times now, but evidently not.

Bush is guilty of either incompetence or lying in that he ignored Clarke, Wilson, and Blix, and sold us on another story, as the article I posted contends.

What did Clinton lie about? He said we needed to deal with Saddam and stop him from developing WMD. He did not lie about anything because he did not lead us into war. He is guilty of not dealing with Saddam.

Please let this go. I have tried to explain the difference four times now. As much as I love arguing on this website, I don't enjoy posting the same answer over and over and over.

NO, CLINTON DID NOT LIE. YES, BUSH DID, EVEN THOUGH THEY SAID THE SAME THING. THEY SAID IT UNDER DIFFERENT CONTEXTS.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

Cedric wrote: Dune wrote: Clinton isn't the only president within the last few years to lie to the people, and Clinton's lies never got anyone killed. Because we all know Clinton was a good president.

Yes we do.

What about Fox news.  They seam like a bunch of commie liberal Hippies! (sarcasm)