| Does there need to be a debate on the reasons for going to war in Iraq? |
| Yes, we need answers |
|
50% |
[ 6 ] |
| No, let's move on |
|
50% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 12 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Wed Nov 02, 2005 12:16 am Democrats Close Senate to Push War Probe |
|
| Quote: |
Democrats close Senate to push war probe
Deal struck to advance investigation on prewar intelligence
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democrats forced the Senate into a closed session Tuesday to pressure the Republican majority into completing an investigation of the intelligence underpinning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Democrats demanded that Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts move forward on a promised investigation into how Bush administration officials handled prewar intelligence about Iraq's suspected weapons programs.
The probe would be a follow-up to the July 2004 Intelligence Committee report that blamed a "series of failures" by the CIA and other intelligence agencies for the mistaken belief among U.S. policymakers that Iraq had restarted its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. (Full story)
The Senate reopened about two hours later, after members agreed to appoint a bipartisan group of senators to assess the progress of the "Phase 2" probe, the office of Majority Leader Bill Frist said. (See video on Democratic move -- 3:05)
The three Republicans and three Democrats are to report back to Senate leaders by November 14.
Democrats accused Roberts of stalling the probe into how administration officials handled the intelligence used to sell Congress and the public on invading Iraq.
Roberts, a Kansas Republican, said the closed session was "not needed, not necessary and, in my personal opinion, was a stunt."
The closed session was punctuated by acrimonious broadsides in the Capitol hallways.
Frist said Democrats had "hijacked" the Senate, and Democrats threatened to close the chamber each day until Republicans agreed to move forward with the investigation.
"This is an affront to me personally," said Frist, a Tennessee Republican. "This is an affront to our leadership. It is an affront to the United States of America, and it is wrong."
Frist said Senate Rule 21 -- which requires everyone but senators and a few aides to clear the chamber until a majority votes to reopen -- had been invoked only rarely and with "mutual conversation" between the leaders of both parties.
Democratic leader Harry Reid said the surprise move was necessary to overcome Republican efforts to "obstruct" a full investigation of how the Bush administration led the United States into war.
"There's nothing more important to a Congress or a president than war," the Nevada Democrat said. "I think the American people are entitled to know how we got there. That's what this is all about."
There was no immediate reaction from the White House.
Reid said the GOP leadership in Congress has "repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why."
He said he had "zero regret" about the move: "The American people had a victory today."
Rule 21 has been invoked 53 times since 1929, according to the Congressional Research Service.
It was invoked six times during the impeachment trial of former President Bill Clinton for senators to organize the proceedings and deliberate on his eventual acquittal.
Roberts: Probe in progress
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the intelligence committee's ranking Democrat and vice chairman, said the Democratic maneuver was necessary for Americans to learn who was accountable for the way prewar intelligence was used.
"Everything is about accountability to the American people, accountability of the executive branch ... [and] accountability of the oversight of the Congress," Rockefeller said.
He said the committee's Republican majority has refused to request documents from the White House about how the Bush administration crafted arguments for the invasion.
"What disturbs me the most is the majority has been willing, in this senator's judgment, to take orders from this administration when it comes to limiting the scope of appropriate, authorized and necessary oversight investigations," Rockefeller said.
Roberts said his committee has been working on the Phase 2 investigation since May and "we have what we think is a pretty good report." He said the committee will take up the matter next week.
"However long it takes, working in good faith, we will look into Phase 2 and see what we can do and finish that product," Roberts said.
Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat on the panel, expressed his doubts. "Assurances have been made for months that progress is being made," Levin said. "We have not seen any evidence of it."
Democrats last year had pushed for the second part of the panel's inquiry to be completed before the November 2004 elections.
Democratic Whip Richard Durbin said last week's indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on perjury and obstruction of justice charges showed how the Bush administration reacts to criticism.
Libby is accused of lying to investigators and a grand jury probing the disclosure of the identity of a CIA officer whose husband had challenged a key assertion in the administration's case for war.
"It's a question about whether or not anyone in this administration in any way misused or distorted intelligence," Durbin said. He said senators "owe the American people some straight answers."
Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, denied his party was trying to stall Senate action on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.
He said work on Alito's nomination was still going on, and he was scheduled to meet with the nominee on Wednesday.
Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri, a Republican member of the Intelligence Committee, said Democratic complaints against Roberts were "terribly unfair and unfounded."
Bond said the panel's 2004 report found no indication that the mistaken assumptions about Iraq's weapons programs were the result of political pressure.
"Even after they signed on to that, they contend that somehow this intelligence was misused," he said.
Responding to that argument, Durbin told CNN, "This is a different question: Once they received the intelligence, did members of the administration accurately and honestly portray it to the American people?"
CNN's Ted Barrett contributed to this report.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/01/senate.iraq/index.html
Click Here to Print
SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close
Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.
|
|
|
|
Cathexis
The Angel of Avalon
Joined: 26 Dec 2001
Posts: 5901
Location: ~~ Where Dreams Have No End�
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 12:25 am |
|
Well, it seems like it's a little late to be continuing an investigation over a war that's been on for a few years now. I mean, kudos to the Democrats for wanting answers and all that good stuff, but this forced session isn't exactly going to win the Republicans over...it seems to have angered them even further. I'm sorry that there's a war and I wish there had never been an order to send so many of our men and women over to Iraq. I wish that a lot of our soldiers weren't out there dying for something I think could have been solved another way............but the fact is, they're out there right now, killing and being killed. I know several people who've lost sons and daughters because of this war, and I get sick to my stomach every time I hear that the death count of U.S. soldiers has gone up, even by one number.
The Democrats are pushing so hard that I think they're going to start real trouble. That's the last thing this country needs right now is a weak representative government.
I think there was definitely a problem regarding intelligence and how it was handled before and after 9/11, and since then. But for now, forcing this probe is only going to stir up more questions and upset more people.....although I must admit that I'm quite interested in the continued investigation of this war....
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:05 am |
|
The Democrat leadership FINALLY found their balls. Senator Reid has become my favorite democrat now, Give 'em hell harry 
Last edited by CJ Cregg on Wed Nov 02, 2005 6:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:10 am |
|
This is entirely ridiculous. Not to mention, oh, what's the word for pushing for war as well and then putting the blame solely on Bush? Oh, a double standard. Unfortunately I have to go to school, but I'll give a longer, more detailed response when I get home.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 6:01 pm |
|
I think that we do need answers. Sure, the timing is a bit off. But we deserve to know what was going on when we entered Iraq.
|
|
|
Cathexis
The Angel of Avalon
Joined: 26 Dec 2001
Posts: 5901
Location: ~~ Where Dreams Have No End�
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 6:37 pm |
|
| TrekkieMage wrote: | | I think that we do need answers. Sure, the timing is a bit off. But we deserve to know what was going on when we entered Iraq. |
You have a point there....and RM, I doubt whether they are trying to lay all of the blame upon Bush....I think we DO deserve some answers.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 6:45 pm |
|
I think everybody knows the answers, or at least what the answers will be. This is just an excuse to satisfy the left and make it seem as if they're taking aggressive action, whereas they just want to gain more support, IMO. It'll be a huge waste of tax dollars.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 7:23 pm |
|
You don't think it's all about Bush? They've been trying to get at Bush for YEARS, since BEFORE he took office, but it's been especially on Iraq, since the Presidential campaigns began, for the most part.
They've been trying to find some reason to impeach Bush, and what a better time than this to really go at it? They're doing these unnecessary hearings for purely political, partisan reasons and in their hatred for Bush. And at what time? A time when Libby has been indicted and they're trying to bring it up the line to Rove (whom some of the Democrats in Congress have been calling for the resignation of, with no logical reason) to Cheney and to Bush and to use that to their advantage to come up with some way to say "Bush lied about WMD" again. And so, they're taking this time to really go out against the President, which they've been with Libby and Rove and all that, trying to prove that he "lied," and the timing...well, of course it's bad, but that's the point, don't you see? This is the perfect time for them to do this, and so they're doing it now--all on purpose.
It's another lame-duck attempt to find a reason to impeach Bush, partially for revenge for Clinton's impeachment and partially in their hatred for Bush.
Especially since they're looking at whether or not Bush lied, questioning pre-war intelligence to see if he lied. The timing is just perfect for them, and they're trying to add it all up to incriminate Bush. Part of the reason for this investigation, I believe, is to try and use the CIA Leak situation in order to ascertain whether or not "Bush lied." It's simply ridiculous and there's no basis for this investigation.
I agree with Bill Frist here. "This was a political stunt to get headlines today to bring people out to talk about it," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told FOX News. "They really ceded the high ground when it comes to Senate rules or the civility of the Senate floor." (FoxNews.com)
Again, it's all to get at Bush and add up the CIA leak stuff to show that Bush lied, and they're really trying to get this closed-door session to be able to say things about Bush and get at him more. That's all they care about. Rush Limbaugh was right on the money today when he talked about how their plan right now is to get rid of Bush, and that's all Reid and all the other Democrats have. However, they have no plan for the scenerio in which Bush would be pushed out of office, and yet they're filled with such detest for this man that they're only focus is on getting him out of office. This is a ridiculous stunt by the left and nothing more.
Here's what I always say, and I think is even more apparent now: the Left (more the farther left, but most Democrats in Congress as well) in this country is filled with such hate for Bush. HE's their real enemy, NOT the terrorists, and it's dispicable how low they'll go in their hatred. This shows it even more. But I can tell you, I'm not stunned about this, though. It just seems so typical of the Liberal establishment. It's ridiculous.
Oh, and let's look at some pre-war comments by Democrats ranging from BOTH Clintons to Gore to Pelosi to Reid to Kerry and beyond. If Bush lied, so did they.
| Quote: | "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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"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 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"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 | Source
"[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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source |
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
Finally, I agree with Intrepid here that this is, in my opinion also, an excuse to satisfy the left and make it seem as if they're taking aggressive action.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Cathexis
The Angel of Avalon
Joined: 26 Dec 2001
Posts: 5901
Location: ~~ Where Dreams Have No End�
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:14 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | You don't think it's all about Bush? They've been trying to get at Bush for YEARS, since BEFORE he took office, but it's been especially on Iraq, since the Presidential campaigns began, for the most part.
They've been trying to find some reason to impeach Bush, and what a better time than this to really go at it? They're doing these unnecessary hearings for purely political, partisan reasons and in their hatred for Bush. And at what time? A time when Libby has been indicted and they're trying to bring it up the line to Rove (whom some of the Democrats in Congress have been calling for the resignation of, with no logical reason) to Cheney and to Bush and to use that to their advantage to come up with some way to say "Bush lied about WMD" again. And so, they're taking this time to really go out against the President, which they've been with Libby and Rove and all that, trying to prove that he "lied," and the timing...well, of course it's bad, but that's the point, don't you see? This is the perfect time for them to do this, and so they're doing it now--all on purpose.
It's another lame-duck attempt to find a reason to impeach Bush, partially for revenge for Clinton's impeachment and partially in their hatred for Bush.
Especially since they're looking at whether or not Bush lied, questioning pre-war intelligence to see if he lied. The timing is just perfect for them, and they're trying to add it all up to incriminate Bush. Part of the reason for this investigation, I believe, is to try and use the CIA Leak situation in order to ascertain whether or not "Bush lied." It's simply ridiculous and there's no basis for this investigation.
I agree with Bill Frist here. "This was a political stunt to get headlines today to bring people out to talk about it," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told FOX News. "They really ceded the high ground when it comes to Senate rules or the civility of the Senate floor." (FoxNews.com)
Again, it's all to get at Bush and add up the CIA leak stuff to show that Bush lied, and they're really trying to get this closed-door session to be able to say things about Bush and get at him more. That's all they care about. Rush Limbaugh was right on the money today when he talked about how their plan right now is to get rid of Bush, and that's all Reid and all the other Democrats have. However, they have no plan for the scenerio in which Bush would be pushed out of office, and yet they're filled with such detest for this man that they're only focus is on getting him out of office. This is a ridiculous stunt by the left and nothing more.
Here's what I always say, and I think is even more apparent now: the Left (more the farther left, but most Democrats in Congress as well) in this country is filled with such hate for Bush. HE's their real enemy, NOT the terrorists, and it's dispicable how low they'll go in their hatred. This shows it even more. But I can tell you, I'm not stunned about this, though. It just seems so typical of the Liberal establishment. It's ridiculous.
Oh, and let's look at some pre-war comments by Democrats ranging from BOTH Clintons to Gore to Pelosi to Reid to Kerry and beyond. If Bush lied, so did they.
| Quote: | "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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"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 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"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 | Source
"[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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source |
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
Finally, I agree with Intrepid here that this is, in my opinion also, an excuse to satisfy the left and make it seem as if they're taking aggressive action. |
Well.....after reading RM's post a few times, I am getting really sick and tired of Democrats trying to force more problems on everyone....I don't know, it's just getting way out of hand...
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:15 pm |
|
I see this entire operation as simply idiotic. Do we need answers about the pre-war intelligence? Yes. We do need to see and examine exactly what happened. Did we need to close the senate down to do this? No. Waste of energy and political spotlight. But now do we need Republicans whining about how what the democrats did was wrong? About how they stated the same things as Bush and are therefore hypocrits? No. I believe it would be a better answer to just come out and deal with this investigation as planned, do it efficiently, and shut up about it. On all sides. Let the answers speak for themselves.
*sighs* But no. The American public needs their daily political entertainment.
-------signature-------
Not the doctor... yet
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:19 pm |
|
There was no reason for an investigation in the first place. We know what intelligence we had, and this investigation has, from the start, been in place to get at Bush, and that's it. It's just the Left trying to get some ammo against Bush, again, to get him impeached. We know what the intel was from the beginning, from the Un to the US to France, Russia, China, Britain, Germany, Jordan, Egypt, etc, plus what the Dems, including the Clinton Administration, said about the intelligence. I see no good reason for this investigation.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:22 pm |
|
So...knowledge in a condensed form, a complete accounting of what our country did and why...is not power? Is not good? It seems to me that an investigation would provided a crisper, less-clouded account of something that's become muddled by politics. Since when is it bad to know more?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:24 pm |
|
It's not that it's bad to know more, but it's unnecessary. However, if you were talking about the one that started in 2004, although I stil think it was designed against Bush, I'm fine with that one. It's all the recent stuff that I don't like.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:30 pm |
|
A lot of people in the nation distrust Bush. I don't see why reassuring them that Bush did not have a hidden agenda--assuming that's the outcome that will be presented--would be so wrong. Maybe it's not "necessary," but a lot of people certainly aren't very confident in our government. And I don't see how a probe into our intelligence agency operations is "against" Bush. Why does it have to be "against" anyone? Certainly, that's the motives of a great number of the supporters. If you look at this without taking too much bias, an investigation shouldn't be against anyone. If anything, it should be helpful for Bush to be checked out clean, don't you think? Again, taking that particular assumption.
|
|
|
Superman
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 06 Dec 2003
Posts: 10220
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:33 pm |
|
Politics in general is just corrupt, as is life itself. I wouldn't bother with it at all.
EDIT - Republican Man is replying to Exalya's points, not mine.
Last edited by Superman on Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:33 pm |
|
I would agree with that, however the problem is that these investigations are all pushed forth by the left, and they are taking it in a manner to attack Bush. I think that the investigation that's been going on since 2004 is sufficient, and that the investigation should be non-partisan. It's always taken and designed to attack Bush, though. I think that if there were a truly non-partisan investigation, that would be fine. But that's not the case.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:51 pm |
|
Isn't it a bi-partisan organization doing the actual investigating? If not, it makes no sense. If so, it shouldn't matter who's asking for it and why if it's the right thing to do.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:05 pm |
|
Intentions do matter. Intentions are what make things happen. Motives for doing something are important. Otherwise that something wouldn't be happening. But with the Left trying to do these new things dedicated to ruining the Bush administration with it, and that's important and would make things unfair for Bush. It's not the right thing to do if the intentions are wrong.
Edit: Otherwise, what point is there in police looking for the motive of a murder case? The motive's the reason for the murder, is it not?
For the 2004 one, I believe it's a bi-partisan investigation, but I still see it as an intention to get at Bush, but I at least think that that is justified and fine. But these new things are not necessary, nor should they happen.
Last edited by Republican_Man on Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:14 pm |
|
*shrugs* Partisan mind-set, us against them. People in this country need to be sure. Many of those uncertain are pre-disposed against Bush. Does this make a valid, un-biased investigation wrong, because the people who are "against you" are supporting it? ...you're free to think so. I don't agree with what they did to get this across. That's beside the point of the bottom-line knowledge that comes out of it. Politics are transient and shallow. Hardcore, relevant information is far more important than any of this political finger-pointing and petty grumbling.
EDIT: And by the way, murder motive is entirely different. Murder is wrong already, why they did it just supports that they had a reason to do it. Motive in a political matter where they are turning the proceedings over to a non-biased process is different. You don't have to align your support of the action with whatever everyone else thinks. That just shows a lack of critical examination of the situation.
Last edited by Arellia on Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:16 pm |
|
But we already have an investigation going on, which again I AM FINE WITH. Do you not understand that concept, for cripes' sake? There's no reason for this, however. And so then, are you advocating the government doing ANYTHING with wrong motives, simply because good can come from it? I sure don't believe in that. Motives in something like this are clearly important, especially when the investigation is unfair.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:19 pm |
|
I'm more concerned with what my motives are for supporting it. I don't care who else supports it or why they do. I agree with it for entirely different reasons. And I know you supported the first one. I get that.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:30 pm |
|
Didn't seem like it, from what you said in your 3rd sentence in your last post. And that investigation is still happening, from my understanding. There is NO reason to go beyond that.
And while your motives for supporting this closed session and everything by the government, that doesn't change the fact that they are doing this for a reason--and not an honest reason, but one designed to get this President, and that's the important thing. You aren't involved in the investigation. You aren't involved in this. You are only a spectator. The motives of those involved, however, are important. The motives of our elected officials in carrying out an investigation designed to get at the President. While I am sure that he is going to be exonerated, if you will, I still believe that it is entirely wrong to do this for the motives that there are for this. I don't see the logic in it. And it doesn't change the fact that the ONLY reason for them doing this is to get at Bush.
I take you agreeing with the investigation for different reasons as you being fine with the horrible motives of the Democrats in doing this investigation, which I just don't think is acceptable, or justified. It's all designed, with the stuff about Libby and Rove and all, to get at Bush--to do what they can to get him impeached. And frankly, I think that's disgraceful.
And you never answered my question. I ask you again, are you advocating the government doing ANY investigation with alterior motives set out from the beginning--with the wrong motives, motives of an intent to get someone, and that's it, just because some good might come of it? It seems like you are, and frankly I'm shocked by that. I sure as heck don't believe in it, no matter what party is being investigated.
And I do suspect that this is going to, once again, backfire on the Left and help Bush, which they're dreading, but I still don't think the hearings are right to have.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:03 pm |
|
I want to put a bit more emphasis on some of the lines of two famous Democrats who are quite hypocritical.
| Quote: | "I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Senator John Kerry, October 9th, 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, 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." -- Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002 |
Oooh, ooh, and look at this one, courtesy of Rush:
| Quote: | October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US 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."
"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, |
Oh, and btw, with that last one, Gore didn't get intel from Bush. 
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/stacks/democrat.guest.html
Well-said commentary on quotes: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110205/content/truth_detector.guest.html
Oh, and by the way, think about it. If Bush lied, they all lied too. All of them.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:55 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Didn't seem like it, from what you said in your 3rd sentence in your last post. And that investigation is still happening, from my understanding. There is NO reason to go beyond that.
And while your motives for supporting this closed session and everything by the government, that doesn't change the fact that they are doing this for a reason--and not an honest reason, but one designed to get this President, and that's the important thing. You aren't involved in the investigation. You aren't involved in this. You are only a spectator. The motives of those involved, however, are important. The motives of our elected officials in carrying out an investigation designed to get at the President. While I am sure that he is going to be exonerated, if you will, I still believe that it is entirely wrong to do this for the motives that there are for this. I don't see the logic in it. And it doesn't change the fact that the ONLY reason for them doing this is to get at Bush.
I take you agreeing with the investigation for different reasons as you being fine with the horrible motives of the Democrats in doing this investigation, which I just don't think is acceptable, or justified. It's all designed, with the stuff about Libby and Rove and all, to get at Bush--to do what they can to get him impeached. And frankly, I think that's disgraceful.
And you never answered my question. I ask you again, are you advocating the government doing ANY investigation with alterior motives set out from the beginning--with the wrong motives, motives of an intent to get someone, and that's it, just because some good might come of it? It seems like you are, and frankly I'm shocked by that. I sure as heck don't believe in it, no matter what party is being investigated.
And I do suspect that this is going to, once again, backfire on the Left and help Bush, which they're dreading, but I still don't think the hearings are right to have. |
You're not debating my point, you know. You're unhappy with my opinion because I'm talking about what is actually going to happen rather than engaging in this mindless blame-game. I refuse. I stated right off the bat the whole thing is idiotic; the Republicans being so hurt over this, the Dems making this whole thing into a circus. Short answer to your question is no, and by the way, I stated repeatedly that there shouldn't have been a closed session--only emphasizing that you're not paying much attention to my arguments. I'm not going farther than that. I'm done.
-------signature-------
Not the doctor... yet
|
|
|
Cathexis
The Angel of Avalon
Joined: 26 Dec 2001
Posts: 5901
Location: ~~ Where Dreams Have No End�
|
| Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:46 pm |
|
Well..all of this is really just conjecture...we don't have any solid evidence to prove that the Lefts are really trying to attack Bush and blame him for this war and everything he's done and is attempting to do...sounds a bit paranoid of you, RM--sorry if that offends you. While I agree that the 2004 investigation is legitimate and well within its rights, I am not happy about the Democrats and their actions. It's gone too far and I think that there's a better way to get the answers that so many of us are looking for concerning the war in Iraq. RM, you don't know for a FACT what their motives are, all you have are your educated guesses and beliefs and opinions about what they are.....unless you go up there and ASK a couple of them yourself, you're shooting blanks. However, I like the point you made about Hillary Clinton and Al Gore (and their statements). Now, we all know something's way wrong about the Dems and their push for a probe of this war....but it doesn't necessarily and automatically mean they're "out to get Bush impeached"...did any of them ever say anything directly about wanting him out of office? I don't recall that, but if someone did, perhaps you can punch in a nifty little snippet spoken by that person.
As I say, all you have is speculation and paranoid conjecture, RM. I doubt that Bush will be impeached....there are too many important people over there who'll stand up to defend him and make the Dems look like lunatics for even trying to pull of such a thing, IF there is indeed a plan to impeach the man! WE DON'T KNOW THAT FOR A FACT!
No, there really shouldn't've been a closed session. We've had plenty of investigations concerning this war, but I also think a lot has been left out. I don't agree with the war, and I certainly don't support it. However, I believe that this damned probe has gone on far too long. It should be over and done with....the Dems are making things way more complicated and nasty than is necessary....
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
