Senate Confirms Rice As Secretary of State

Still you assume that non republicans are democrats. Both are the same, both parties use minorities to forward their own agendas. Neither party cares about the true plight of minorities in the US beyond rhetoric and jargon. Condie is not in office because she is black or because she is a woman. She is in office because she wags the dog in a manner Rove approves of.

hehehehe.. Crazy man... Heheheh

NO, your wrong. She holds ideals about how America should be and become which aligns her with the Republican Party. The same is true for me and others. Everybody wants a better life and we use government to make it happen. The problem is that we all have different goals on how to make that happen.

Everybody Left of Center wants Government to do and fix everything. The degree of involvement depends on how far you are from center. Leftist want the Government to treat the people like little children. Feed them, House them, Pay them. And how does the Left-Government afford all this? They tax everybody to death. Look at Sweden or Denmark where income taxes are around 50%. Thats what Leftist Governments do to be big brother in the lives of their citizens.

Everybody Right of Center wants Government to get out of their lives and only provide the basic needs (ie: Military, Infrastructure like roads, etc). And here is where the left does not understand the right. In order for Government to withdraw from people's lives, those people need a vehicle to support them. That vehicle in the mindset of thoses on the Right is business and industry. The more things government does to promote business growth and development, the more people are employed, given a wage to spend, which in turn helps other businesses and all the people they employ. Its a never ending cycle of growth an prosperity.

And it doesn't take a rocket scientist (well maybe around here it does) to realize that leftist governments are B-Lines for a Communist state where the Gov't controls everything. And if the USSR is the example of 100% Communism, then that is road we should never go down. Cause their country only lasted about 70 years. Whereas our more Right-Government has lasted for over 200 years and continues to prosper. We had a hickup for 30 years when Liberals from FDR and onward tried to create a Leftist Government to help all people. That ended in disaster in the 70s. Then comes Reagan and Republican Right Ideals back into the mainstream. And ever since the 80s, America has been on a roll.... You might wanna try to throw out Clinton, but don't forget the Republican Revolution in 1995 which halted Democrats attempts for Big Government. And we've never looked back since.


In Closing, I just find it too obvious to see that Leftist People and their ideas on Government are a recipe for failure. And all those who are Anti-Bush, Anti-Republican, are nothing more than echos of an era that lasted from 1933-1980. Once all those people from that era die off and their children begin to be outnumbered by those not from that era, the Grand Old Party and its ideals will dominate this country. There is a radial shift in the beliefs of this country and those on the Left just can't see the political winds of change. Thats too bad, but its just a matter of time that Republicans become the Populous Party and Democrats become just a niche party that caters to some crazy leftist party platform.
Right Paolo? LOL

It is too bad that you feel this way and that you are so mislead. You really should read a bit on what the GOP is doing right now to destroy the very freedoms you wish to preserve. But I believe that any further discussions with you will only further embitter us both. I could go point by point into how you are incorrect but I feel it would be a lost cause. So please continue to believe that might is right and that your gov-co is providing you with the freedoms you seek. I will continue to question, regardless of party in power, every move our government makes. If questioning the gov-co makes me a crazy leftist then so be it, that is far better than being a conformist. I just hope that you understand that you are far from being conservative if you support the Bush administration.

I don't know why you feel your freedoms are being taken away. What are your examples?

You should read a book called "The Road to Serfdom". Its a book about money, and how Government's Spend it. Which in turn deals with the issues we are talking about. Its a good read and only cost about $8 bucks or so.






A classic work in political philosophy, intellectual and cultural history, and economics, The Road to Serfdom has inspired and infuriated politicians, scholars, and general readers for half a century. Originally published in England in the spring of 1944--when Eleanor Roosevelt supported the efforts of Stalin, and Albert Einstein subscribed lock, stock, and barrel to the socialist program--The Road to Serfdom was seen as heretical for its passionate warning against the dangers of state control over the means of production. For F. A. Hayek, the collectivist idea of empowering government with increasing economic control would inevitably lead not to a utopia but to the horrors of nazi Germany and fascist Italy.

First published by the University of Chicago Press on September 18, 1944, The Road to Serfdom garnered immediate attention from the public, politicians, and scholars alike. The first printing of 2,000 copies was exhausted instantly, and within six months more than 30,000 were sold. In April of 1945, Reader's Digest published a condensed version of the book, and soon thereafter the Book-of-the-Month Club distributed this condensation to more than 600,000 readers. A perennial best-seller, the book has sold over a quarter of a million copies in the United States, not including the British edition or the nearly twenty translations into such languages as German, French, Dutch, Swedish, and Japanese, and not to mention the many underground editions produced in Eastern Europe before the fall of the iron curtain.

After thirty-two printings in the United States, The Road to Serfdom has established itself alongside the works of Alexis de Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill, and George Orwell for its timeless meditation on the relation between individual liberty and government authority. This fiftieth anniversary edition, with a new introduction by Milton Friedman, commemorates the enduring influence of The Road to Serfdom on the ever-changing political and social climates of the twentieth century, from the rise of socialism after World War II to the Reagan and Thatcher "revolutions" in the 1980s and the transitions in Eastern Europe from communism to capitalism in the 1990s.

F. A. Hayek (1899-1992), recipient of the Medal of Freedom in 1991 and co-winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 1974, was a pioneer in monetary theory and the principal proponent of libertarianism in the twentieth century.

On the first American edition of The Road to Serfdom:
"One of the most important books of our generation. . . . It restates for our time the issue between liberty and authority with the power and rigor of reasoning with which John Stuart Mill stated the issue for his own generation in his great essay On Liberty. . . . It is an arresting call to all well-intentioned planners and socialists, to all those who are sincere democrats and liberals at heart to stop, look and listen."--Henry Hazlitt, New York Times Book Review, September 1944

"In the negative part of Professor Hayek's thesis there is a great deal of truth. It cannot be said too often--at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough--that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of."--George Orwell, Collected Essays

You will have to read them yourself as I refuse to write a thesis on the forum...but Patriot act one and duex should do well for a start...then the federalizing of state police....then the federalizing of criminals....then the further encroachment on privacy...censorship of the media...the arrest of dissenters at political rallies...crimes against humanity (and I mean the US citizens held at Guantanimo Bay as well as the Iraqi civilians in Abu Gharib and Falluja)....should I go on or should I ask that you do your homework before trying to convince us whackos that the constitution isn't in dire straights only to support the administration who continues to aid in its demise....again believe what you will.

I am far from being a leftist in fact I am a constitutional Libertarian and want nothing more than to be certain that my government abides by the rules set forth in that grand document. I do not subscribe to a party line. I do not agree with the welfare state mentality. I do not support the lobby pay offs and extortion occuring on either side of the fence. I do not sit on the fence for I am above it most of the time and below it at other times (and willing to admit it)

There is a lot of talk in these forums about Dr. Rice's so-called "lies" but little evidence. I challenge the Left to prove evidence of these "lies".

Second, there is a lot of indignation over these alleged lies from the group who were all too eager to dismiss the *proven* lies of Bill Clinton as being a personal matter of little or no consequence. Where was all your righteous indignation then?

The majority of the country has turned away from the preaching of the radical Left precisely due to hypocrisy such as this.

-Kiamat Dusk
Rice '08!

If you think lying about consensual sex is somehow equivelant to lying about the justification for a war that's killed tens of thousands of innocent people, you need serious help.

Topic: Iraq - Al Qaeda Links

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 9/28/2003

Quote/Claim:
"No one has said that there is evidence that Saddam Hussein directed or controlled 9/11, but let's be very clear, he had ties to al-Qaeda, he had al-Qaeda operatives who had operated out of Baghdad." [Source: Meet the Press transcript]

Fact:
"CIA interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Saddam." - NY Times, 1/15/04

"The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.” - NY Times, 6/27/03

--------------------------

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 9/24/2003

Quote/Claim:
“The president knew that [Iraq] was a threat.” [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
“Saddam Hussein is bottled up.” - Vice President Dick Cheney on Meet the Press, 9/16/01

--------------------------

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 9/10/2002

Quote/Claim:
“We do know that [Saddam] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.” [Source: Telegraph]

Fact:
“We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

---------------------------

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 9/8/2002

Quote/Claim:
"[The tubes] are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." [Source: CNN]

Fact:
"Ms. Rice's staff had been told [in 2001] that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons…The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets." - New York Times, 10/3/04

----------------------------

Topic: Iraq - Al Qaeda Links

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 9/7/2003

Quote/Claim:
"And there was an Ansar al-Islam, which appears also to try to be operating in Iraq. So yes, the al Qaeda link was there." [Source: Fox News Sunday transcript]

Fact:
Ansar al-Islam was based in the Kurdish area of Iraq beyond Saddam Hussein's control. - Waxman Report

----------------------------

Topic: Nuclear Proliferation

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 11/18/2001

Quote/Claim:
"[The President has been] very supportive of the Nunn-Lugar program. The funding was not cut. . . . All the way back in the campaign, the president talked about perhaps even increasing funding for programs of this kind." [Source: Meet the Press transcript]

Fact:
"The administration's budget request cut the Department of Energy part of the Nunn-Lugar program from $872 million to $774 million and the Department of Defense portion by another $40 million. The "materials protection and accounting" program that safeguards and monitors Russian nuclear materials was cut $35 million; the program to subsidize research facilities for jobless Russian nuclear scientists and keep them from working for terrorists, another $10 million." - David Broder (WP), 11/25/01

-------------------------------

Topic: September 11th

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 3/28/2004

Quote/Claim:
"George Tenet met with the president every morning [before 9/11]." [Source: Hannity and Colmes transcript, reprinted on Newsmax.com]

Fact:
CIA records show that despite increased threat warnings, Tenet briefed the president only twice in August - once in Crawford, Tex., on Aug. 17, and once in Washington, on Aug. 31. Tenet added that "I don't have a recollection of being called" by telephone. - Washington Post, 3/15/04

------------------------------

Topic: September 11th

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 3/28/2004

Quote/Claim:
"I don't know what a sense of urgency any greater than the one we had would have caused us to do anything differently. I don't know how...we could have done more. I would like very much to know what more could have been done?" [Source: Chicago Sun-Times]

Fact:
"The leaders of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks have agreed that evidence gathered by their panel showed the attacks could probably have been prevented...The commission's chairman, Thomas Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, and its vice chairman, Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic House member from Indiana, indicated that their final report this summer would find that the Sept. 11 attacks were preventable." - NY Times, 4/5/04

"The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?' That's too bad. They've been given a window of opportunity with very little terrorism now, and they're not taking advantage of it." - Paul Bremer, 2/26/01

-----------------------------------

Topic: September 11th

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 3/24/2004

Quote/Claim:
"The president increased counterterrorism funding several-fold [before 9/11]." [Source: Interview with Tom Brokaw, posted on White House Web site]

Fact:
Before 9/11 the Bush Administration was preparing a FY2003 budget that proposed serious cuts to key counterterrorism programs. As the 2/28/02 NYT reported, the Bush White House "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." - NY Times, 2/28/02

Before 9/11, the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." - Newsweek, 5/27/02

----------------------------------------

Not true the lies have been proven but if you need further evidence then here we go:

GORELICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Clarke, for your testimony today. You have talked about a plan that you presented to Dr. Rice immediately upon her becoming national security adviser, and that in response to questions from Commissioner Gorton, you said elements of that plan, which were developed by you and your staff at the end of 2000 – many elements – became part of what was then called NSPD-9, or what ultimately became NSPD-9.

When Dr. Rice writes in the Washington Post, “No Al Qaida plan was turned over to the new administration,” is that true?

CLARKE: No. I think what is true is what your staff found by going through the documents and what your staff briefing says, which is that early in the administration, within days of the Bush administration coming into office, that we gave them two documents. In fact, I briefed Dr. Rice on this even before they came into office.

CLARKE: One was the original Delenda Plan from 1998, and the other document was the update that we did following the Cole attack, which had as part of it a number of decisions that had to be taken so that she characterizes as a series of options rather than a plan. I’d like to think of it as a plan with a series of options, but I think we’re getting into semantic differences.

GORELICK: Thank you.

I’d like to turn NSPD-9, the document that was wending its way through the process up until September 4th. The document is classified so I can only speak of it in generalities.

But as I understand it, it had three stages which were to take place over, according to Steve Hadley, the deputy national security adviser, over a period of three years.

The first stage was, we would warn the Taliban. The second stage was we would pressure the Taliban. And the third stage was that we would look for ways to oust the Taliban based upon individuals on the ground other than ourselves, at the same time making military contingency plans.

Is that correct?

CLARKE: Well, that’s right. The military contingency plans had always been around, but there was nothing in the original draft, NSPD, that was approved by the principals to suggest U.S. forces would be sent into Afghanistan on the ground.

GORELICK: In addition to that, Director Tenet was asked to draft new additional covert action authorities. Is that right?

CLARKE: That’s right, in part because Mr. Hadley found the existing six memorandums of covert action authority to be talmudic – it’s actually I think Mr. Hadley who gets credit for that word.

But it wasn’t really meant to expand them significantly other than providing direct aid to Afghan factions.

GORELICK: Now you have just described, then, the skeleton, if you will, of what was approved by the administration as of September 4th. And we know that no further action was taken before September 11th.

GORELICK: And so I would read to you – and these are questions I would have put to Dr. Rice had she been here, and I will put to her, the White House designee, Secretary Armitage. She says our strategy, which was expected to take years, marshalled all elements of national power to take down the network, not just respond to individual attacks with law enforcement measures. Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets, taking the fight to the enemy where he lived.

Is that an accurate statement, in your view?

CLARKE: No, it’s not.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." (This lie was told by Condoleeza Rice to the American people on May 16, 2002.)

George W. Bush himself was given a one-and-a-half page briefing on August 6, 2001. That briefing informed him that Osama Bin Laden's organization was capable of using a hijacked American airplane to conduct a major strike against targets within the United States. Furthermore, a month earlier, the Bush Administration was informed that terrorists had concocted plans to use airplanes as missiles. The truth is that experts did predict that terrorists would use hijacked airplanes as missiles, and those experts told George W. Bush about the threat. George W. Bush sat around and did nothing about it.

Embarrassed by reports of Bush's lack of preparation for attacks by Osama Bin Laden, Condoleeza Rice said, "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high we were at battle stations." (This lie was told to the American people by Condoleeza Rice on March 22, 2004)

When the Clinton Administration got information about high threat levels for terrorist attacks, Bill Clinton ordered his officials to go to battle stations. Bush's anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke has revealed that George W. Bush never ordered anyone to go to battle stations, even though the reported threat in the weeks before September 11, 2001 was much higher than anything ever reported during the Clinton Administration. Furthermore, George W. Bush ordered that a program to monitor Al Quaida suspects within the United States be discontinued. The truth is that Bush not only failed to order anti-terrorism officials to battle stations, he lowered America's protections against terrorism just as the terrorist threat was reaching record levels.

"Our [pre-9/11 NSPD] plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets, taking the fight to the enemy where he lived." (Condoleeza Rice told the American people this lie on March 22, 2004)

The commission studying the context of the September 11 attacks found that the NSPD plan referred to by Condoleeza Rice in fact had no military component. Commission member Gorelick has stated, "There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan." George W. Bush's own Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, admitted to the commission that Condoleeza Rice's claim was completely inaccurate. When Armitage was asked, "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?", Armitage replied "No." The truth is that Condoleeza Rice knew that what she was saying was false. She just made up a claim in order to cover up the failure of George W. Bush to take adequate steps to protect America before September 11,

The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.

Other than that I will refrain from citing the entire 9/11 comm. You can find it and read it yourself. But to answer your question, yes, she is a liar.

*deep breath*

*continues*

Topic: Iraq - Revising History

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 3/22/2004

Quote/Claim:
"Not a single National Security Council principal at that meeting recommended to the president going after Iraq. The president thought about it. The next day he told me Iraq is to the side." [Source: CNN Web site]

Fact:
According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." - Washington Post, 1/12/03; CBS News, 9/4/02

------------------------------------------

Topic: September 11th

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 3/22/2004

Quote/Claim:
"In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations.” [Source: Washington Post]

Fact:
"Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism 'the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'" Meanwhile, the Bush Administration decided to terminate "a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States." - Washington Post, 3/22/04; Newsweek, 3/21/04

---------------------------------

Topic: September 11th

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 3/22/2004

Quote/Claim:
“Our [pre-9/11 NSPD] plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets - taking the fight to the enemy where he lived.” [Source: Washington Post]

Fact:
9/11 Commissioner Gorelick: “There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan.” Dpty. Sec. of State Richard Armitage: “Right.” Gorelick: “Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, ‘Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership’?” Armitage: “No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11.” - 9/11 Commission Testimony, 3/24/04

--------------------------------------

Topic: September 11th

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 3/22/2004

Quote/Claim:
"Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to."

Fact:
Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending Al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. - CBS, 3/24/04; White House Press Release, 3/21/04

-------------------------------------

Topic: September 11th

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 3/22/2004

Quote/Claim:
“No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration.” [Source: ABC News transcript]

Fact:
“On January 25th, 2001, Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice.” - 9/11 Commission Staff Report, 3/24/04

--------------------------------------

Topic: September 11th

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 3/22/2004

Quote/Claim:
"The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11." [Source: Washington Post]

Fact:
"In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows." - Washington Post, 3/22/04

---------------------------------------

Topic: Iraq - Al Qaeda Links

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 3/9/2003

Quote/Claim:
"Now the al-Qaeda is an organization that's quite disbursed and --and quite widespread in its effects, but it clearly has had links to the Iraqis, not to mention Iraqi links to all kinds of other terrorists." - [Source: CBS Face the Nation, reprinted in Waxman database]

Fact:
"The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.” - NY Times, 6/27/03

“Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.” - National Journal, 8/9/03

"U.S. allies have found no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. 'We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda,' said Europe's top investigator. 'If there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.'" - LA Times, 11/4/02

"If you’re asking if there’s a direct link between 9/11 and Iraq, the answer is no." - Donald Rumsfeld, Hardball, 4/29/04

----------------------------------------

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 6/3/2003

Quote/Claim:
"But let's remember what we've already found. Secretary Powell on February 5th talked about a mobile, biological weapons capability. That has now been found and this is a weapons laboratory trailers capable of making a lot of agent that -- dry agent, dry biological agent that can kill a lot of people. So we are finding these pieces that were described."

Fact:
“We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile biological weapons production effort. Technical limitations would prevent any of these processes from being ideally suited to these trailers.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

--------------------------------------------

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 7/31/2003

Quote/Claim:
"Going into the war against Iraq, we had very strong intelligence. I've been in this business for 20 years. And some of the strongest intelligence cases that I've seen, key judgments by our intelligence community that Saddam Hussein could have a nuclear weapons by the end of the decade, if left unchecked . . . that he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear program." [Source: Waxman database]

Fact:
Knight Ridder reported that CIA officers "said President Bush ignored warnings" that his WMD case was weak. And Greg Thielmann, the Bush State Department's top intelligence official, "said suspicions were presented as fact, and contrary arguments ignored." Knight Ridder later reported, "Senior diplomatic, intelligence and military officials have charged that Bush and his top aides made assertions about Iraq's banned weapons programs and alleged links to al-Qaeda that weren't supported by credible intelligence, and that they ignored intelligence that didn't support their policies." - Knight-Ridder, 6/13/03, 6/28/03; CBS News, 6/7/03

"In what now appears to have been a cascade of errors, U.S. intelligence overestimated Iraq's weapons progress in several key areas." - Knight Ridder, 2/6/04

---------------------------------------------

Topic: Iraq - Revising History

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 7/30/2003

Quote/Claim:
"Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year [that Iraq acquires nuclear weapons]." [Source: PBS Web site]

Fact:
"[Iraq] could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." - President George W. Bush, 10/7/02

----------------------------------------------

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 7/11/2003

Quote/Claim:
“Iraqis were actively trying to pursue a nuclear weapons program.” [Source: transcript of Press gaggle aboard Air Force One]

Fact:
“We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

-------------------------------------------

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 7/11/2003

Quote/Claim:
"Iraqis were actively trying to pursue a nuclear weapons program." [Source: FAS transcript]

Fact:
"Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf War." - Duelfer Report

-----------------------------------------

Topic: Iraq - Al Qaeda Links

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 2/5/2003

Quote/Claim:
"There is no question in my mind about the al Qaeda connection. It is a connection that has unfolded, that we're learning more about as we are able to take the testimony of detainees, people who were high up in the al Qaeda organization. And what emerges is a picture of a Saddam Hussein who became impressed with what al Qaeda did after it bombed our embassies in 1998 in Kenya and Tanzania, began to give them assistance in chemical and biological weapons." [Source: Larry King Live transcript]

Fact:
“Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.” - National Journal, 8/9/03

"Nearly a year after U.S. and British troops invaded Iraq, no evidence has turned up to verify allegations of Saddam's links with al-Qaida, and several key parts of the administration's case have either proved false or seem increasingly doubtful. Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Saddam's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism network were in league." - Knight-Ridder, 3/02/04

"CIA interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Saddam." - New York Times, 1/15/04


-----------------------------------------------

Topic: Iraq - Pre-Invasion

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 4/18/2004

Quote/Claim:
"Resources were not taken from Afghanistan" [Source: CBS Face the Nation transcript]

Fact:
"In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures.
The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When the White House raised a new priority, it took specialists away from the Afghanistan effort to ensure Iraq was covered." - USA Today, 3/28/04

--------------------------------------------

Topic: September 11th

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 4/8/2004

Quote/Claim:
"The Vice President was, a little later in, I think, in May, tasked by the President to put together a group to look at all of the recommendations that had been made about domestic preparedness and all of the questions associated with that." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony]

Fact:
The Vice President's task force never once convened a meeting. In the same time period, the Vice President convened at least 10 meetings of his energy task force, and six meetings with Enron executives. - Washington Post, 1/20/02; GAO Report, 8/03

-----------------------------------------------

Topic: September 11th

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 4/8/2004

Quote/Claim:
The decision that we made was to, first of all, have no drop-off in what the Clinton administration was doing, because clearly they had done a lot of work to deal with this very important priority." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony]

Fact:
Internal government documents show that while the Clinton Administration officially prioritized counterterrorism as a "Tier One" priority, but when the Bush Administration took office, top officials downgraded counterterrorism. As the Washington Post reported, these documents show that before Sept. 11 the Bush Administration "did not give terrorism top billing." Rice admitted that "we decided to take a different track" than the Clinton Administration in protecting America. - Internal Government Documents 1998-2001; Washington Post, 3/22/04; Rice Testimony, 4/8/04

----------------------------------------------

Topic: September 11th

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 4/8/2004

Quote/Claim:
"[The Bush Administration has been committed to the] transformation of the FBI into an agency dedicated to fighting terror." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony]

Fact:
Before 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft de-emphasized counterterrorism at the FBI, in favor of more traditional law enforcement. And according to the Washington Post, "in the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows." And according to a new report by the Congressional Research Service, "numerous confidential law enforcement and intelligence sources who challenge the FBI's claim that it has successfully retooled itself to gather critical intelligence on terrorists as well as fight crime." - Washington Post, 3/22/04; CQ, 4/6/04

-------------------------------------------------

Topic: September 11th

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 4/8/2004

Quote/Claim:
"[After 9/11], the President put states on notice if they were sponsoring terrorists." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony]

Fact:
The President continues to say Saudi Arabia is "our friend" despite its potential ties to terrorists. As the LA Times reported, "the 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts." Just this week, Newsweek reported "within weeks of the September 11 terror attacks, security officers at the Fleet National Bank in Boston had identified 'suspicious' wire transfers from the Saudi Embassy in Washington that eventually led to the discovery of an active Al Qaeda 'sleeper cell' that may have been planning follow-up attacks inside the United States." - LA Times, 8/2/03; CNN, 11/23/02; Newsweek, 4/7/04

----------------------------------------------------

Topic: September 11th

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 4/8/2004

Quote/Claim:
"It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony]

Fact:
"Al-Qa'ida members -- including some who are US citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks...The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives." - August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief

-----------------------------------------------

Topic: September 11th

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 4/8/2004

Quote/Claim:
"I think that having a Homeland Security Department that can bring together the FAA and the INS and Customs and all of the various agencies is a very important step." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony]

Fact:
The White House vehemently opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland security. Its opposition to the concept delayed the creation of the department by months.

-------------------------------------------------

Topic: September 11th

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 4/8/2004

Quote/Claim:
"The CSG (Counterterrorism Security Group) was made up of not junior people, but the top level of counterterrorism experts. Now, they were in contact with their principals." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony]

Fact:
"Many of the other people at the CSG-level, and the people who were brought to the table from the domestic agencies, were not telling their principals. Secretary Mineta, the secretary of transportation, had no idea of the threat. The administrator of the FAA, responsible for security on our airlines, had no idea." - 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, 4/8/04

-----------------------------------------------------

Look here for more.

Proof? bwahahahahahahahhaahhahaha --How about her own words?

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=45294

Have fun.

Wow, Kendra and I look at the same websites! Creepy...

Not really. At any rate I totally respect your own political stance.

The true hypocrisy stems from the fact that for years all we heard in the news was Clinton's extramarital affair and the fact he lied about it, while today we have the current scandals being played out in the Bush Administration and yet no one seems to care enough to give them the same airtime as a blowjob:

"The scandal: From 2001 to 2003, Republican staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee illicitly accessed nearly 5,000 computer files containing confidential Democratic strategy memos about President Bush's judicial nominees. The GOP used the memos to shape their own plans and leaked some to the media.

The problem: The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act states it is illegal to obtain confidential information from a government computer. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31803-2004Mar4?language=printer


"The scandal: Potential influence peddling to the tune of $82 million, for starters. Jack Abramoff, a GOP lobbyist and major Bush fundraiser, and Michael Scanlon, a former aide to Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), received that amount from several Indian tribes, while offering access to lawmakers. For instance, Texas' Tigua tribe, which wanted its closed El Paso casino reopened, gave millions to the pair and $33,000 to Rep. Robert Ney (R-Ohio) in hopes of favorable legislation (Ney came up empty). And get this: The Tiguas were unaware that Abramoff, Scanlon and conservative activist Ralph Reed had earned millions lobbying to have the same casino shut in 2002.

The problem: Federal officials want to know if Abramoff and Scanlon provided real services for the $82 million, and if they broke laws while backing candidates in numerous Indian tribe elections. "

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/indiangaming.html


"The scandal: In 2003, Halliburton overcharged the army for fuel in Iraq. Specifically, Halliburton's subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root hired a Kuwaiti company, Altanmia, to supply fuel at about twice the going rate, then added a markup, for an overcharge of at least $61 million, according to a December 2003 Pentagon audit.

The problem: That's not the government's $61 million, it's our $61 million. "

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1220-07.htm


"The scandal: This may not surprise you, but an international consortium of companies, including Halliburton, is alleged to have paid more than $100 million in bribes to Nigerian officials, from 1995 to 2002, to facilitate a natural-gas-plant deal. (Cheney was Halliburton's CEO from 1995 to 2000.)

The problem: The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits U.S. companies from bribing foreign officials. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4163810/
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa.html


"The scandal: The inspector general of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq released a series of reports in July 2004 finding that a significant portion of CPA assets had gone missing -- 34 percent of the materiel controlled by Kellogg, Brown & Root (Halliburton) -- and that the CPA's method of disbursing $600 million in Iraq reconstruction funds "did not establish effective controls and left accountability open to fraud, waste and abuse."

The problem: As much as $50 million of that money was disbursed without proper receipts."

http://www.cpa-ig.com/audit_reports.html


"The scandal: To promote its Medicare bill, the Bush administration produced imitation news-report videos touting the legislation. About 40 television stations aired the videos. More recently, similar videos promoting the administration's education policy have come to light.

The problem: The administration broke two laws: One forbidding the use of federal money for propaganda, and another forbidding the unauthorized use of federal funds. "

http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/302710.htm


"The scandal: The Department of Education paid conservative commentator Armstrong Williams $240,000 to promote its educational law, No Child Left Behind.

The problem: Williams did not disclose that his support was government funded until the deal was exposed in January 2005. "

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm


"The scandal: In early 2001, chief White House political strategist Karl Rove held meetings with numerous companies while maintaining six-figure holdings of their stock -- including Intel, whose executives were seeking government approval of a merger. "Washington hadn't seen a clearer example of a conflict of interest in years," wrote Paul Glastris in the Washington Monthly.

The problem: The Code of Federal Regulations says government employees should not participate in matters in which they have a personal financial interest. "



"The scandal: In his January 2003 State of the Union address, Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The problem: The statement was untrue. By March 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency showed the claim, that Iraq sought materials from Niger, was based on easily discernible forgeries. "

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/29/cbs_wmd/print.html


All quoted material taken from Salon.com's 5 page article, which can be found here:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/18/scandal/index.html
You will have to log in or watch a short ad for a day pass. It is well worth it.

To call for impeachment of a Democratic President because he lied about an extramarital affair - which, honestly, why should he even have to answer in the first place? - yet defend this Republican President and his administration's disregard for the laws they are sworn to uphold is the height of hypocrisy. There is no administration that is completely clean and deviod of wrongdoing. None. But Bush and Co. are racking up scandels left and right, and it seems unless one of them is going to involve sex with an intern, no one will care.

That is hypocrisy.

1) The 9/11 commission concluded that there were, in fact, ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qeada. However, there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the planning or execution of 9/11. The White House has NEVER claimed that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp


2)Your topic is WMDs and your quotes are about Iraq threats. Moreover, you are now telling us that Dick Cheney is a man to be trusted-at least we've gotten the Left to admit to THAT much. On the topic of WMDs, while we have concluded that there were no WMDs in Iraq, the president had every reason to believe he did. In fact, both Clintons, John Kerry, British intelligence, and Australian intelligence believed he did. This is due in no small part to Hussein's own behavior. If he had nothing to hide, why all the games with the inspectors? Hussein was a victim of his own deception.
http://www.doctor-horsefeathers.com/archives/000296.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/president021898.htm

"We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation."-John Kerry
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200401261431.asp

"In this century we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination and, when necessary, action. In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals, who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity."-Bill Clinton
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/president021898.htm


3) "With regard to Iraq's nuclear program, the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons. They have told ISG that Saddam Husayn remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point. Some indicated a resumption after Iraq was free of sanctions." - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay

4) Nunn-Lugar: "The Defense Authorization Conference Report (compromise of House and Senate bills), passed by the House of Representatives on Friday, November 7th and expected to be approved by the Senate today or later this week, includes the full 2004 funding requested by the Bush Administration for the Nunn-Lugar program, $450.8 million. This includes the Senate’s full funding of chemical weapons destruction at $200.3 million. The House had attempted to cut this funding by $28.8 million." -press release from Senator Lugar's own website
http://lugar.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=214896


That's all the time I have for now. I'll get to the other "lies" later.

-Kiamat Dusk
Turning the fan on the Liberal smoke screen

Did you even read any of ours or just decide it was more liberal bs?

What? Challenge one's own dogma? Only liberals do that!

Press conference with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, White House on 31 January 2003.

[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question

"The question of Iraqi links to al-Qaeda remains murky, although senior Bush administration officials insist such ties exist… [M]any experts and State Department officials note that any al-Qaeda presence in Iraq probably lies in northern regions beyond Saddam’s control. Many experts say there is scant evidence of ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq, noting that al-Qaeda’s loathing for "impious" Arab governments makes it an unlikely bedfellow for Saddam’s secular regime." (Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) at http://www.cfrterrorism.org/groups/alqaeda3.html )



Hmmm....let me see and if he did have them who might have given them to him....

Regarding the 12,000 page report sent to the UN detailing the chemical holdings of Saddam (unfortunately after US officials hijacked the report and took out the pages which implicated them they forgot to remove the table of contents...doh...that'll leave a mark)
In a February 3, 2003, Sunday Morning Herald article entitled, “Reaping the Grim Harvest We Have Sown,” writer Anne Summers wrote,

What is known is that the 10 non-permanent members had to be content with an edited, scaled-down version. According to the German news agency DPA, instead of the 12,000 pages, these nations — including Germany, which this month became president of the Security Council — were given only 3,000 pages.
So what was missing?
The Guardian reported that the nine-page table of contents included chapters on “procurements” in Iraq’s nuclear program and “relations with companies, representatives and individuals” for its chemical weapons program. This information was not included in the edited version.

Iraq got germs for weapons program from U.S. in '80s
The CDC and a biological-sample firm sent strains of anthrax and more, government records show.
By Matt Kelley
Associated Press

The CDC and a biological-sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin, and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including West Nile virus.

The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States backed Iraq in its war against Iran. They were detailed in a 1994 Senate Banking Committee report and a 1995 follow-up letter from the CDC to the Senate.



Twelve odd years isn't enough intention to relent? Yep Kerry said it but he was relying on intelligence supplied by the president so go figure huh.

U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons
Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush Administration Claims
By Dana Priest and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 7, 2004;

The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."





Should have but they did not. In fact straight from the report by our US chief weapons inspector in Iraq:

"The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam" tasked to take this up once sanctions ended. That is the part you chose to omit.



You should check out the Nunn-Lugar website very tasty information thanks....though I doubt that investing my money in that effort would seem wise after reading about the mismanagement of funds which have occured over the past 12 years. But heh if Clinton did it why should Bush be required to learn from some liberals mistakes right? Though I do hope they are hiring cause it sounds like my kind of job.

http://nunn-lugar.com/def/articles/322.shtml


T

Fans go both ways and you will be hard pressed finding anyone within spitting distance of the whitehouse who can look you in the eye republican or democrat.

You are BOTH wrong. The truth lies somewhere in the middle of all that.

I'm ashamed at how the person in charge of our military, who is supposed to stand strong and protect our country, couldn't answer a few direct questions about the Iraq War.

Bush is celebrating how he's so multicultural - meanwhile his latest round of minority nominations have been lackys... what does that tell me? It sends the message that the only way a minority can get ahead in the Bush administration is being a patsy who does everything for masta'.

It's sad. I'd've thought the African American community would speak out and say, "How about getting a decent candidate that shows that we don't have to be a white man's lacky to get ahead?"

I for one, thought Powell did a good job, by the way, considering his tasks assigned.

I lost all respect for Powell when he made his presentation before the UN, especially since he's on video during a press conference a few months prior to 9/11 proclaiming that the sanctions were effective, that Iraq posed no threat to its neighbors or anyone else, and that there was no evidence that they were trying to reconstitute their WMD programs.

This is from the State Department website from Feb 24th, 2001...



Amazing how Iraq became such a grave threat to the world between February and September!

That is likely so.

I agree, Chip, I did too when we didnt' find WMDs. It's clear he was following orders from Bush on this one. However I've liked that he has spoken his mind even when it disagrees with Bush, and that he's a helluva speaker and doesn't give me that creepy "Cowboy running the country like a rodeo" feeling, but more of a "stateman, gee, imagine that!" feeling.