RebKell's Junkie Boards

[vanyogan]

Dems are getting hammered on the blogs today. here's a sample:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/11/hardly_seems_fa.html
November 13, 2005
Hardly Seems Fair To Quote Them Now

I haven't found Ted Kennedy's floor speech prior to the October 2002 vote on the war resolution, but here he is at SAIS on Sept 27, 2002. Early laugh lines include these:

But there is a difference between honest public dialogue and partisan appeals. There is a difference between questioning policy and questioning motives.

and

Let me say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon us.

Only later did Kennedy realize what a liar Bush was, and how important it was to question his motives. Well, Bush fooled 'em for a while....

[Mini-UPDATE: The rest of the Kennedy speech is cogently anti-war - folks looking for a Michael Moore tirade will be disappointed (I was disappointed). However, as TigerHawk observed, if Kennedy, a respected senior Democrat, was able to penetrate the shroud of Bush's lies, why weren't other Dems?]

Well. Showing a real comic flair, we have Jay Rockefeller, who is getting hammered by Captain Ed for his Sunday talk show effort.

Here we go from Oct 2002. This is pretty martial stuff, so don't read it aloud to your kids:

We also have to acknowledge that any military operations against Saddam Hussein pose potential risks to our own homeland, too. Saddam’s government has contact with many international terrorist organizations that likely have cells here in the United States.

Say it ain't so - a connection between Saddam and terrorists?

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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

Bush lied.

...this time, our nuclear foe would be an unpredictable and often irrational individual, a dictator who has demonstrated that he is prepared to violate international law and initiate unprovoked attacks when he feels it serves his purposes to do so.

The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.

Pretty scary. I blame Karl Rove's mind rays.

...He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.

And he could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly.

I fear your second thoughts.

I am forced to conclude, on all the evidence, that Saddam poses a significant risk.

Some argue it would be totally irrational for Saddam Hussein to initiate an attack against the mainland United States, and they believe he would not do it. But if Saddam thought he could attack America through terrorist proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might not think it so irrational.

...At the end of the day, we cannot let the security of American citizens rest in the hands of someone whose track record gives us every reason to fear that he is prepared to use the weapons he has against his enemies.

Now remember, Rockefeller was on the Intelligence Committee.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

Oh my goodness, no - the dreaded link between Saddam and 9/11! What terrible hold did Bush have over this poor man that could make him utter these falsehoods?

This is a difficult vote, but I could not sleep knowing that faced with this grave danger to the people of my state and to all Americans, I had voted for nothing more than continuing the policies that have failed to address this problem in the past.

...At this point, America’s best opportunity to move the United Nations and Iraq to a peaceful resolution of this crisis is by making clear the U.S. is prepared to act on our own, if necessary, as one nation, indivisible. Sometimes the rest of the world looks to America not just for the diversity of our debate, or the vitality of our ideals, but for the firm resolve that the world’s leader must demonstrate if intractable global problems are to be solved.

Acting unilaterally? Inexplicable - shouldn't we at least try to assemble a fraudulent coalition?

By my vote, I say to Saddam Hussein, "Disarm, or the United States will be forced to act."

Apparently in the margin of the original draft, an historian from the DNC saw this:

Note to self: Strike "Disarm", substitute, "Waltz with Hans Blix".

The Senator builds to his big finish:

September 11 has forever changed the world. We may not like it, but that is the world in which we live. When there is a grave threat to Americans’ lives, we have a responsibility to take action to prevent it.

Again with the forbidden 9/11 link? How can he show his face?

Well, that was then, when the Dems had an election to focus on. The Captain has the transcript with the current laugher:

WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.

Bring it on. Send in the clowns.

UPDATE: Turn off the mind rays! Nancy Pelosi's tin foil needed refreshing on Feb 5, 2003 when she said this:

"Any decision about going to war against Iraq must reflect the fact that the clear and present danger to our national security is terrorism. The presence of al Qaeda operatives in Iraq and in so many countries in the Middle East and the rest of the world is troubling.

Fortunately, she was able to get back on message by June 2005:

Iraq is now what it was not when the war began - a magnet for terrorism - because the President invaded Iraq with no idea of what it would take to secure the country after Baghdad fell.

_________________
http://www.rightnation.us

[jammerbirdi]

Van. You need to go through your post and use quotes. I don't know who's saying what.

If you're trying to make the case that the Bush administration didn't mislead us into war, or agreeing with the right wing bloggers you're quoting, that the Dems had the same intelligence, then you're going to hit a brick wall very hard on this board. We're not stupid. No one here is buying the administration's latest horseshit.

Dick Cheney said there was "NO DOUBT" that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs. He hadn't. And there was most certainly doubt. That's a lie that misled us into war.

Condie Rice said the aluminum tubes "could be used for no other purpose than enriching uranium for a nuclear weapon." That wasn't true and our own nuclear scientists were on record as saying it wasn't true and Rice had that information prior to making that statement, which she repeated over and over again. That's a lie that misled us into war.

The democrats did not have the same intelligence as the administration and the administration CLEARY had an agenda to invade Iraq from 9/11 on if not before. The briefings given to Congress did include intelligence that contradicted the administration's conclusions but that stuff was BURIED in hundreds of pages and those parts were all classified.

So the members were in the incredible position, even if any of them had read that far, of not being able to go public with the dissenting intelligence that they had in their hands.

The administration put on a performance pre-war that was unrelenting and unmistakable. Saddam was a threat to the US and we needed to take him out. All happy horseshit that has resulted in over 2000 wasted US lives, 17,000 crippling US injuries and amputations, tens of thousands, if not HUNDREDS of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, including countless children.

The drumbeat in this country now should be for Bush to resign. He's a disgrace. Every Democrat who can't now claim that his or her vote for the war was a mistake should also be tarred and feathered, Kerry and Hillary included.

_________________
Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.� - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17

[vanyogan]

Sorry, Jammer, you actually have to go to the link, I just pasted the blogger.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/11/hardly_seems_fa.html

Oh, here's another one, bloggers are really hitting back at the "Bush Lied", BS.

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

But the best is Captain Ed pointing out that this beauty by Jay Rockefeller, RANKING (D) on the Senate Intelligence committee.

Jay's Bogus Journey?

A number of CQ readers caught something significant that I missed earlier in the quote from Jay Rockefeller. In trying to attack George Bush and fend off Chris Wallace, Rockefeller tells Wallace that he went out to Arab leaders to conduct his own foreign policy:

[jammerbirdi]

[vanyogan]

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

"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.rightnation.us

[jammerbirdi]

[jammerbirdi]

http://warnerkirby.blogs.com/spencerian/2005/09/frankly_we_want.html

_________________
Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.� - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17

[vanyogan]

[p_d_swanson]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006989.php

(November 12, 2005 -- 02:27 PM EDT)

What a sorry, sorry, unfortunate president -- caught in his lies, his half-truths, his reckless disregard ... caught with, well ... caught with time. Time has finally caught up to him. And now he doesn't have the popularity to beat back all the people trying to call him to account. He could; but now he can't. So he's caught. And his best play is to accuse his critics of rewriting history, of playing fast and loose with the truth -- a sad, pathetic man.

Chronicling the full measure of the Bush administration's mendacity with regards to the war is a difficult task -- not because of a dearth of evidence for it but because of its so many layers, all its multidimensionality. It's almost like one of those Russian egg novelties in which each layer opened reveals another layer beneath it. Hard as it may be, in the interests of getting Mr. Bush past the phases of denial and anger, let's just hit on some of the main themes.

1. Longstanding effort to convince the American people that Iraq maintained ties to al Qaida and may have played a role in 9/11. This was always just a plain old lie. (And if you want to see where the real fights with the Intelligence Community came up, it was always on the terror tie angle and much less on WMD.) The president and his chief advisors tried to leverage Americans' horror over 9/11 to gain support for attacking Iraq. Simple: lying to the public the president was sworn to protect.

2. Repeated efforts to jam purported evidence about an Iraqi nuclear weapons program (the Niger canard) into major presidential speeches despite the fact the CIA believed the claim was not credible and tried to prevent the president from doing so. What's the explanation for that? At best a reckless disregard for the truth in making the case for war to the American public.

3. Consistent and longstanding effort to elide the distinction between chem-bio-weapons (which are terrible but no immediate threat to American security) and nuclear weapons (which are). For better or worse, there was a strong consensus within the foreign policy establishment that Iraq continued to stockpile WMDs. Nor was it an improbable assumption since Saddam had stockpiled and used such weapons before and, by 2002, had been free of on-site weapons inspections for almost four years. But what most observers meant by this was chemical and possibly biological weapons, not nuclear weapons. Big difference! The White House knew that this wasn't enough to get the country into war, so they pushed the threat of a nuclear-armed Saddam for which there was much, much less evidence.

4. The fact that the administration's push for war wasn't even about WMD in the first place. Scarcely a week goes by when I don't get an email from a reader who writes, "I always knew that Saddam didn't have WMDs. How is that you, with all your access and reporting, didn't know that too?" Good question. They were right. And I was wrong. But like many things in this reality-based universe of ours, this was a question subject to empirical inquiry. No one really knew what Saddam was doing between 1998 and 2002. And US intelligence made a lot of very poor assumptions based on sketchy hints and clues. But the solution, at least the first part of it, was to get inspectors in on the ground and actually find out. That is what President Bush's very credible threat of force had done by the Fall of 2002. But once there the inspectors began making pretty steady progress in showing that many of our suspicions about reconstituted WMD programs didn't bear out, the White House response was to begin trying to discredit the inspectors themselves. By early 2003, inspections had shown that there was no serious nuclear weapons effort underway -- the only sort of operation which could have represented a serious or imminent threat. From January of 2003 the administration went to work trying to insure that the war could be started before the rationale for war was entirely discredited. They wanted to create fait accomplis, facts on the ground that no subsequent information or developments could alter. The whole thing was a con. It wasn't about WMD.

Beneath these top-line points of dishonesty, there were second order ones, to be sure -- claims that the entire war would cost a mere $50 billion, insistence that the whole operation could be managed by only a fraction of the number of troops most experts believed it would take. Of course, these may be categorized as willful self-deceptions or gross irresponsibiity. And thus they are properly assigned to different sections of the Bush-Iraq Lies and Deceptions (BILD) bestiary than the cynical exploitation of lies and attempts to confuse proper.

In the president's new angle that his critics are trying to 'rewrite history', those critics might want to point out that his charge would be more timely after he stopped putting so much effort into obstructing any independent inquiry that could allow an accurate first draft of the history to be written. In any case, he must sense now that he's blowing into a fierce wind. The judgment of history hangs over this guy like a sharp, heavy knife. His desperation betrays him. He knows it too.

-- Josh Marshall

[jammerbirdi]

[vanyogan]

[jammerbirdi]

[vanyogan]

[jammerbirdi]

[vanyogan]

Yea, giving people their own money back is pure evil.

But it's like you said, Congress spends money, not the President. Who controlled Congress when the budget was balanced? Yep you got that right.

You dodged that Schlumbeger item. So it's wrong for a retired CEO of Halliburton to be Vice President, buts it's OK for the former Clinton CIA director and a 9/11 commissioner to be active on the board of Halliburton's chief competitor and French Oil Company!

Fuck it, your logic isn't worth debating. Besides, Bush won, he ain't running for anything. So you Dems just keep running backwards. Heh, it's working so far.

LMAO...

_________________
http://www.rightnation.us

[jammerbirdi]

[vanyogan]

[caune]

[pilight]

[caune]

[pilight]

[vanyogan]

[womens_hoops]

[womens_hoops]

[pilight]

Of the $34M Georgia received from the feds, $13M is spent on salaries and procurements for the military and other federal bureaus, not on projects directly helpful for Georgians.

In Minnesota it's $27M and $4M.

The Tax Foundation folks like to lump all of that together, even though the benefit to Georgians of having military bases and federal buildings in Georgia instead of Minnesota is pretty marginal.

_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home