Hubble head

If anything, the OP has pointed out the partisan backstabbing nature of our f-ed up two party system and nothing else.

The intelligence community did not have as much evidence refuting the claims that Saddam's "programs" had produced weapons in 1998 and people like Hillary were as snowed by their lack of access to "the other side of the coin" in 2002 as we all were.

The last round of inspections we disrupted in early 2003 had only just begun when we cut them off and decided to go in with guns and bombs blazing. By that time, the CURRENT REGIME IN COMPLETE POWER already had been presented with STRONG evidence that their intel was faulty and they IGNORED it and went ahead with the KILLING. Death, you know, murder, collateral damage...

Looking at who said what does very little to get me to back off my "Impeach the ventriloquist Rove (and his puppet)" stand. Had Gore been in charge and the dems held a majority in both houses and slept with oil barons and energy hawks I would be as furious with them as I am with Bush. This has nothing to do with left and right but everything to do with RIGHT and WRONG.

Common' people, pull the far right's partisan propaganda and far left's partisan propaganda out of the equation and focus on RIGHT and WRONG.

August Spies

well other definitions include "a crime that undermines the offender's government" and "A betrayal of trust or confidence"

Personally I think lying to ones country for the purpose of involving that country in a war should count as treason. But even if it is not treason legally it is certainly a high crime.

Sauron

The problem with this position is that Bush & Co. claimed to have evidence of such weapons - but refused to share that evidence with Congress. Indeed, Congress complained bitterly about that. The excuse that Bush used was that the information was of a classified nature - an excuse which was transparent bullshit, since members of Congress possess special clearances, especially selected members of the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees. Yet in spite of that, this "convincing intelligence" was never shared.

So any quotations of Congressional members is merely an act of "standing shoulder to shoulder" - taking Dubya on faith. Someone can be forgiven for extending the benefit of the doubt to a president who says he has classified information that he isn't at liberty to share.

However, now that individual who claimed to have such classified information is having a hell of a time proving that any such weapons ever existed.

August Spies

for those interested here is the original article this was taken from on Right Wing News

Tristan Scott

Please, please, nooooo.

Now if he'd have lied about who was shining his Johnson, maybe you would have a case, but nothing so trivial as this.

Jeeezus, get a grip, people!

Sauron

Not surprising. Knee-jerk conservatives are pinned against the wall, trying to explain their president's apparent dishonesty and inability to provide evidence of WMD.

Now we know why Dubya opposed the UN inspections team in the first place - they were NEVER going to find the evidence that Dubya was telling us existed.

And we also know why Dubya didn't want the UN inspectors to go back in, after the troops had secured Baghdad. Stop and consider for a moment: the nation went to war because this liar in the White House said that WMD existed. So if that were true, then why in the world *wouldn't* Bush want to double the size and efficiency of the inspection team, by letting the UN return? If those weapons truly existed, then they'll be discovered faster, and Bush/Rumsfield/Wolfowitz will be vindicated for all the world to see. In addition, if the UN inspectors found the WMD, then it would lend international legitimacy to the process. And finally, it would give Bush a chance to say "I told you so" to the UN. Yet the Bush administration opposed the return of UN inspectors, even though their presence would have boosted the US position internationally, and increased the chances of discovering the WMDs.

Provided, of course, that WMDs ever existed in the first place.

But Bush knew damn well that there was no such convincing evidence of WMDs. The return of the inspectors would do nothing but highlight that missing evidence. The lack of any evidence would embarass the US by shining a spotlight on a patently untrue justification for the war. Which, of course, even Wolfowitz admitted after-the-fact, when he indicated that the administration engaged in 'selective emphasis' by putting the WMD issue in front of the American public. The real reason was strategic control of oil, and the removal of a constant flashpoint that challenged US power and interests in the region.

So instead of looking for out-of-date and out-of-context quotes, it would really be refreshing for conservatives to take a hard look at the mental midget in the White House, and critically examine the behavior of this administration.

Kinross

Then congress should never have given the authorization to go to war.

Sauron

Congress did not authorize a war. No such resolution was ever introduced.

Kinross

H.J.RES.114

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: (1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution.

Sauron

That's nice.

Now look up the War Powers Resolution. You'll find that it is a Vietnam-era act, intended to prevent presidents from conducting wars without getting formal declarations of war from Congress. It is limited grant of approval for narrowly defined military actions, and has a built-in expiration date and mandatory reporting/oversight clause that forces the President to come back to Congress, report on the situation, and seek further congressional approval to continue beyond the expiration date.

Our congress did not declare a war.