They shut up for the good of the party and to the detriment of future generations. They're getting mad, but I think its too late to hope for an internal coup; the path to the return of Hooverism has already been laid by Delay, et al., yet without a single explanation even offred as to why.
I think that it's hard to ignore the imports of this statement by Kennedy. Even if you don't like him ( and I have always beeen less than impressed with much about him while admiring some of his stances) he is a heavyweight. What's more, he carries a big name, and this will make waves. For a Senator of such senirity to make such a categorical and unflinching accusation against the administration, I think that even hard-line Republicans might have to come to grips with the fact that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Especially in view of the fact that Kennedy has no Presidential aspirations which otherwise might have lead some to dismiss this as taking a gamble in the pursuit of personal gain come election time. I still feel that the majority of Americans won't want to face the ramifications of what it means about us and our place in the world if we own up to how we went about this war, bullied and threatened and tried to deceive the world, etc. and as such a pr coup like capturing Bin Laden or Saddam will probably sweep the whole thing under the carptet of the nation's collective conscience. Short of that, though, and with the situation in Iraq far from improving, actions like this from Kennedy might make many of us take a look in the national mirror, and wake up to what's been happening. We have been misled, yes...we have been lied to, yes. But we, as a whole, also played a significant role in this; Jefferson said that when we fail to question the authority of the government we are failing to meet our duties as citizens in a responsible government, and I think far too many of us chose to close our eyes and wave the flag because it felt better than being afraid.
I think that was interesting that Kennedy suspects that many billions are being used to buy the support of what was called the coalition of the willing. It is pretty wild that we might be spending billions to get the nominal support of some of these countries that provide a few troops so that we can have the fig leaf of international support. I saw Togo sent 4 troops. How many millions per soldier do you think we coughed up on that one? Isn't it interesting that Kennedy doesn't know what is going on with approximately $1.5 billion per month in the military budget is going to?
The laziest way to combat a challenging idea is to attack the source. Thanks for providing another example. Sen. Kennedy is making some *serious* charges. I hope he's wrong, but recent evidence seems to be to the contrary.
I'm not attacking the source (I went out of my way not to air my views on Kennedy) but where is his evidence? You guys always tell us to "prove it," so Kennedy should do so as well before opening his piehole. I just think it's humorous he's airing the same kind of lame-brain, lunatic, baseless conspiracy theories that many of the folks here subscribe to about the war and GWB. On the right we talk about "pinko-commie plots," but you people are no different, except you believe in "neo-con warmonger plots." It is funny to read them, however.
Heck ya...let's have a REAL accounting of ALL the money the government spends. I think it is high time that happens. DD
I think that is the main area where you and I differ the most you overlook and ignore facts, while we look at the facts and ask questions.. these questions of GWB do have a base...if you could step back for a moment and examine what we are saying without automatically dismissing our comments
Why are you afraid to even attempt to dispute the claims Kennedy has made? Your wild ideas about conspiracy theories and views that any who oppose the Bush mandate are "lame-brains" is not swaying or impressing anyone. We have presented facts which demand answers –are you unable to do the same in return?
Kennedy has been remarkably silent about much of this. Frankly, I'm surprised that he came out with these allegations. There may be something to it... these things need to be looked into, in my opinion, in broad daylight so the American people will know the facts. Anyone know if Bush spent time in Texas during January? That kinda jumped out at me.
KC, What facts? I haven't read any from you guys nor did I gleam any from Kennedy's remarks. The proof is in the pudding and right now, that pudding is short bananas and vanilla wafers.
Kennedy said a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office showed that only about $2.5 billion of the $4 billion being spent monthly on the war can be accounted for by the Bush administration. Where's the money bama? You're off with your pudding, banana, and wafer rants and haven't addressed the most significant aspect of the report. Money isn't being accounted for by this administration while they're asking for $87 billion more of it. For someone who continually decries the spending of his tax dollars it's puzzling that this isn't an issue for you.
Kennedy has no proof of that at all. Show me the proof, Teddy. I'll answer for him, there isn't any proof of malfeasance on that billion or two. And it's funny, you people on the left have no problem blowing 400+ billion on a needless, wasteful and downright foolish prescription drug entitlement and you'd better not question where that money is going unless you wanted to be tagged as "cruel," but they whine and cry about about a supposedly unaccounted for billion or two. It's all about trying to score some cheap political points, something that Kennedy is well known for. His charges are not serious or factually based.
You refuse to address the missing "billion or two" A MONTH being spent on a foriegn war justified with misrepresentations and lies in your initial sentence and then rant for an entire paragraph about prescription drugs for Americans as if that has any relation to the intial question. If you't not going to address the issue why bother posting in here? We all have radios we can flip on if we want to listen to conservative talk show entertainment.
Another major world political figure steps forward to call out the Bush administrations lies and exaggerations to the world. It’s only going to get tougher for the Bush team to hide all their backroom planning--- soon we'll be seeing some prominent Republicans stepping forward to demand answers to the continued side stepping of direct questions that must be answered. I predict McCain who has already probed the political ramifications of calling out Bush will be the next big name to demand Bush quit hiding the truth and passing the buck.
What lies? What misrepresentations? I didn't see any in Bush's reasons for us to go to war with Iraq. I brought up the prescription drug issue because it brought perspective to this whole fracas over a supposedly "missing" billion or two. For the record, I don't think it went into anyone's pocket nor was it "wasted." Just because you don't know where the money went intially doesn't mean malfeasance. God, you people are grasping for straws for anything to pin on GWB. I've come to the conclusion that the liberal modus oprendi is simple: throw mud constantly until some of it sticks. The problem is that the mud your Democratic buddies is slinging is not rooted in the facts at all, they just hope they can find something that will get an audience.
Oh, BS, why must you continuously set up the pins when you know I cannot resist the temptation knock them down. I don't know how, or why the Prescription Drug Plan that gives you nightmares has any relevance to the topic at hand at all. Furthermore, I don't see any attempt by timing to defend the prescription drug plan. It seems to me like it's a juvenile attempt for you to create a diversion when you're losing an argument, as per usual. However, it was unsuccessful even in that purpose. Let's see how much the Hatch-Waxman (note the bipartisan support) prescription drug plan is projected to cost Code: Outlays in Millions of Dollars, by Fiscal Year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2004-2013 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Changes in Direct Spendingb --750 Changes in Spending Subject to Appropriation - -200 http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4513&sequence=0 Doing the math, the Hatch Waxman plan is projected to cost 950 million over the next 10 years. That's not cheap., however, it's some 399 billion less than your unsupported, unverified, and fabricated claim of "400+ billion." Now, let's look at the cost of the Iraq war, which you imply is miniscule compared to the prescription drug plan. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4515&sequence=0 And this doesn't even include the 87 billion Bush just asked for! One year in Iraq could buy a lifetime supply of prozac for every man, woman child, cat and dog in the US of A. Why do you continually make posts that are entirely devoid of any reliable fact? You're not arguing with a bunch of dudes on the radio about subjective items like the Tide's offensive line play. You're arguing with people who can think for themselves rather than swallowing propaganda, hook line and sinker, and repeat it as fact, as you often do. You're welcome to have your opinion, but don't expect to be taken seriously if your opinion isn't based on observable facts.
By stating that you have "come to the conclusion" I hope somehow that means you are done posting in this thread. While your name calling off topic rants can at times be humorous, I think they have run their course in this particular thread. Thank-you for the in depth political analysis that failed to seriously address a single topic presented by Senator Kennedy.
Originally posted by bamaslammer What lies? What misrepresentations? I didn't see any in Bush's reasons for us to go to war with Iraq. Hmm, you haven't seen any? Damn... where've you been man? Let me help you out. We'll start with hypocrisy and work our way down. I guess first we should MacB and define lie since that's the latest spin target of some. lie2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l) n. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. Bush Backs Into Nation Building By Terry M. Neal washingtonpost.com Staff Writer Wednesday, February 26, 2003; 8:08 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6853-2003Feb26?language=printer Speaking to a cheering crowd in Chattanooga, Tenn., one day before the Nov. 7, 2000, election, George W. Bush repeated a line that had by then been a standard part of the stump speech for many, many months--and one that now seems, in the face of looming U.S. military action in Iraq, quite contradictory. "Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place." The line was an explicit condemnation of Clinton/Gore foreign policy--specifically that the White House had stretched the military too thin with peacekeeping mission in Haiti, Somalia and the Balkans. President Clinton and Vice President Gore, his Democratic opponent, had strayed from the central mission of the military: to fight and win wars, Bush said. That line proved to be among the most popular in the stump speech, guaranteed to evoke an eruption of applause from the conservatives who packed Bush's campaign rallies. Bush's campaign rhetoric already rankled allies in Europe by seeming to suggest that U.S. soldiers were doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in the region, and indicating that he would withdraw American forces if he became president. The Europeans noted that U.S. soldiers constituted less than one-fifth of the peacekeeping force, and argued that America, which led allied forces in Kosovo, had a significant strategic interest in the stability of the region. C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports By JAMES RISEN http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/international/worldspecial/23CIA.html?ex=1064116800&en=0d8c7bc976fc1ce0&ei=5070 WASHINGTON, March 22 — The recent disclosure that reports claiming Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger were based partly on forged documents has renewed complaints among analysts at the C.I.A. about the way intelligence related to Iraq has been handled, several intelligence officials said. Analysts at the agency said they had felt pressured to make their intelligence reports on Iraq conform to Bush administration policies. For months, a few C.I.A. analysts have privately expressed concerns to colleagues and Congressional officials that they have faced pressure in writing intelligence reports to emphasize links between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaeda. As the White House contended that links between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda justified military action against Iraq, these analysts complained that reports on Iraq have attracted unusually intense scrutiny from senior policy makers within the Bush administration. "A lot of analysts have been upset about the way the Iraq-Al Qaeda case has been handled," said one intelligence official familiar with the debate. That debate was renewed after the disclosure two weeks ago by Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that the claim that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger was based partly on forged documents. The claim had been cited publicly by President Bush. Reason for War? White House Officials Say Privately the Sept. 11 Attacks Changed Everything By John Cochran http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/US/globalshow_030425.html W A S H I N G T O N, April 25 — To build its case for war with Iraq, the Bush administration argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but some officials now privately acknowledge the White House had another reason for war — a global show of American power and democracy. Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of Saddam's weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at home to Americans. "We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis." Officials now say they may not find hundreds of tons of mustard and nerve agents and maybe not thousands of liters of anthrax and other toxins. But U.S. forces will find some, they say. On Thursday, President Bush raised the possibility for the first time that any such Iraqi weapons were destroyed before or during the war. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16274 LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." – President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati. FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie." LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." – President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address. FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly." LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." – Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press." FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program. LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." – CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush. FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested. LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." – President Bush, Oct. 7. FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes. LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." – President Bush, Oct. 7. FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"? LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." – President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address. FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war. LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." – Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council. FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet the United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks – if they existed – were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder. LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." – Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press. FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise. LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." – President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003. FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts – including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week – have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves. Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged By Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender , Boston Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent, 9/16/2003 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/ WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago. But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq. Democrats sharply attacked him for exaggerating the threat Iraq posed before the war. "There is no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11," Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat running for president, said in an interview last night. "There was no such relationship." A senior foreign policy adviser to Howard Dean, the Democratic front-runner, said it is "totally inappropriate for the vice president to continue making these allegations without bringing forward" any proof. Cheney and his representatives declined to comment on the vice president's statements. But the comments also surprised some in the intelligence community who are already simmering over the way the administration utilized intelligence reports to strengthen the case for the war last winter. Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said that Cheney's "willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It's astounding." Bush: No Proof of Saddam Role in 9-11 Wed Sep 17, 5:35 PM ET Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo! By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20030917/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_saddam_5 WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — disputing an idea held by many Americans. "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks. The president's comment was in line with a statement Tuesday by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who said he not seen any evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks. Yet, a new poll found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved. Rumsfeld said, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that." The administration has argued that Saddam's government had close links to al-Qaida, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) that masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks. On Sunday, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) said that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq (news - web sites) would strike a major blow at the "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11." And Tuesday, in an interview on ABC's "Nightline," White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) said that one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged." In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in a Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks. "No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied. Rice, asked about the same poll numbers, said, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9-11." This last lie by Cheney is outed by Bush himself *four* days afterwards. Hilarious! I brought up the prescription drug issue because it brought perspective to this whole fracas over a supposedly "missing" billion or two. For the record, I don't think it went into anyone's pocket nor was it "wasted." Just because you don't know where the money went intially doesn't mean malfeasance. God, you people are grasping for straws for anything to pin on GWB. I know why you brought it up and it had nothing to do with perspective. Here is some perspective... our country is running a record deficit, we have troops getting killed every day while occupying a foreign country and our President just asked for $87 billion to allegedly support them yet we can't account for billions of dollars that we've already spent again allegedly to help our troops. Either call Kennedy a liar and say the money isn't missing or admit it may very well be missing and that this is a serious problem. I've come to the conclusion that the liberal modus oprendi is simple: throw mud constantly until some of it sticks. The problem is that the mud your Democratic buddies is slinging is not rooted in the facts at all, they just hope they can find something that will get an audience. I suppose the alternative conclusion would be that you're not interested in dealing with the concern that apparently billions of dollars are missing each month and would rather turn this into a political sideshow on Ted Kennedy and prescription drugs.
Iraq, prescription drugs and Sept. 11 may play a role in the missing $1.5 billion, but re-hashing those issues here only distracts from the main point: Where's the missing money?
The money going into the prescription drug plan is tagged on where it's spent. Apparently Kennedy hasn't seen the spread sheet saying how the money for Iraq is being spent. It's fine to compare the two but it doesn't help your case. In one the money is accounted for, and in the other the money isn't accounted for.
