I think everyone is missing the point, most of washington is responsible for going to war with Iraq, you can take it up with your elected officials on a case by case basis.
But the Bush administration is responsible for fucking up the war.
The ineptitude shown by them has been collasal. Their ability to admit to mistakes has been miniscule.
Why is everyone still arguing over why we went? It seems a bit past that by now. I think the focus should be in tallying how many things they've screwed up in Iraq, and why no one is taking responsibilty.
It did not go down the way we were promised, and that is the reason to pink slip these guys.
Now that John Kerry has chosen John Edwards as his running mate, I looked around for some Edwards quotes on Iraq. Some good ones are at On the Issues. One thing that hadn't been clear to me before was Edwards' antipathy to Halliburton and his critique of "unbid contracts." Edwards as a trial lawyer who helped consumers get their due from rich corporations that had harmed them would be ideally placed to take on the whole issue of Halliburton and the ways in which the Bush administration has mishandled Iraq by funneling huge amounts of money into expensive contracts that did not even employ many Iraqis. That is to say, Edwards may be the Anti-Cheney in ways that could be important to the campaign. Cheney's use of foul language on the Senate floor and increasing testiness suggest that he feels vulnerable on the Halliburton issue. One of the scandals that has been reported but hasn't really broken yet is the way in which Halliburton gained contracts to provide services to US troops in an emergency but has been unable actually to provide those services. The summer of 2003 was hell on the troops because they had no quonset huts or air conditioning. Their shaving cream cans were exploding in the desert. Why didn't the army just build them quonset huts? Because that task had been contracted out to civilians. And why didn't civilians do the job? Because civilians cannot be ordered into a war zon, and Halliburton and KBR often simply could not put enough civilian personnel into the field to do the jobs contracted for in a timely manner. Who suffered? The US troops. Why? Because the Bush administration gave a soldier's job to wealthy civilian corporations unequipped to handle it. Edwards is well placed to make hay with this sort of thing if he is canny about it.
Here are the Edwards quotes from On the Issues:
' Supporting Iraq war OK, but how war was conducted not OK
Q: You voted for the Iraq resolution, which basically gave the president power to use any means that he deemed necessary and appropriate, including military force, to respond to the perceived threat of Saddam Hussein. How can you criticize the president on his Iraq policy when you handed him a blank check?
EDWARDS: I took this responsibility very seriously. I said that it was critical that this not be done by America alone, that it not be an American operation, and now this is not internationalized. For the most part, it's America doing it alone, which I believe is an enormous mistake.
Q: Well, then, why didn't you not vote for it? Why didn't you insist on caveats? It was a blank check. Why?
EDWARDS: The answer is, what we did is we voted on a resolution. It is for the president to determine how to conduct the war. That's his responsibility. This president has failed in his responsibility. Neither [Kerry nor I] would've conducted this operation the way he conducted it.
Source: Democratic 2004 primary debate at USC Feb 26, 2004
Voted for war in Iraq but against $87B-and it's consistent
Q: After voting to authorize the president to go to war in Iraq in 2002, you voted last fall against an $87 billion expenditure to support the troops there and aid the anti-terrorism effort. Why aren't they inconsistent?
EDWARDS: Because I said before the first resolution was ever voted on in the Congress, that in order for this effort to be successful it was absolutely critical that when we reached this stage that it be international, that it not be an American occupation. And so long as it was that, we'd see the problems we've seen right now. Bush needed to change course. We needed to have the UN in charge of the civilian authority.
Q: So was it a protest vote?
EDWARDS: It was not a protest vote. Had I been the deciding vote, I would have voted exactly the same way. Because what would have happened, had that occurred, is the president would have immediately come back to the Congress with a plan, changing course. We came to the point where we had to stand up and take responsibility.
Source: Democratic 2004 Primary Debate at St. Anselm College Jan 22, 2004
Saddam's trial will reveal atrocities, but won't end terror
Q: How do you reconcile Saddam's capture with continued fear of terrorism?
EDWARDS: The trial of Saddam Hussein is going to reveal the atrocities that he's been engaged in and some of the incredible conduct that's occurred in Iraq during the time of his reign. But the reality of protecting the American people is, there's a still great deal of work to be done. Everybody across America knows that we have nuclear and chemical plants that are not adequately protected; that we are extraordinarily vulnerable through our ports. We don't have a comprehensive warning system in place, we don't have a comprehensive response system. And we know is that we know that terrorist cells exist all over this country. We need to do a much more effective job of putting humans inside those terrorist cells so that we can stop them before they do us harm . . .
Source: Democratic 2004 Presidential Primary Debate in Iowa Jan 4, 2004
Leadership means standing up for what you believe in
Q: Please respond to the variety of opinions expressed by your rivals on the Iraq war.
EDWARDS: Leadership is standing up for what you believe in. I believe Saddam was a threat; I voted for the congressional resolution. Then the president says, "I want $87 billion." I am not willing to give a blank check.
Source: Democratic Presidential 2004 Primary Debate in Detroit Oct 27, 2003
Partial yes on $87B-irresponsible to not support troops
Q: [Bush asked for] $87 billion for the ongoing war on terrorism. Your vote, yes or no?
EDWARDS: We have young men & women in a shooting gallery over there. It would be enormously irresponsible for any of us not to do what's necessary to support them. When we went into Iraq, the US assumed a responsibility to share with our allies the effort to reconstruct. That does not mean Bush should get a blank check.
I will vote for what's necessary to support the troops. But we have a lot of questions that have to be answered first. We have to find out how he plans to bring our allies in, how much control he plans to give up, and what is our long-term plan there.
Q: So you might vote for something less than $87 billion and cut off money for reconstruction?
EDWARDS: I will vote for what needs to be there to support our troops who are on the ground. I will not vote for the additional money unless we have an explanation about what we're going to do to share the cost with our allies.
Source: Debate at Pace University in Lower Manhattan Sep 25, 2003
Allies in Iraq would reduce burden on troops & taxpayers
Q: If we cannot get international forces to Iraq, should we increase the US presence or leave?
EDWARDS: I don't accept that premise. We have to have the help of our friends and allies around the world. [First], to help relieve the burden on American troops and be able to bring some of these troops home. Second, to reduce the burden on the American taxpayer. We need to lead in a way that brings others to us and creates respect for America, because at the end of the day [that will make] a safer world.
Source: Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate Sep 9, 2003
Irresponsible to not fund troops; also to fund Halliburton
Q: Will you vote yes or no on the president's request for $87 billion to continue the effort in Iraq?
EDWARDS: Well, I'm going to do what has to be done to make sure our troops get what they need, but not without the president telling us how much this is going to cost over the long term, how long we're going to be there and who is going to share the cost with us.
Q: So if the president says, "I need $87 billion to protect the troops," you're ready to say yes to that?
EDWARDS: It would be irresponsible not to do what needs to be done to protect our troops. But having said that, it would also be irresponsible not to do something to stop this president from giving billions of dollars in American taxpayer money to companies like Halliburton in unbid contracts.
Source: Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate Sep 9, 2003
Problems in Iraq are because Bush has not led
Q: The administration is expected to ask the Congress for $80 billion to continue the mission in Iraq. Will you support that spending?
EDWARDS: The administration needs to say to the Congress and to the American people what this war is going to cost over the long term; how long they think we're going to be there. The reason we are in this situation is because this president has not led. He has not addressed the problem of bringing in others. He has not gone to the UN in the way that he should have.
Source: Democratic Primary Debate, Albuquerque New Mexico Sep 4, 2003
Work with other nations in war on terror
Edwards believes America must lead the world - not by acting alone, but by using our power and influence with other nations to protect our interests. Edwards calls for action to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction, win the war on terrorism, and promote democracy and freedom internationally, particularly in the Middle East. Edwards believes that through a stronger commitment to work together with other nations, the US will better be in position to shape the world in which we live.
Edwards has not hesitated to support decisive American action, alone if necessary, to address imminent threats to our national security. He supports President Bush's efforts to address the looming danger of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. However, he sharply objects to the Bush administration's handling of our broader foreign policy, which he says projects "arrogance without purpose," instead of the "purpose without arrogance" promised in the President's inaugural address.
Bush's preemption doctrine is unnecessary and unwise
Q: Will you repeal Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine?
A: The Bush administration asserted a new doctrine that suggests a uniquely American right to use force wherever and whenever we decide it's appropriate. America must have a foreign policy that leads in a way that brings others to us, not that drives them away. And I say to every American family: your family is safer in a world where America is looked up to and respected, not in a world where America is hated.
Source: MoveOn.org interview Jun 17, 2003
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq.
H.J.Res. 114; Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The administration would be required to report to Congress that diplomatic options have been exhausted before, or within 48 hours after military action has started. Every 60 days the president would also be required to submit a progress report to Congress.
Bill H.J.RES.114 ; vote number 2002-237 on Oct 11, 2002 . . .
Now that John Kerry has chosen John Edwards as his running mate, I looked around for some Edwards quotes on Iraq. Some good ones are at On the Issues. One thing that hadn't been clear to me before was Edwards' antipathy to Halliburton and his critique of "unbid contracts." Edwards as a trial lawyer who helped consumers get their due from rich corporations that had harmed them
I have ask another question about lawyers to the membership. Are you more respected as a lawyer if you defend someone we all like than if you defend Saddam? I´m talking strictly courtroom buisness here. Isn´t it the most importent job for a lawyer to give his client the best representation he can give?
Related question: Who are to blame for the outcome of the OJ trial? The defense lawyers, the judge, the jury or the law?
I have ask another question about lawyers to the membership. Are you more respected as a lawyer if you defend someone we all like than if you defend Saddam? I´m talking strictly courtroom buisness here. Isn´t it the most importent job for a lawyer to give his client the best representation he can give?
Related question: Who are to blame for the outcome of the OJ trial? The defense lawyers, the judge, the jury or the law?
The prosecuting attorneys blew the O.J. case. Christopher Darden and Marsha Clark mostly.
Plus you want to believe what our president says don't you? It's just that some people swallowed what he was saying.
Anyone who believes a politician without doing their own research is an idiot. Any politician who believes the briefings they get without doing their own research is an idiot.
Politicians in this country, at this time, have one job and only one job, and it isn't preserving, protecting, and defending anything. It's getting reelected. Politicians do their real job very, very well. If their mouth is open and they're talking about something other than getting reelected, there's a 50/50 chance they're lying.
Anyone who believes a politician without doing their own research is an idiot. Any politician who believes the briefings they get without doing their own research is an idiot.
Politicians in this country, at this time, have one job and only one job, and it isn't preserving, protecting, and defending anything. It's getting reelected. Politicians do their real job very, very well. If their mouth is open and they're talking about something other than getting reelected, there's a 50/50 chance they're lying.
Actually I think most of the political figures that went along with this line of reasoning did so because they didn't want to be branded " unpatriotic " by Bush and therefore jepardize their popularity.
However what are you suggesting, that John Edwards run over to Iraq and see what's really going on?...That's the CIA's job and thanks to Bush and his cohorts like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney and his lackeys like Ashcroft, and the intelligence community in general, Congress was lied to. However that was a good post and unfortunately true even of well-meaning politicians. Hey, it's their job though, I can't blame them. I sometime feel guilty for talking people up at Sears in to buying expensive TVs but hey, I need to eat you know.
Quote:
Wasn't it Edwards that defended pirateers that were steeling Elvis' music?
What were they doing NaplesX? Were they coating an Elvis song with metal?
However what are you suggesting, that John Edwards run over to Iraq and see what's really going on?...That's the CIA's job and thanks to Bush and his cohorts like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney and his lackeys like Ashcroft, and the intelligence community in general, Congress was lied to.
That's my point exactly. There are very good reasons for the checks and balances of the Constitution, and when the President can manipulate what the Congress sees he effectively takes over the process. The thing that's so galling to me about the Bush administration is that they have blatantly and repeatedly declared themselves to be above the democratic process - and they're right.
I wonder where Edwards got this information from? Does anyone recall that in the summer of 2001, both Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice stated matter of factly that Iraq is not a threat to the United States????.
Four to seven months before 9/11--and just 15 to 18 months before the drive to attack Iraq seriously revved up--the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor trumpeted that Iraq had a decimated military, no "significant capabilities" regarding WMD, and was so feeble that it couldn't even threaten the countries around it with conventional military power.
Feith and the Office of Special Plans seems to have somehow escaped the scrutiny they deserve . . . they are responsible for much of the mis-information before the war.
The thing is, is that when it comes to them it seems pretty clear that they were set up with ONE GOAL in mind . . . the setting up of a "Special Plan", namely, the swaying of opinion towards a pro-war with Iraq through the selective stress of information.
Feith still refuses to acknowledge anything, makes me think of a good thing Tommy Franks said: that Fieth is an idiot
Quote:
Doug Feith's questionable intelligence
A supplementary annex to the Senate Intelligence Committee report released Friday focuses on Pentagon official Doug Feith's production of alternative intelligence in 2002 that made a link between al-Qaida and Iraq when the CIA would not do so, the Telegraph reports. Although the committee will not all-out scrutinize the administration's role in handling faulty pre-war intel until after the election, the report's appendix, written by Democrats, says Feith told the administration to ignore the CIA's conclusion that Saddam and al-Qaida had a "murky relationship" -- one of the only things the CIA seems to have gotten right in the run up to war -- and instead pushed his own "evidence," and may have run afoul of laws in the process.
"In sharp contrast to the Senate intelligence committee's criticisms of 'over-reaching' and "exaggeration' by CIA agents, the Pentagon briefing criticised the agency for requiring 'juridical evidence' for its findings and for the 'consistent underestimation' of the possibility that Iraq and al-Qa'eda were attempting to conceal their collaboration.
In another incident, Mr Feith's Pentagon cell postponed the publication of a CIA assessment of Iraq's links to terrorism after a visit to CIA headquarters at which "numerous objections" were made to a final draft. In particular, Pentagon officials insisted that more should be made of an alleged meeting between the September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi official in Prague in April 2001. The CIA judged reports of the meeting not to be credible, a verdict vindicated on Friday by the Senate committee report.
Most remarkably, on September 16, 2002, two days before the CIA was to produce its postponed assessment, Mr Feith's cell went directly to the White House and gave an alternative briefing to Vice-President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and to the National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's deputy. The briefing contained the section alleging 'fundamental problems' with CIA intelligence-gathering. It also gave a detailed breakdown of the alleged meeting between Atta and an Iraqi agent. The following week, senior Bush officials made confident statements on the existence of a link between Saddam and al-Qa'eda. Mr Tenet would learn of the secret briefing only in March 2004."
Any politician who believes the briefings they get without doing their own research is an idiot.
Isn't that part of what the CIA was supposed to be doing, research. The information pumped out of the CIA was supposed to be accurate. Calling politicians idiots for using what they expect to be accurate information is inaccurate. You feed bad data in you get bad data out.
Maybe the government should start using AO for their info and do away with the CIA briefs.
Isn't that part of what the CIA was supposed to be doing, research. The information pumped out of the CIA was supposed to be accurate. Calling politicians idiots for using what they expect to be accurate information is inaccurate. You feed bad data in you get bad data out.
Maybe the government should start using AO for their info and do away with the CIA briefs.
Comments
But the Bush administration is responsible for fucking up the war.
The ineptitude shown by them has been collasal. Their ability to admit to mistakes has been miniscule.
Why is everyone still arguing over why we went? It seems a bit past that by now. I think the focus should be in tallying how many things they've screwed up in Iraq, and why no one is taking responsibilty.
It did not go down the way we were promised, and that is the reason to pink slip these guys.
John Edwards and the Iraq War
Now that John Kerry has chosen John Edwards as his running mate, I looked around for some Edwards quotes on Iraq. Some good ones are at On the Issues. One thing that hadn't been clear to me before was Edwards' antipathy to Halliburton and his critique of "unbid contracts." Edwards as a trial lawyer who helped consumers get their due from rich corporations that had harmed them would be ideally placed to take on the whole issue of Halliburton and the ways in which the Bush administration has mishandled Iraq by funneling huge amounts of money into expensive contracts that did not even employ many Iraqis. That is to say, Edwards may be the Anti-Cheney in ways that could be important to the campaign. Cheney's use of foul language on the Senate floor and increasing testiness suggest that he feels vulnerable on the Halliburton issue. One of the scandals that has been reported but hasn't really broken yet is the way in which Halliburton gained contracts to provide services to US troops in an emergency but has been unable actually to provide those services. The summer of 2003 was hell on the troops because they had no quonset huts or air conditioning. Their shaving cream cans were exploding in the desert. Why didn't the army just build them quonset huts? Because that task had been contracted out to civilians. And why didn't civilians do the job? Because civilians cannot be ordered into a war zon, and Halliburton and KBR often simply could not put enough civilian personnel into the field to do the jobs contracted for in a timely manner. Who suffered? The US troops. Why? Because the Bush administration gave a soldier's job to wealthy civilian corporations unequipped to handle it. Edwards is well placed to make hay with this sort of thing if he is canny about it.
Here are the Edwards quotes from On the Issues:
' Supporting Iraq war OK, but how war was conducted not OK
Q: You voted for the Iraq resolution, which basically gave the president power to use any means that he deemed necessary and appropriate, including military force, to respond to the perceived threat of Saddam Hussein. How can you criticize the president on his Iraq policy when you handed him a blank check?
EDWARDS: I took this responsibility very seriously. I said that it was critical that this not be done by America alone, that it not be an American operation, and now this is not internationalized. For the most part, it's America doing it alone, which I believe is an enormous mistake.
Q: Well, then, why didn't you not vote for it? Why didn't you insist on caveats? It was a blank check. Why?
EDWARDS: The answer is, what we did is we voted on a resolution. It is for the president to determine how to conduct the war. That's his responsibility. This president has failed in his responsibility. Neither [Kerry nor I] would've conducted this operation the way he conducted it.
Source: Democratic 2004 primary debate at USC Feb 26, 2004
Voted for war in Iraq but against $87B-and it's consistent
Q: After voting to authorize the president to go to war in Iraq in 2002, you voted last fall against an $87 billion expenditure to support the troops there and aid the anti-terrorism effort. Why aren't they inconsistent?
EDWARDS: Because I said before the first resolution was ever voted on in the Congress, that in order for this effort to be successful it was absolutely critical that when we reached this stage that it be international, that it not be an American occupation. And so long as it was that, we'd see the problems we've seen right now. Bush needed to change course. We needed to have the UN in charge of the civilian authority.
Q: So was it a protest vote?
EDWARDS: It was not a protest vote. Had I been the deciding vote, I would have voted exactly the same way. Because what would have happened, had that occurred, is the president would have immediately come back to the Congress with a plan, changing course. We came to the point where we had to stand up and take responsibility.
Source: Democratic 2004 Primary Debate at St. Anselm College Jan 22, 2004
Saddam's trial will reveal atrocities, but won't end terror
Q: How do you reconcile Saddam's capture with continued fear of terrorism?
EDWARDS: The trial of Saddam Hussein is going to reveal the atrocities that he's been engaged in and some of the incredible conduct that's occurred in Iraq during the time of his reign. But the reality of protecting the American people is, there's a still great deal of work to be done. Everybody across America knows that we have nuclear and chemical plants that are not adequately protected; that we are extraordinarily vulnerable through our ports. We don't have a comprehensive warning system in place, we don't have a comprehensive response system. And we know is that we know that terrorist cells exist all over this country. We need to do a much more effective job of putting humans inside those terrorist cells so that we can stop them before they do us harm . . .
Source: Democratic 2004 Presidential Primary Debate in Iowa Jan 4, 2004
Leadership means standing up for what you believe in
Q: Please respond to the variety of opinions expressed by your rivals on the Iraq war.
EDWARDS: Leadership is standing up for what you believe in. I believe Saddam was a threat; I voted for the congressional resolution. Then the president says, "I want $87 billion." I am not willing to give a blank check.
Source: Democratic Presidential 2004 Primary Debate in Detroit Oct 27, 2003
Partial yes on $87B-irresponsible to not support troops
Q: [Bush asked for] $87 billion for the ongoing war on terrorism. Your vote, yes or no?
EDWARDS: We have young men & women in a shooting gallery over there. It would be enormously irresponsible for any of us not to do what's necessary to support them. When we went into Iraq, the US assumed a responsibility to share with our allies the effort to reconstruct. That does not mean Bush should get a blank check.
I will vote for what's necessary to support the troops. But we have a lot of questions that have to be answered first. We have to find out how he plans to bring our allies in, how much control he plans to give up, and what is our long-term plan there.
Q: So you might vote for something less than $87 billion and cut off money for reconstruction?
EDWARDS: I will vote for what needs to be there to support our troops who are on the ground. I will not vote for the additional money unless we have an explanation about what we're going to do to share the cost with our allies.
Source: Debate at Pace University in Lower Manhattan Sep 25, 2003
Allies in Iraq would reduce burden on troops & taxpayers
Q: If we cannot get international forces to Iraq, should we increase the US presence or leave?
EDWARDS: I don't accept that premise. We have to have the help of our friends and allies around the world. [First], to help relieve the burden on American troops and be able to bring some of these troops home. Second, to reduce the burden on the American taxpayer. We need to lead in a way that brings others to us and creates respect for America, because at the end of the day [that will make] a safer world.
Source: Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate Sep 9, 2003
Irresponsible to not fund troops; also to fund Halliburton
Q: Will you vote yes or no on the president's request for $87 billion to continue the effort in Iraq?
EDWARDS: Well, I'm going to do what has to be done to make sure our troops get what they need, but not without the president telling us how much this is going to cost over the long term, how long we're going to be there and who is going to share the cost with us.
Q: So if the president says, "I need $87 billion to protect the troops," you're ready to say yes to that?
EDWARDS: It would be irresponsible not to do what needs to be done to protect our troops. But having said that, it would also be irresponsible not to do something to stop this president from giving billions of dollars in American taxpayer money to companies like Halliburton in unbid contracts.
Source: Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate Sep 9, 2003
Problems in Iraq are because Bush has not led
Q: The administration is expected to ask the Congress for $80 billion to continue the mission in Iraq. Will you support that spending?
EDWARDS: The administration needs to say to the Congress and to the American people what this war is going to cost over the long term; how long they think we're going to be there. The reason we are in this situation is because this president has not led. He has not addressed the problem of bringing in others. He has not gone to the UN in the way that he should have.
Source: Democratic Primary Debate, Albuquerque New Mexico Sep 4, 2003
Work with other nations in war on terror
Edwards believes America must lead the world - not by acting alone, but by using our power and influence with other nations to protect our interests. Edwards calls for action to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction, win the war on terrorism, and promote democracy and freedom internationally, particularly in the Middle East. Edwards believes that through a stronger commitment to work together with other nations, the US will better be in position to shape the world in which we live.
Source: Campaign website, johnedwards2004.com, "Key Issues" Jul 17, 2003
Supported Iraq invasion because of WMD threat
Edwards has not hesitated to support decisive American action, alone if necessary, to address imminent threats to our national security. He supports President Bush's efforts to address the looming danger of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. However, he sharply objects to the Bush administration's handling of our broader foreign policy, which he says projects "arrogance without purpose," instead of the "purpose without arrogance" promised in the President's inaugural address.
Source: Campaign website, johnedwards2004.com, "Key Issues" Jul 17, 2003
Bush's preemption doctrine is unnecessary and unwise
Q: Will you repeal Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine?
A: The Bush administration asserted a new doctrine that suggests a uniquely American right to use force wherever and whenever we decide it's appropriate. America must have a foreign policy that leads in a way that brings others to us, not that drives them away. And I say to every American family: your family is safer in a world where America is looked up to and respected, not in a world where America is hated.
Source: MoveOn.org interview Jun 17, 2003
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq.
H.J.Res. 114; Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The administration would be required to report to Congress that diplomatic options have been exhausted before, or within 48 hours after military action has started. Every 60 days the president would also be required to submit a progress report to Congress.
Bill H.J.RES.114 ; vote number 2002-237 on Oct 11, 2002 . . .
Originally posted by giant
From Juan Cole:
John Edwards and the Iraq War
Now that John Kerry has chosen John Edwards as his running mate, I looked around for some Edwards quotes on Iraq. Some good ones are at On the Issues. One thing that hadn't been clear to me before was Edwards' antipathy to Halliburton and his critique of "unbid contracts." Edwards as a trial lawyer who helped consumers get their due from rich corporations that had harmed them
Top notch comedy giant. Thanks.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Wasn't it Edwards that defended pirateers that were steeling Elvis' music?
I hope so.
Related question: Who are to blame for the outcome of the OJ trial? The defense lawyers, the judge, the jury or the law?
Originally posted by Anders
I have ask another question about lawyers to the membership. Are you more respected as a lawyer if you defend someone we all like than if you defend Saddam? I´m talking strictly courtroom buisness here. Isn´t it the most importent job for a lawyer to give his client the best representation he can give?
Related question: Who are to blame for the outcome of the OJ trial? The defense lawyers, the judge, the jury or the law?
The prosecuting attorneys blew the O.J. case. Christopher Darden and Marsha Clark mostly.
Originally posted by jimmac
Plus you want to believe what our president says don't you? It's just that some people swallowed what he was saying.
Anyone who believes a politician without doing their own research is an idiot. Any politician who believes the briefings they get without doing their own research is an idiot.
Politicians in this country, at this time, have one job and only one job, and it isn't preserving, protecting, and defending anything. It's getting reelected. Politicians do their real job very, very well. If their mouth is open and they're talking about something other than getting reelected, there's a 50/50 chance they're lying.
Originally posted by a10t2
Anyone who believes a politician without doing their own research is an idiot. Any politician who believes the briefings they get without doing their own research is an idiot.
Politicians in this country, at this time, have one job and only one job, and it isn't preserving, protecting, and defending anything. It's getting reelected. Politicians do their real job very, very well. If their mouth is open and they're talking about something other than getting reelected, there's a 50/50 chance they're lying.
Actually I think most of the political figures that went along with this line of reasoning did so because they didn't want to be branded " unpatriotic " by Bush and therefore jepardize their popularity.
However what are you suggesting, that John Edwards run over to Iraq and see what's really going on?...That's the CIA's job and thanks to Bush and his cohorts like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney and his lackeys like Ashcroft, and the intelligence community in general, Congress was lied to. However that was a good post and unfortunately true even of well-meaning politicians. Hey, it's their job though, I can't blame them. I sometime feel guilty for talking people up at Sears in to buying expensive TVs but hey, I need to eat you know.
Wasn't it Edwards that defended pirateers that were steeling Elvis' music?
What were they doing NaplesX? Were they coating an Elvis song with metal?
Originally posted by Aquatic
nice post a10t2.
However what are you suggesting, that John Edwards run over to Iraq and see what's really going on?...That's the CIA's job and thanks to Bush and his cohorts like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney and his lackeys like Ashcroft, and the intelligence community in general, Congress was lied to.
That's my point exactly. There are very good reasons for the checks and balances of the Constitution, and when the President can manipulate what the Congress sees he effectively takes over the process. The thing that's so galling to me about the Bush administration is that they have blatantly and repeatedly declared themselves to be above the democratic process - and they're right.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
Four to seven months before 9/11--and just 15 to 18 months before the drive to attack Iraq seriously revved up--the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor trumpeted that Iraq had a decimated military, no "significant capabilities" regarding WMD, and was so feeble that it couldn't even threaten the countries around it with conventional military power.
Or was Edwards listening to Cheney's lies?
The thing is, is that when it comes to them it seems pretty clear that they were set up with ONE GOAL in mind . . . the setting up of a "Special Plan", namely, the swaying of opinion towards a pro-war with Iraq through the selective stress of information.
Feith still refuses to acknowledge anything, makes me think of a good thing Tommy Franks said: that Fieth is an idiot
Doug Feith's questionable intelligence
A supplementary annex to the Senate Intelligence Committee report released Friday focuses on Pentagon official Doug Feith's production of alternative intelligence in 2002 that made a link between al-Qaida and Iraq when the CIA would not do so, the Telegraph reports. Although the committee will not all-out scrutinize the administration's role in handling faulty pre-war intel until after the election, the report's appendix, written by Democrats, says Feith told the administration to ignore the CIA's conclusion that Saddam and al-Qaida had a "murky relationship" -- one of the only things the CIA seems to have gotten right in the run up to war -- and instead pushed his own "evidence," and may have run afoul of laws in the process.
"In sharp contrast to the Senate intelligence committee's criticisms of 'over-reaching' and "exaggeration' by CIA agents, the Pentagon briefing criticised the agency for requiring 'juridical evidence' for its findings and for the 'consistent underestimation' of the possibility that Iraq and al-Qa'eda were attempting to conceal their collaboration.
In another incident, Mr Feith's Pentagon cell postponed the publication of a CIA assessment of Iraq's links to terrorism after a visit to CIA headquarters at which "numerous objections" were made to a final draft. In particular, Pentagon officials insisted that more should be made of an alleged meeting between the September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi official in Prague in April 2001. The CIA judged reports of the meeting not to be credible, a verdict vindicated on Friday by the Senate committee report.
Most remarkably, on September 16, 2002, two days before the CIA was to produce its postponed assessment, Mr Feith's cell went directly to the White House and gave an alternative briefing to Vice-President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and to the National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's deputy. The briefing contained the section alleging 'fundamental problems' with CIA intelligence-gathering. It also gave a detailed breakdown of the alleged meeting between Atta and an Iraqi agent. The following week, senior Bush officials made confident statements on the existence of a link between Saddam and al-Qa'eda. Mr Tenet would learn of the secret briefing only in March 2004."
Originally posted by pfflam
Salon but it takes a flash movie vewing from another page to get access . . . or subscription.
Salon! Yes!
Originally posted by pfflam
Salon but it takes a flash movie vewing from another page to get access . . . or subscription.
Thanks.
Originally posted by a10t2
Any politician who believes the briefings they get without doing their own research is an idiot.
Isn't that part of what the CIA was supposed to be doing, research. The information pumped out of the CIA was supposed to be accurate. Calling politicians idiots for using what they expect to be accurate information is inaccurate. You feed bad data in you get bad data out.
Maybe the government should start using AO for their info and do away with the CIA briefs.
Originally posted by kozchris
Isn't that part of what the CIA was supposed to be doing, research. The information pumped out of the CIA was supposed to be accurate. Calling politicians idiots for using what they expect to be accurate information is inaccurate. You feed bad data in you get bad data out.
Maybe the government should start using AO for their info and do away with the CIA briefs.
Yeah it's someone else's fault right?
Yeah it's someone else's fault right?
It's someones fault.
Are you desputing that the CIA is supposed to be giving accurate information to the politicians?