Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Bush's Failure May Be Illegal

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Bush's Failure May Be Illegal
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lawmaker Says White House Failure to Brief Congress on Intelligence Programs May Have Been Illegal So, did Bush lie this time? A lie by omission? Either way it's another case of the government not keeping everybody informed. This long after 9-11 you'd think they had these kind of things worked out.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So.... I guess if you are saying the words of Rep. Peter Hoekstra are worth listening to, you now admit that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Cool...

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) announced Wednesday the finding of over 500 munitions or weapons of mass destruction, specifically “sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles,” in Iraq.

Reading from unclassified portions of a document developed by the U.S. intelligence community, Santorum said, “Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.”

According to Santorum, “That means in addition to the 500, there are filled and unfilled munitions still believed to exist within the country.”

Reading from the document, Santorum added, “Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the Black Market. Use of these weapons by terrorist or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside of Iraq cannot be ruled out. The most likely munitions remaining are sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles. And I underscore filled.”

Santorum said the “purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions.”

While acknowledging that the agents “degrade over time,” the document said that the chemicals “remain hazardous and potentially lethal.”

The media has reported that “insurgents and Iraqi groups” want to “acquire and use chemical weapons,” Santorum noted.

The Pennsylvania senator called the finding “incredibly” significant.

“The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction is in fact false,” Santorum said. “We have found over 500 weapons of mass destruction and in fact have found that there are additional chemical weapons still in the country.”

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Uh... the existence of those weapons is factual. That has not been the point of contention.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Winkey, we've been discussing this on another thread. Here's what I said there.
quote:
Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."


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

From Fox News article. So, Bush is still a liar. Whether intentional are not is all that is in question.

That is from the White House. Even they know this doesn't prove claims that Saddam had WMD's.

And just because some politician is right about one thing doesn't mean he isn't full of it about a ton of other subjects. It just doesn't work that way.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well it proves Saddam had WMDs KnightEnder. They just know that there's no evidence he still had WMDs or a WMD program after the end of the first Gulf War. A lot of what Santorum said is technically correct, even if he was lying out of his ass. Still, I doubt anyone's expected the truth from that man's mouth since he declared that Texas' decision to stop putting men in jail for anal sex would lead to legalised dograping [Smile]
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Luckily, we don't have to accept everything a person says in order to accept one thing a person says.

The central issue is not what is said by whom, well, except what Bush & Co. had to say to Congress about their intelligence programs. Which seems to be "not much" and "belated". The ongoing lack of oversight on questionable programs is far more important than whether some old cans of gas makes the WMD justification all better.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KE says: "And just because some politician is right about one thing doesn't mean he isn't full of it about a ton of other subjects. It just doesn't work that way."

So in other words... your initial thread is based on the words of someone who has a track record of being full of it, on occasion.

I know that your powers of persuasion have made a believer out of me... [Roll Eyes]

[ July 10, 2006, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: winkey151 ]

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
winkey:

If you seriously can't understand why your argument is not compelling, you need to check your premises.

If a known crank and liar shouts: "The sky is blue!" from a street corner, does that make the sky any less blue? Shall we scoff about the blueness of the sky, because on another occasion, the crank has stated that moon people live in his kitchen sink?

Is anyone credibly denying what Hoekstra is saying on this occasion?

quote:
Frederick Jones, spokesman for Bush's National Security Council, said the only comment the White House would have on the letter was that the administration "will continue to work closely with the chairman and other congressional leaders on important national security issues."
Doesn't sound like a rebuttal to me. Do you have a source that would suggest that what Hoekstra claimed in the letter was untrue?
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do we have a source that would suggest what Hoekstra claimed in the letter was untrue? After all, he's NOT claiming something we can see with our own eyes, now is he? [Razz]
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess we could submit a FOIA request. [Big Grin]
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KE... Did you happen to catch this?
RealClearPolitics

July 11, 2006
The Times Distorts Rep. Hoekstra's Letter on Intelligence
By Jack Kelly

Sometimes a lede can be buried so deep it barely makes it into the story. On Saturday, the New York Times ran a lengthy article about a sharply critical private letter the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee sent to President Bush May 18.

"An important congressional ally charged the administration might have violated the law by failing to inform Congress of some secret intelligence programs and risked losing Republican support on national security matters," wrote Eric Lichtblau and Scott Shane in their lead paragraph.

The lede implies that Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich) thinks "Republican support on national security matters" is jeopardized by the failure to inform Congress of these secret intelligence programs, but his letter indicates this isn't so.

Rep. Hoekstra won't say what those intelligence programs are, but the speculation is they are the "special access programs" former National Security Agency official Russell Tice claimed violated the law.

Mr. Tice was fired in May of 2005, allegedly because he was psychologically disturbed.

Mr. Tice had asked permission to brief the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on the programs he was worried about, which was denied until after Rep. Hoekstra wrote his letter.

But mentioned only in the penultimate paragraph of a four page letter, this concern was the least of the three raised by Rep. Hoekstra.

A more important concern was what he saw as empire building by the new Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte.

"I am concerned that the current implementation is creating a large, bureaucratic and hierarchial structure that will be less flexible and agile than our adversaries," Rep. Hoekstra wrote. "If we are to be successful we must limit the growth of the office of the DNI -- to force it to be the lean, coordinating function we envisioned."

But most of his ire was directed at the appointment of Stephen Kappes to be Deputy Director of the CIA.

"Regrettably, the appointment of Mr. Kappes sends a clear signal that the days of collaborative reform between the White House and this committee may be over," Rep. Hoekstra wrote.

Rep. Hoekstra is a friend of former CIA Director Porter Goss, his predecessor as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and was upset with his brusque dismissal May 5.

The appointment of Mr. Kappes to team with Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden poured salt in the wound. Mr. Kappes was deputy director for operations when Mr. Goss took over at Langley in the fall of 2004. He resigned rather than reassign an aide who was insubordinate when told that leaks to reporters from the CIA must stop.

Rep. Hoekstra accused Mr. Kappes of being one of the leakers: "I have been long concerned that a strong and well-positioned group within the Agency intentionally undermined the Administration and its policies," he wrote. "This argument is supported by the Ambassador Wilson/Valerie Plame events, as well as by the string of unauthorized disclosures from an organization which prides itself with being able to keep secrets. I have come to this belief that, despite his service to the DO, Mr. Kappes may have been part of this group.

"Further, the details surrounding Mr. Kappes' departure from the CIA give me great pause," Rep. Hoekstra wrote. "The fact is, Mr. Kappes and his Deputy, Mr. Sulick, were developing a communications offensive to bypass the Intelligence Committees and the CIA's own Office of Congressional Affairs. One can only speculate on the motives, but it clearly indicates a willingness to promote a personal agenda. Every day we suffer from individuals promoting their personal agendas. This is clearly a place where we do not want or need to be."

Neither of these paragraphs made it into the lengthy story Mr. Lichtblau and Mr. Shane wrote. Their only mention of Rep. Hoekstra's concerns about Mr. Kappes was this sentence, deep within the article: "He warned that the choice of Mr. Kappes, who he said was part of the group at CIA that 'intentionally undermined the administration,' sends 'a clear signal that the days of collaborative reform between the White House and this committee may be over.'"

Without this sentence, Mr. Lichtblau and Mr. Shane could not have implied, misleadingly, in their lede that the White House risked losing Republican support over its failure to inform Congress of some intelligence programs.

The New York Times frequently accuses the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq. I'd say the Times did a fine job of cherry-picking -- not to say distorting -- Rep. Hoekstra's letter.

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So....the Times story had a slant? Up against the wall, I say! [Big Grin]
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
maniacal_engineer
Member
Member # 116

 - posted      Profile for maniacal_engineer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
HOLY CRAP

THE TIMES HAD A SLANT?????

I can't be -freaking-lieve it!

not.

Posts: 962 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Winkey, I'm not sure what your point is here? As you know I don't care about spelling so is "lede" lead? Just to clarify, thanks.

Either way it still seems to me that Bush failed to notify the commitee that he was legaly supposed to notify, no?

I don't think that it is any shock that the NY Times is slanted to the left and I don't think them "cherry picking" sentences from a letter is the same as cherry picking intelligence reports in order to justify leading the country into a war that has cost many many lives, American and Iraqis. Besides, the NY Times is not an elected official, much less the Commander-in-Chief. [Frown]
quote:
"This argument is supported by the Ambassador Wilson/Valerie Plame events, as well as by the string of unauthorized disclosures from an organization which prides itself with being able to keep secrets.
Did you all see that the Traitor Novak admitted that Karl Rove was one of the leaks that confirmed Plame's status as a CIA agent? Rove should be prosecuted. This is politics at its worst. And of course Novak should burn in Hell.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have given up on the NYT.

It is about as useful as the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it is important to know the "slant" pov or whatever you want to call it of the publication your reading or show you are watching. And IMO it's important to get your news from a variety of sources.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sfallmann
Member
Member # 2148

 - posted      Profile for sfallmann   Email sfallmann   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
I think it is important to know the "slant" pov or whatever you want to call it of the publication your reading or show you are watching. And IMO it's important to get your news from a variety of sources.

KE

Wise words indeed.
Posts: 396 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1