Kanjorski says Dems were insincere about ending war

[Big Don]

Kanjorski says Dems were insincere about ending war By Aaron Blake
The Hill
Excerpt:
Posted: 05/23/08 01:46 PM [ET] Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) is seen in a video that has surfaced on the Web saying that Democrats “sort of stretched the facts” in the 2006 elections about their ability to end the Iraq war. In a video , posted to YouTube on Thursday, Kanjorski reflects on the Democrats’ approach to the war in 2006 and said they pushed the rhetoric “as far as we can to the end of the fleet — didn’t say it, but we implied it — that if we won the congressional elections, we could stop the war.
“Now, anybody who’s a good student of government would know it wasn't true,” he said. “But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress — we sort of stretched the facts.” The video was dated Aug. 28, 2007, by the person who posted it. The remarks are not placed in a larger context.
(((END EXCERPT)))
A lying politician? Say it ain't so...

 

[Twin Fist]

Well thats a first

not a politico lying, that happens all the time

but one admitting it?

thats new

 

[elder999]

but one admitting it?

thats new

No, it's not.

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason," Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary, Vanity Fair, May 28, 2003-speaking about the invasion of Iraq

come sail away, come sail away, come sail away with me!

Of course, both Democratic Presidential candidates are less than sincere in their promises to end the war in Iraq, bring the troops home and end the occupation, but that shouldn't surprise anyone.....

 

[Jai]

It's all about telling the American public what they want to hear and driving it home. There is no fast fix for the war or the mess that has followed, the problem is, American's know it, but are still willing to believe otherwise and allow themselves to be suckered in by talks of ending the war. So it's really no big surprise at all that anyone is admitting anything, politics are nothing but empty promises and who's best and making the bs seem real.

 

[terryl965]

It's all about telling the American public what they want to hear and driving it home. There is no fast fix for the war or the mess that has followed, the problem is, American's know it, but are still willing to believe otherwise and allow themselves to be suckered in by talks of ending the war. So it's really no big surprise at all that anyone is admitting anything, politics are nothing but empty promises and who's best and making the bs seem real.

It is about who can lie the best without get cought the most.

 

[Jai]

It is about who can lie the best without get cought the most.

Amen.

 

[Archangel M]

Its because we shouldnt leave yet.

As Americans its about time we started finishing what we started. Perhaps we are taking a lesson from when we helped boot the Soviets out of Afghanistan back in the 80's then left them to their own devices...look at what happened when we did that.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Maybe it should be about ****ing off out of the rest of the world and fixing our own problems for a change instead.

 

[terryl965]

Its because we shouldnt leave yet.

As Americans its about time we started finishing what we started. Perhaps we are taking a lesson from when we helped boot the Soviets out of Afghanistan back in the 80's then left them to their own devices...look at what happened when we did that.

But here lies the problem, it is not our place to rebuild and make them better, it is there place. If we was conquiring them then sure let say and finish it and rebuild to fit our way of thinking.

 

[elder999]

Its because we shouldnt leave yet.

As Americans its about time we started finishing what we started. Perhaps we are taking a lesson from when we helped boot the Soviets out of Afghanistan back in the 80's then left them to their own devices...look at what happened when we did that.

'You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people, You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You'll own it all.'”-Colin Powell,to President BuSh, warning him on invading Iraq in the summer of 2002

 

[elder999]

Wasn't he the guy who said this?:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...Colin Powell, Feb. 24, 2001 press conference in Egypt, when asked about the U.S.-Iraq policy

 

[Twin Fist]

No, it's not.



come sail away, come sail away, come sail away with me!

Of course, both Democratic Presidential candidates are less than sincere in their promises to end the war in Iraq, bring the troops home and end the occupation, but that shouldn't surprise anyone.....

Uh, NO elder, that doesnt count, and you know full well it doesnt count, UNLESS they knew it was false

and NO ONE has ever come forward and said that they knew the evidence that every major demo saw and believed and every intelligence agency in the world saw and believed was false

I always try to put truth before partisanship elder, it works better in the long run.

 

[elder999]

Uh, NO elder, that doesnt count, and you know full well it doesnt count, UNLESS they knew it was false
.

That's not quite true, Twin Fist. I'm not a lawyer, but I know for a fact that as a matter of law, we can bring an action when, in a business deal, someone pretends to know something as true when in fact he or she does not know whether it was true.

According to the law, that is, lying is more than just consciously telling a falsehood; lying is also positively asserting as true something you do not really know. If you’re not sure but you intend the other fellow to swallow your facts and depend upon them, that is fraud.

 

[Twin Fist]

no no, you are wrong again.

Every single intelligence agency in the WORLD had the same data, and came to the same conclusions.

Every leading democrat saw the same data and came to the same conclusion.including Saint Bill.

i can post the quotes if you insist.

truth is alway more important than partisan politics elder. To most people that is. But then again, you refuse to find things out for yourself, preferring to just believe what you hear from second hand sources. You admitted it yourself. I can post that quote too.

 

[Big Don]

As far as Iraq and WMD's are concerned, we KNOW Hussein had them, BECAUSE HE USED THEM, on his own population, on Iraqis, more than once. Part of the cease fire agreement that ended the Gulf War in 92 required that Hussein destroy his stocks of WMD and PROVE IT by allowing inspections. He failed to do so, harried and harrassed the inspectors, etc.
This is not new information and is well known.

 

[Big Don]

Wasn't he the guy who said this?:

Gee, he was in office less than a month...
With Clinton administration holdovers who were too busy trying to keep their jobs than provide accurate intel? For pete's sake, the Clinton administration treated the bombing of our embassies as LAW ENFORCEMENT problems, rather than as ACTS OF WAR.

 

[Twin Fist]

"As far as Iraq and WMD's are concerned, we KNOW Hussein had them, BECAUSE HE USED THEM, on his own population, on Iraqis, more than once. Part of the cease fire agreement that ended the Gulf War in 92 required that Hussein destroy his stocks of WMD and PROVE IT by allowing inspections. He failed to do so, harried and harrassed the inspectors, etc.
This is not new information and is well known."

and apparently much ignored..........

 

[elder999]

Gee, he was in office less than a month...
With Clinton administration holdovers who were too busy trying to keep their jobs than provide accurate intel? For pete's sake, the Clinton administration treated the bombing of our embassies as LAW ENFORCEMENT problems, rather than as ACTS OF WAR.

uhh,.....so what you're saying is that President BuSh got bad intel from the Clinton administration, but it was the same intel that he used to invade Iraq, but that intel was-according to his Secretary of State AND his national security advisor was that:

Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly.
But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt. Condoleezza Rice, CNN, July 29, 2001

so....the intel from Clinton was the bad intel, that said he didn't have WMD or the capability to project force, and the "bad intel" that led to the invasion of Iraq was also from Clinton?

I'll get more serious in a moment, but honestly......:Come sail away, come sail away, come sail away with meee.....!

 

[Twin Fist]

Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...

"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. 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." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002





just stop already Elder. You are on the wrong side of the facts on this subject

 

[elder999]

just stop already Elder. You are on the wrong side of the facts on this subject

Well, no-none of those people-some of whom I know personally-made policy, or took us to war. Moreover, your standard for what constitutes "lying" does not apply.

George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld made prewar statements to Congress that they asserted as true but that they knew either were not true or might not be true. They made these statements with the intent to mislead Congress; these acts are covered under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 371, which makes it a crime to interfere with or impede the war-making powers of Congress.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said in the buildup to war: “We know where the weapons of mass destruction are. They are north, south, east and west.” Rumsfeld did not know. He knew that he was guessing. He did not tell the American people about the doubts that had been raised by his own defense intelligence advisors within the Pentagon. He asserted as true a fact that he had been advised was not at all certain and did so with the purpose to intentionally mislead the American people and Congress.

During this same time frame, Vice President Cheney told audiences without equivocation that Saddam Hussein was renewing his weapons programs. Cheney knew that his sources were uncertain; he did not, however, reveal these uncertainties. Instead, he told the people, intending that Congress hear and be influenced, that the new weapons program was unequivocally true. Mr. Cheney did not tell Congress that he had motives of his own for invading Iraq — that his energy task force had secretly been poring over maps of oil resources in Iraq since early 2001, well before 9/11. He did not, that is, reveal facts that suggest a strong motive for intentional misrepresentation, which is the legal term for lying, and lying to Congress is, again, a crime under Section 371.

Rumsfeld and Cheney are two, and that is enough under Section 371 to prove a conspiracy.

What about the president? In the winter of 2003, he solemnly proclaimed to Congress that he “had not made up his mind” whether to invade Iraq, a statement intended to induce Congress to believe that he would continue to review the facts with them.

But there is substantial evidence that Mr. BuSh had no doubt whatsoever. Nine months earlier, in May 2002, he had ordered the Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare battle plans for the invasion of Iraq. In June, he declared a policy authorizing preemptive war, allowing himself to choose war against any country he considered dangerous. In June/July he shifted $700 million from Afghanistan to operations in Iraq. In July he indicated to the British prime minister that it was only a matter of time until the United States invaded Iraq; his staff even explained to the British that intelligence providing justification for war would be shaped to make the case. In the autumn, he orchestrated a public-relations campaign repeatedly warning Congress against an Iraqi mushroom cloud, although in October the CIA had told him that such an event was unlikely. In October, he told Congress that his facts were sure and that they should rely upon him.

Mr. BuSh had been carefully planning war against Iraq throughout 2002. His denials of any such intention misled Congress into believing that it would be asked to support war only if Saddam Hussein did not cooperate or upon facts yet to be determined. In fact, as the above recitation makes clear, the president’s decision seems to have been made many months before, and nothing Hussein might have done would have changed that decision. The effect of presidential assertions to the contrary was to delude Congress into believing that its opinion mattered and that its war-making powers were still relevant. Unknown to them, congressional intentions had been irrelevant for over a year.

In sum, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, during the course of 2002–2003, spoke and acted in ways that the law considers fraudulent. They were asserting as true facts that they either knew were not true or knew that they did not know the truth thereof. These misrepresentations were intended to, and did, interfere with Congress in the fair performance of its constitutional duty to declare and support war. An indictment, therefore, under 18 USC 371, charging a criminal conspiracy to throw Congress off track, intentionally impeding its rightful function, would appear to have a substantial legal and factual foundation.