The Iraq / war on terror thread

[Booker Floyd]

Bush could nominate Abraham Lincoln and the dems would have criticized him.
What with the Stove Top hat and all.

So Harriet is paraded out.
Like bait .
Dems beat her up, call her a lightweight, Bush puppet, etc.

Bush has her withdraw her name,
If the next nomination met the same resistance,
 the dems look like their just bashing anybody that comes along, and they know it.
So they have to back off, even if its just enough to tilt the scales to confirmation.
All this done right in front of their very eyes.
Genious

Even you can grasp this move

 

This post either exemplifies your dishonesty or your cluelessness.? I honestly cant tell which.

1. It wasnt Democrats who "beat her up" and forced her withdrawal.? The one and only anti-Miers ad was run by a conservative group and her strongest support probably came from the Senate Minority Leader.? Therefore, nothing about this conspiracy theory adds up (not that it makes much sense if it were Democrats' fault - it doesnt).? Democrats didnt say much of anything about Miers.? It was Trent Lott, Pat Buchanan, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, William Kristol, Michelle Malkin, George Will, Ann Coulter, James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, Robert Bork and every Right-Wing special interest group spokesperson that went on TV and radio and expressed their dissatisfaction.? To ignore this and lay blame at the feet of Democrats (name one Democrat that "beat her up") is extremely dishonest.?

2.? You have absolutely nothing on which to base this conspiracy theory, so how can you keep recycling the "conspiracy theory" line, especially when that U.S. propaganda "theory" turned out to be true.? You really just dont know what youre talking about.

[shades]

No, I have an opinion.
Weather or not I know what i am talking about is not going to be judged by the the few liberals on this board.  just as a note I lose little sleep in that regard.

On topic, albeit taken in a different direction by you.
The conservatives that spoke out against HArriet Miers only spoke that she was underqualified, a lightweight.
And the dems had NO opinion publically after their spin machine said shhh. let the conservatives run her off.
had they had any balls or felt as strongly as they should have being it was a SCJ appointment, they would have brought up her many 'shortcomings' in their opinion, on her recorded stances on the issues near and dear to us all.

Which speaks volumes that they so obviously played the spin machine and didnt stand their ground and speak out , because it suited their agenda more to let it take care of itself.

What Bush did, in retrospect was let her bow out, replace her with a stronger candidate, one that stood heads above Miers in experience and strentgh of character. But amazingly parrallel on the issues.
By speaking against him they do nothing more that make people wonder why they didnt point out the same things about Mier, if it was so important.
Are you following this? The swayable base of both parties are studying these details and forming a trust. A man is judged by what he doesnt say sometime more than what he does say. or should we say in this case a combination of the two.
JMO

Its actually brillaint and its working.

[Booker Floyd]

No, I have an opinion.

Yes, and you dont have to know what youre talking about to have one.

The conservatives that spoke out against HArriet Miers only spoke that she was underqualified, a lightweight.

Actually, the furor began only minutes after the announcement of her nomination when it was discovered that she was not onhly a former Democrat, but donated money to Democrats, including Al Gore.? It grew substantially when multiple speech excerpts from the 90s suggested that she wasnt as staunchly pro-life as the Right-Wing wouldve liked.? Her qualifications were a legitimate point of criticism and provided a nice front, but the discomfort began the first night and grew from there, especially in light of those speeches.  Thats why Bush felt it necessary to make it clear that he "knew her heart," and that she was religious.  Its the reason Dick Cheney had to go on Rush Limbaughs show and plead her case.  And It was after that final speech excerpt (uncovered days before she pulled out) that even James Dobson (who pledged to support her after Karl Rove convinced him) turned on her completely.  And if you think James Dobson is really concerned about her technical qualifications, youre very mistaken.

The fact that you omitted mention of the conservative backlash (and replaced it with "Democrat" backlash, which you contradicted yourself? ) proves how shamelessly dishonest you are.

And the dems had NO opinion publically after their spin machine said shhh. let the conservatives run her off.

 

But I thought they "beat her up" until she had to withdraw?

And considering that Democrats didnt come out against her, and he only upset and demoralized his base and embarassed himself, what good did her nomination accomplish?? Therefore this conspiracy theory, for which you have absolutely no evidence or basis for, backfired.

[Prometheus]

Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'


Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

?I don?t give a goddamn,? Bush retorted. ?I?m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.?

?Mr. President,? one aide in the meeting said. ?There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.?

?Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,? Bush screamed back. ?It?s just a goddamned piece of paper!?

I?ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution ?a goddamned piece of paper.?

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that ?goddamned piece of paper? used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the ?Constitution is an outdated document.?

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn?t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn?t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not.  Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine ? in the end ? if something is legal or right.

Every federal official ? including the President ? who takes an oath of office swears to ?uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a ?living document.?

?"Oh, how I hate the phrase we have?a 'living document,?? Scalia says.
?We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean.
The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake.?

As a judge, Scalia says, ?I don't have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else.?

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a ?union between a man and woman.?  Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.

?We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones,? Scalia warns.
?Don't think that it's a one-way street.?

And don?t buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just ?a goddamned piece of paper.?

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

[pilferk]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10414514/site/newsweek/

Intel: Still no connection

Dec. 19, 2005 issue - Evidence validating claims by the Bush administration of a pre-war relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda seems more elusive than ever. Counterterrorism officials familiar with some of the latest assessments of intel collected in Iraq, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitive subject matter, say that the more U.S. analysts pore through raw info, the less evidence they find of any significant connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's terror network.

Following the invasion of Iraq, U.S. operatives collected millions of documents generated by Saddam's regime. An intel unit run by the Pentagon is in charge of analyzing the material?a cache, two leading GOP legislators recently alleged, so voluminous that it will take years to sort through. Last month Sen. Pat Roberts and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees, suggested that one way to process the data more quickly would be for U.S. intelligence agencies to release large quantities of documentation to the public so people with certain skills (such as foreign-language or document-examining expertise) could help intel officials hunt for gems among heaps of slag. Most of the seized Iraqi material is unclassified, but current U.S. intel policy allows only people with security clearances to examine the material, which Roberts and Hoekstra claim "nearly guarantees that exploitation will take decades, if ever, to complete." A spokesman for Hoekstra said the congressman isn't concerned that making Iraqi documents public would either bolster or undermine the administration's arguments for war: "He just wants to know what they say." Judith Emmel, a spokeswoman for John Negroponte, said the intel czar's office was "carefully examining this very important proposal."

?Mark Hosenball

[shades]

Did you guys read Nacy Drew Mystery books when you were little, uh littler.

[Jamie]

Did you guys read Nacy Drew Mystery books when you were little, uh littler.

Why don't you ever adress people's sources, links, or documents? Anytime someone presents something you always asked them did they read some book. What the hell is that about? Just adress the articles and quite inquiring about people's literary tastes.

[shades]

Ill tell you what the hell THAT is all about.

Somebody posts an article claiming, and I quote "one way to process the data more quickly would be for U.S. intelligence agencies to release large quantities of documentation to the public"

And Im suppose to take that seriously.
read what you write before you hit send.
OR it just might be construed for what it is, cartoonish.

Are we talking about war,? pre war intelligence,?
 the ongoing campaign.?

What good does it do, what fuckin good does it do, what are you people getting at.

Is it a witch hunt, is it boredom, WTF.
Hindsight is always 20/20. So what?

"He just wants to know what they say." Judith Emmel, a spokeswoman for John Negroponte, said the intel czar's office was "carefully examining this very important proposal."

?Mark Hosenball"

What is it we will get that will help us in a positive way.

SOMEBODY answer that.....

[pilferk]

SOMEBODY answer that.....

Notice your posts are being met with deafening silence by most of the posters here.

Why do you think that might be?? It certainly AIN'T because of your ability to make a solid point, I assure you.? The contents of your posts over the past few days proves that.? Hypocrisy, bullshit, and misdirection certainly don't manage to do that.

Why should we answer your questions, or engage you in discussion, when you've proven incapable and unwilling to do the same?

There's only one poster here posting things that appear "cartoonish" (unless Walk is around, that is), and it ain't us, Shaggy.

I think most of us are just about done feeding the grumpy old troll(s).

[shades]

no answer I see.

because that question puts your whole banter in lala land.
The liberals are posting articles by someone still questioning the reason for going to war 3 years ago.
And using that to solidify your stance? on what? that you're a whiner? I think were onto something here.
Waaaaa

every point you guys make is based on 'the past'.

Its like watching a bugs bunny cartoon, with Elmer Fudd leading the posse

[pilferk]

no answer I see.

because that question puts your whole banter in lala land.
The liberals are posting articles by someone still questioning the reason for going to war 3 years ago.
And using that to solidify your stance? on what? that you're a whiner? I think were onto something here.
Waaaaa

every point you guys make is based on 'the past'.

Its like watching a bugs bunny cartoon, with Elmer Fudd leading the posse

No shades, no answer for YOU.

Considering an average 3rd grader could connect the dots, I don't think the rest of the "conservative" posters really need or want one.?I don't think you really do, either.  I've no doubt that, if they do, they'll chime in...and get an answer.

And note: You're the one whining for an answer.? Perhaps bugs will share his hole with you.? I hear trolls like holes.

[jarmo]

no answer I see.

because that question puts your whole banter in lala land.
The liberals are posting articles by someone still questioning the reason for going to war 3 years ago.
And using that to solidify your stance? on what? that you're a whiner? I think were onto something here.
Waaaaa

every point you guys make is based on 'the past'.

Its like watching a bugs bunny cartoon, with Elmer Fudd leading the posse

Bye!



/jarmo

[SLCPUNK]

Investment bank sees crude entering a 'super spike' phase

Updated: 12:18 p.m. ET Dec. 13, 2005

LONDON - Oil prices, which hit record levels this summer, have entered a "super spike" phase that could last for four more years as global demand booms and supply growth slows, Goldman Sachs analysts said on Tuesday.

"We disagree with what appears to be a growing consensus that crude oil prices reached their peak levels earlier in 2005," said the firm's Global Investment Research.

The analysts said oil demand remained resilient and supply growth lacklustre, prompting them to keep their average U.S. crude price forecast for next year unchanged at $68 a barrel.

They predicted oil prices could see 1970s-style price surges to as high as $105 a barrel during this period.

"With WTI oil prices on-track to average about $57 a barrel in 2005, we think the past phase will be remembered as the first of what could be a four-to-five-year 'super-spike' phase," their report said.

Goldman Sachs first mentioned a super-spike phase in March, five months before U.S. oil prices skyrocketed to a record $70.85 a barrel. Prices have since eased.

U.S. oil futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange have averaged $56.59 so far this year.

The bank expressed doubt that OPEC producers, which supply a third of the world's crude, would be able to quench booming demand.

"It is the seeming insurmountable challenge of OPEC's needing to add real new capacity on a just-in-time basis that gives us so much confidence that we are in the super-spike phase," it said.

OPEC, which has been pumping at the highest rate for 25 years, is set to boost its spare capacity to 3.1 million bpd by the end of the 2006.

Despite hurricanes, high fuel prices and increased conservation, energy consumption in the United States remains strong, as does China and India, the bank said.

"Ultimately, we agree that the energy bull market will roll over once demand destruction really begins," it said. "We simply do not believe we have arrived at that point."

The International Energy Agency, the West's energy watchdog, estimated world oil demand ould grow at an average of 1.8 million to 2.0 million barrels per day through 2010. Last year's demand growth of 3 million bpd was the highest for a generation.

[Booker Floyd]

Probe Supports Allegations of C.I.A. Prisons in Europe

By KATRIN BENNHOLD
International Herald Tribune
Published: December 13, 2005

PARIS, Dec. 13 - Europe's chief investigator looking into allegations about the existence of secret C.I.A. prisons said today that preliminary evidence suggested that American agents had kidnapped people and illegally transferred them between countries.

Dick Marty, who leads an investigation for the 46-country Council of Europe, sharply criticized the United States as failing to come clean on the allegations, notably during a five-day visit by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Europe last week. But he also said he believed that there was some degree of collaboration from European officials.

In his first written interim report on the issue, Mr. Marty said that his investigation so far had "reinforced the credibility of the allegations concerning the transfer and temporary detention of individuals, without any judicial involvement, in European countries."

His report, which was presented to the Council's Legal Affairs and Human Rights committee in Paris, also said: "Legal proceedings in progress in certain countries seemed to indicate that individuals had been abducted and transferred to other countries without respect for any legal standards."

Mr. Marty's investigation is still in the earliest stages. According to the statement released today, the preliminary report is based primarily on published information, ongoing legal proceedings, talks with some of the non-governmental organizations and individuals involved - including Ms. Rice - and discussions with journalists.

Mr. Marty, a Swiss senator, was appointed by Europe's human rights watchdog to investigate whether the United States had breached the Continent's human rights rules - and whether European governments had turned a blind eye or even allowed such breaches.

The allegations have been circulating since Nov. 2, when The Washington Post said it had evidence of C.I.A. prisons in at least eight countries, including some in Eastern Europe. Human Rights Watch has identified Poland as the C.I.A.'s main base for holding and interrogating terrorist suspects and said Romania was a key transit point for moving detainees. Both countries have denied the charges.

Mr. Marty said he believed that the United States was no longer holding detainees in Europe. He said he believed that prisoners were moved to North Africa after the claims were first published in early November.

Washington and a number of European capitals have also come under pressure to account for dozens of C.I.A. flights on the Continent, some of which are thought to have transported suspects to countries with a track record of torture and cruel treatment.

During last week's visit, Ms. Rice acknowledged that the United States had used "renditions" to move terrorist suspects to third countries to be "questioned, held or brought to justice," but, she insisted, only with the permission of the governments of the countries where the suspects were captured. She also said that all American personnel - including the C.I.A. - were subject to the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

But she did not confirm or deny the reports on the secret detention centers, a point Mr. Marty criticized in a statement today.

The investigator said he "deplores the fact that no information or explanation had been provided on this point by Ms. Rice during her visit to Europe."

The State Department declined to comment on Mr. Marty's report. A spokesman, Justin Higgins, said Ms. Rice had "said all she plans to say on this matter for right now."

Mr. Marty also said he suspected that European secret services knew about the alleged C.I.A. transfers.

"I think it would have been difficult for these actions to have taken place without a degree of collaboration," he said, although he added, "It is possible that secret services did not inform their governments."

At least eight European Union member states, many of which launched their own investigations, demanded a clarification from the United States last month. Many decided to accept Ms. Rice's response for now. But until Mr. Marty publishes his final conclusions, officials say, the issue will not go away.

"We were given assurances by the Americans, and we don't have the intention to demand more," said a French diplomat, who in accordance with French practice spoke on condition of anonymity. "But we'll see what the Council of Europe investigation finds out."

Mr. Marty announced today that the Council of Europe's Legal and Human Rights Committee would next debate the issue at the end of January.

[Booker Floyd]

New Army Rules May Snarl Talks With McCain on Detainee Issue

By ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 - The Army has approved a new, classified set of interrogation methods that may complicate negotiations over legislation proposed by Senator John McCain to bar cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees in American custody, military officials said Tuesday.

The techniques are included in a 10-page classified addendum to a new Army field manual that was forwarded this week to Stephen A. Cambone, the under secretary of defense for intelligence policy, for final approval, they said.

The addendum provides dozens of examples and goes into exacting detail on what procedures may or may not be used, and in what circumstances. Army interrogators have never had a set of such specific guidelines that would help teach them how to walk right up to the line between legal and illegal interrogations.

Some military officials said the new guidelines could give the impression that the Army was pushing the limits on legal interrogation at the very moment when Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, is involved in intense three-way negotiations with the House and the Bush administration to prohibit the cruel treatment of prisoners.

In a high-level meeting at the Pentagon on Tuesday, some Army and other Pentagon officials raised concerns that Mr. McCain would be furious at what could appear to be a back-door effort to circumvent his intentions.

"This is a stick in McCain's eye," one official said. "It goes right up to the edge. He's not going to be comfortable with this."

Army officials said the manual required interrogators to comply with the Geneva Conventions, which give broad protections to prisoners of war against coercion, threats or harsh treatment of any kind.

But they declined to give examples of specific interrogation techniques that the addendum authorizes, or the conditions for their use, saying they wanted to prevent captives from learning how to thwart them.

The Bush administration has held that many captives in the campaign against terrorism are not entitled to the same protections as prisoners of war.

Mr. McCain's measure, which the Senate has overwhelmingly approved, would require that only interrogation techniques authorized by the new Army field manual be used on prisoners held by the military.

Mark Salter, Mr. McCain's chief of staff, said that the Army and Pentagon had not briefed his boss or other aides on the contents of the manual or its addendum.

He warned that if the interrogation techniques in the addendum were overly aggressive, they could complicate the talks Mr. McCain continued on Tuesday with Stephen J. Hadley, President Bush's national security adviser.

"This is politically obtuse and damaging," Mr. Salter said in a telephone interview. "The Pentagon hasn't done one molecule of political due diligence on this."

Larry Di Rita, the Defense Department spokesman, said Pentagon officials had not yet told Mr. Hadley about the contents of the classified addendum and any political implications it might pose to discussions with Mr. McCain. Mr. Di Rita said the Pentagon meeting on Tuesday was simply to review the status of the field manual and related detention policies.

"The field manual is not finished," he said. "We're mindful of the negotiations going on with the White House and Congressional committees on Senator McCain's language."

The officials who described the manual, the meeting on Tuesday and its implications for the negotiations were granted anonymity so they could speak candidly about a sensitive internal debate that involves classified information.

One Army officer expressed exasperation that senior military and civilian officials were failing to articulate a coherent approach toward interrogation, saying much of the confusion centered on disparate definitions of abuse.

"Everybody's talking past each other on this," the officer said. " 'Cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment' is at the crux of the problem, but we've never defined that."

The new manual, the first revision in 13 years, will specifically prohibit practices like stripping prisoners, keeping them in stressful positions for a long time, imposing dietary restrictions, employing police dogs to intimidate prisoners and using sleep deprivation as a tool to get them to talk, Army officials said. In that regard, it imposes new restrictions on what interrogators are allowed to do.

Those practices were not included in the manual in use when most of the abuses occurred at Abu Ghraib in Iraq in the fall of 2003, but neither were they specifically banned.

Army officials said that barring any last-minute problems, they expected the manual to be issued this month.

On Capitol Hill, negotiations intensified Tuesday between Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who heads the Armed Services Committee, and his counterpart in the House, Representative Duncan Hunter, a California Republican.

The two lawmakers are working with the White House and Mr. McCain to resolve differences on his provision, the last major issue holding up passage of the annual military budget and policy bill.

Mr. Warner, who strongly supports the provision, expressed confidence that House and Senate negotiators could approve the conference report within 48 hours.

It was unclear, however, how far the House was willing to go to back White House efforts to alter Mr. McCain's language. The speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, met Tuesday with Vice President Dick Cheney but details of their talks could not be learned.

Mr. Cheney strongly opposes Mr. McCain's measure and unsuccessfully sought to have the Central Intelligence Agency exempted from its restrictions.

Also on Tuesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a speech to the Heritage Foundation, tried to recalibrate her position on the treatment of terrorism suspects in American detention, saying the administration was willing to do anything legal to prevent a terrorist attack.

During her trip through Europe, she made several statements about the administration's policy on torture, culminating with one in Kiev Wednesday when she said the United States prohibits "cruel and inhumane and degrading treatment" of suspects, "whether they are in the United States or outside of the United States."

She reiterated that in a truncated form on Tuesday but added that "we should be prepared to do anything that is legal to prevent another terrorist attack."

The statement in Kiev, which went a long way to placating skeptical Europeans, was based on policy, not legality. So her statement Tuesday could be seen as an effort to scale back from her remarks last week. But some officials dismissed any suggestion of major policy shifts.

"Do not read this in a tortured, convoluted and contrived way," a senior State Department official said.

Joel Brinkley contributed reporting for this article.

[jarmo]

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=24304.0

Locked at least until the end of the year.



/jarmo