A Felon in the White House?

is it a felony to knowingly lie the country into war?Who did that?

Colin Powell: In 2004 and 2005 Colin Powell acknowledged that much of his 2003 UN presentation was inaccurate: "I looked at the four [sources] that [the CIA] gave me for [the mobile bio-labs], and they stood behind them, ... Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid. At the time I was preparing the presentation, it was presented to me as being solid.[11] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-ABC-10) April 3, 2004
I feel terrible ... [giving the speech] ... It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now.[12] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-FamousPictures-11) 2005"
“I looked at the four [sources] that [the CIA] gave me for [the mobile bio-labs], and they stood behind them, ... Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid. At the time I was preparing the presentation, it was presented to me as being solid.[11] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-ABC-10) April 3, 2004 I feel terrible ... [giving the speech] ... It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now.[12] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-FamousPictures-11) 2005


Hillary Clinton: "Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

John Kerry: Sept. 2004: “We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today," Kerry said Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, I would not have gone to war. That's plain and simple."

But on Aug. 9, 2004, when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.” Speaking to reporters at the edge of the Grand Canyon, he added: “[Although] I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."

In May 2003, at the first Democratic primary debate, John Kerry said his vote authorizing the president to use force was the “right decision” though he would have “preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity.”

Jay Rockefeller (Chair of Senate Intel Committee): On October 10, 2002, he said, "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Nuclear_weapon) and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years... The global community – in the form of the United Nations (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/United_Nations) – has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late... Saddam Hussein represents a grave threat to the United States, and I have concluded we must use force to deal with him if all other means fail."[5] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-autogenerated1-4)

Head of CIA at the time of Iraq War Resolution: George Tenent, a Clinton hold-over.

This is about the Obama Admin. not something that happened 7-8 years ago. What's the name of the that left wacko group we always used to hear about, oh yeah....moveon.org

Who did that?

Colin Powell: In 2004 and 2005 Colin Powell acknowledged that much of his 2003 UN presentation was inaccurate: "I looked at the four [sources] that [the CIA] gave me for [the mobile bio-labs], and they stood behind them, ... Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid. At the time I was preparing the presentation, it was presented to me as being solid.[11] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-ABC-10) April 3, 2004
I feel terrible ... [giving the speech] ... It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now.[12] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-FamousPictures-11) 2005"
“I looked at the four [sources] that [the CIA] gave me for [the mobile bio-labs], and they stood behind them, ... Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid. At the time I was preparing the presentation, it was presented to me as being solid.[11] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-ABC-10) April 3, 2004 I feel terrible ... [giving the speech] ... It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now.[12] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-FamousPictures-11) 2005


Hillary Clinton: "Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

John Kerry: Sept. 2004: “We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today," Kerry said Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, I would not have gone to war. That's plain and simple."

But on Aug. 9, 2004, when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.” Speaking to reporters at the edge of the Grand Canyon, he added: “[Although] I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."

In May 2003, at the first Democratic primary debate, John Kerry said his vote authorizing the president to use force was the “right decision” though he would have “preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity.”

Jay Rockefeller (Chair of Senate Intel Committee): On October 10, 2002, he said, "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Nuclear_weapon) and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years... The global community – in the form of the United Nations (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/United_Nations) – has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late... Saddam Hussein represents a grave threat to the United States, and I have concluded we must use force to deal with him if all other means fail."[5] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-autogenerated1-4)

Head of CIA at the time of Iraq War Resolution: George Tenent, a Clinton hold-over.

This is about the Obama Admin. not something that happened 7-8 years ago. What's the name of the that left wacko group we always used to hear about, oh yeah....moveon.org



why do you hate America?

why do you hate America?
+1 credibility point for you.

+1 credibility point for you.


thanks!

but seriously, you're reply was well researched and i realize that all of the ills of govt are the fault of both parties. do i prefer Obama's approach/philosophy, etc over Bush? sure. but no sense in arguing back in forth on a message board. we're not gonna change each other's mind.

so my "lie into war" was perhaps off topic or flippant.... but really. "everybody does it" and "technically this wasn't illegal or provable as such" is the defense for all this crap on both sides.

thanks!

but seriously, you're reply was well researched and i realize that all of the ills of govt are the fault of both parties. do i prefer Obama's approach/philosophy, etc over Bush? sure. but no sense in arguing back in forth on a message board. we're not gonna change each other's mind.

so my "lie into war" was perhaps off topic or flippant.... but really. "everybody does it" and "technically this wasn't illegal or provable as such" is the defense for all this crap on both sides.

I hope the tea party wins and cut taxes some more.

thanks!

but seriously, you're reply was well researched and i realize that all of the ills of govt are the fault of both parties. do i prefer Obama's approach/philosophy, etc over Bush? sure. but no sense in arguing back in forth on a message board. we're not gonna change each other's mind. But it beats talking about who AH is making babies with :)

so my "lie into war" was perhaps off topic or flippant.... but really. "everybody does it" and "technically this wasn't illegal or provable as such" is the defense for all this crap on both sides.These accusations against Obama are going nowhere anyway. As you mentioned, there isn't going to be enough evidence, the Justice Dept. isn't going forward with it, and even if they did there's no way Obama gets prosecuted or impeached over it.

The Rs are just doing their job positioning for Nov. 2010. The Ds will argue back and the fun continues......meanwhile the debt clock keeps spinning, our kids/family members/friends are still sitting targets in Iraq/Afghanistan, and oil keeps floating around the Gulf destroying livelihoods and the ecosystem.

You're talking to someone who ignored a LOT to put this man into office...I don't think you'll get through now. Besides, he recommends we should "try looking things up sometimes"...he has to know what he's talking about. Facts just get in his way because he KNOWS he is right. His mother told him so.

now that is funny

But it beats talking about who AH is making babies with :)

These accusations against Obama are going nowhere anyway. As you mentioned, there isn't going to be enough evidence, the Justice Dept. isn't going forward with it, and even if they did there's no way Obama gets prosecuted or impeached over it.

The Rs are just doing their job positioning for Nov. 2010. The Ds will argue back and the fun continues......meanwhile the debt clock keeps spinning, our kids/family members/friends are still sitting targets in Iraq/Afghanistan, and oil keeps floating around the Gulf destroying livelihoods and the ecosystem.

Well seeing as the TEA party is gonna win and sweep everything in November, they are gonna use that supeana power, best believe.

But it beats talking about who AH is making babies with :)

These accusations against Obama are going nowhere anyway. As you mentioned, there isn't going to be enough evidence, the Justice Dept. isn't going forward with it, and even if they did there's no way Obama gets prosecuted or impeached over it.

The Rs are just doing their job positioning for Nov. 2010. The Ds will argue back and the fun continues......meanwhile the debt clock keeps spinning, our kids/family members/friends are still sitting targets in Iraq/Afghanistan, and oil keeps floating around the Gulf destroying livelihoods and the ecosystem.



concur on both counts. just a game. i spent 8 years complaining about Bush and the responses were some form of "STFU and love your country" and/or "nothing to see here, move right along." of course, on Jan 20, 2009, we just had to move on and never look back (a sentiment shared by the current President as well). the funny thing is that, if the govt elites are NEVER held responsible for lawbreaking (torture, illegal spying, etc) well then this notion "let's just make sure it will never happen again" is foolish. it WILL happen again. and all future administrations will engage in bribery and secrecy or whatever the next scandal of the day is... because they know they are above the law and will never be held accountable.

concur on both counts. just a game. i spent 8 years complaining about Bush and the responses were some form of "STFU and love your country" and/or "nothing to see here, move right along." I don't go on other message boards, but from what I've heard they can get pretty bad. Fortunately here, while there are a few who may have responded that way, they are in the minority. Even with the political stuff, as I'm sure you've seen so far, folks here may swipe at each other but everything stays civil and at the end of the day we're all Skins fans.

all future administrations will engage in bribery and secrecy or whatever the next scandal of the day is... because they know they are above the law and will never be held accountable.100% agree, until more regular folks like us wake up in large numbers the status quo won't change.