Forged evidence

[St_Hereticus]

A prominent Democratic congressman wants Condoleeza Rice to explain one thing: why Bush used forged evidence (http://www.tompain.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8069) to push the Iraq war.


Condi, you got some 'splainin' to do!

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by St_Hereticus
A prominent Democratic congressman wants Condoleeza Rice to explain one thing: why Bush used forged evidence (http://www.tompain.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8069) to push the Iraq war.


Condi, you got some 'splainin' to do!

This might be an opportune time for folks in the Bush administration to get an old fashioned case of Reagan amnesia.

[St_Hereticus]

Originally posted by KelvinG


This might be an opportune time for folks in the Bush administration to get an old fashioned case of Reagan amnesia.

Yeah, a bit of the old "plausible deniability"!

If the left doesn't take this ball and run with it, they don't deserve to be in the game at all.

[corplinx]

Nothing like a Henry Waxman political attack posted on tompaine.com.


In case no one remembers, this issue was gone over back when it turned out the document was forged. At the timeof the state of the union, there were intelligence people who thought the document may not be genuine. However, it was not proven to be a forgery until later on.

Leave it to Henry Waxman to beat a dead horse. He is the most annoying congressman I know of.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by corplinx

Leave it to Henry Waxman to beat a dead horse. He is the most annoying congressman I know of.

His letter is timely and apropos. Congress backed Bush on the war with the belief that Bush was honorable, and knew what he was doing. I.E. they gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Now is it time for Bush et al to pay the piper. Although I personally believed that they were a bunch of rabid liars at the time, there were many who took the prez, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell etc. at their word. The time has come for them to answer for their statements and stop backpedaling, squirming, and generally sticking their collective head in the sand.

[Crossbow]

As much as I would like to see Bush and Co. pay the piper, I really doubt that such a thing will happen.

Anyone remember the vast amount of Contra support that was provided by the Regan Administration in spite of the Congress not wanting this aid to be provided? And when it finally was shown that there was actual illegal things occuring, the Congress backed off of doing anything substantive.

Go figure!

[Landis]

Henry Waxman is a Congressman of the United States. Regardless of where the letter was posted, it is a letter addressed to Condi Rice addressing the credibility of the President of the United States.

Why do the rabbid bushites try to cover up his lies, when they were so adamant about impeaching Clinton over lying about a BJ in the whitehouse?

Surely, a President knowingly using false information (lying) in addressing the US Congress and the Nation in order to lead us into a war is far more serious than anything Clinton did. It could even be an impeachable offense. Why is there not a full scale investigation complete with a Special Prosecutor?

[DavidJames]

For some reason, which I can't explain, this country will put up with this kind of activity (Contras/Arms for Hostages/forged intelligence reports), but the "moral outrage" was deafening when Clinton cheated on his wife.

Perhaps I'm a cynic, but maybe it's because the other issues, while truly significant are also complex and more importantly not very photogenic. Sex in the White House is easy for people to understand, they don't need to do a lot of reading and thinking. The issue can be kept alive simply by trotting out pictures of Clinton hugging Monica.

Or even more cynical, maybe the Repubs are much better at going for the kill when they see blood.

[Crossbow]

True enough!

Just about everyone can name at least one presidental intern: Monica Lewinsky!

But how many can name two or more? I cannot and doubt that there are many who can.

Anyway, I think what it all gets down to is if Americans are involved with the problem. If the last Gulf War involved thousands or hundreds of American deaths and went on for months and months, then I expect that there would be some outrage. But the fact is that the war went much better than anyone expected, so the outrage has not really materialized.

[DavidJames]

"If the last Gulf War involved thousands or hundreds of American deaths and went on for months and months, then I expect that there would be some outrage. But the fact is that the war went much better than anyone expected, so the outrage has not really materialized."

I agree completely. We love winners, finishing 2nd is worse then never competing. As long as we pick on countries we can easily defeat, I'm afraid the war/re-election machine will continue.

[St_Hereticus]

I'd also like to point out that after the first Gulf War people were saying "Why didn't we go ahead and take out Saddam while we had the chance?" So when Gulf War II came along, everyone was saying "Alright! It's about time we finished what Bush Sr. started!" In fact, I'm beginning to think that maybe they purposely left Saddam in power so as to give them an excuse , down the road, to go in and finish the job, knowing well ahead of time that they'd want to go in for the oil (or whatever it was they went in for).