News John Bolton Lied to Congress: UN Ambassador Appointment?

[pattylou]

Biden the plagiarist claims that Bolton lied ...but in fact biden is misrepresenting the question that was asked...let's for the sake of argument assume that Biden, based on his history of being a plagiarist isn't a reliable source and trying finding a more reliable one.

He had broad support on the left, not neccesarily on the right. Powell...also is the person who reported to the U.N. about Iraq's WMD's..according to your "historical persepective" was he just a fool and a pawn..or a slimey liar and a crook?

(I haven't heard about this before so please forgive me) Biden a plagiarist... meaning that he claimed someone else's word for his own... I'll grant that plagiarism drives me up the wall but how exactly does it nullify the claim that Bolton lied? (A reference could get me started on this ... Thanks!)

Regarding my view on Powell - My opinion as to whether he was a pawn or a liar is not really germane to the discussion but I'll bite. In my opinion, he was more on the pawn side than on the liar side. Let's be clear about something: We didn'tknow one way or the other about WMD before 2003. None of us. Including Bush and Powell. We (most of us) each formed an opinion based on available evidence.

THe distinction between Powell and Bush is that Powell urged caution and Bush urged pre-emption.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,602905,00.html

This is why the "left" thought Powell was a good man. In fact, had Bush been more cautious, our country could have united behind him.

So it isn't a question of Powell being a pawn, and Rice (for example, or Bolton or Bush or Rumsfeld or Rove or Cheney or ...) being a liar. It's a question of all of them being unsure, with the whole rest of the country right there with them, and Powell saying "Let's be cautious" and everyone else in those circles saying "Let's not be cautious."

When the chips fell the wrong way, Powell resigned. Powell had been wise in suggesting caution. And guess who stayed on, insisting that pre-emption was "still the right thing to do."

I trust the nuances of these events aren't too subtle. I trust you can see that "pawn" and "liar" are a bit limited in their descriptions for the people involved. "Unsure" fits all of them, and it was the way they suggested dealing with those uncertainties that distinguished them.

Hell, if Bush would ever even just own up to Iraq being a colossal mess, instead of promoting it time and again, I'd be a lot less hard on him! The whole left would! We all understand that the situation requires a united country. We simply can't unite behind someone who behaves like a child, taking all the toys for himself, not admitting to his mistakes, and spending all the family's income. Et cetera.

What do you think will happen, now that the people surrounding Bush are all "yes men," and Iran is re-starting nuclear activities?

Think about the ramifications of a conflict with Iran. Think about it in terms of how hard Iraq has been. I'd say there isn't much of a prayer of us *not* going into Iran if Bush wants to. Ironically, it may be Iraq that keeps us from it, as we are so depletred now, and the senate opposes a lot of bush's controversial moves this time around.

I see I am beginning to meander - actually some time ago now. Sorry about that.

 

[Gokul43201]

Had to happen, didn't it ?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/01/bolton.appointment/index.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Bush reminds me of Billy Mummy in the Twilight Zone.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Bush reminds me of Billy Mummy in the Twilight Zone.

I remember the first one when it came out.

Let's hope we don't have to wait for the same number of sequels to see a Forest Whitaker reversal.

 

[kat]

(I haven't heard about this before so please forgive me) Biden a plagiarist... meaning that he claimed someone else's word for his own... I'll grant that plagiarism drives me up the wall but how exactly does it nullify the claim that Bolton lied? (A reference could get me started on this ... Thanks!)

Biden was seeking the Democratic Presidential Nomination in 1987 and was accused of plagiarizing parts of speeches and interviews from Neil Kinnock. It ruined his chances of gaining the nomination. This wasn't the first time Biden had run into problems of this type he had also plagiarized old campaign speeches of Robert Kennedy and lied about his academic record. He had failed a class in law school due to plagarizing a legal article. It's relevant if you're basing your accusation against Bolton upon Biden's statements as he's...erm damaged goods IMO.

Regarding my view on Powell - My opinion as to whether he was a pawn or a liar is not really germane to the discussion but I'll bite. In my opinion, he was more on the pawn side than on the liar side. Let's be clear about something: We didn'tknow one way or the other about WMD before 2003. None of us. Including Bush and Powell. We (most of us) each formed an opinion based on available evidence.

THe distinction between Powell and Bush is that Powell urged caution and Bush urged pre-emption.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,602905,00.html

This is why the "left" thought Powell was a good man. In fact, had Bush been more cautious, our country could have united behind him.

Based upon the Duelfer report and the U.N's own reports prior to invasion, it's quite likely (many believe it's a certainty) that Bush's cautionary approach gave the Iraqi's time to move WMD and/or weaponry out of Iraq much as he did during the 1st golf war by moving planes and equipment into Iran. Also, Powells public stance did a lot to undermine President Bush. He also would have had to have known any issues with the Uranium report he spoke of at the U.N.

Hell, if Bush would ever even just own up to Iraq being a colossal mess, instead of promoting it time and again, I'd be a lot less hard on him! The whole left would! We all understand that the situation requires a united country. We simply can't unite behind someone who behaves like a child, taking all the toys for himself, not admitting to his mistakes, and spending all the family's income. Et cetera.

Riight, and undermine and endanger all of the servicemen that are over there risking their lives and bying into the leftist agenda of Anti-Americanism that's so prevelant on these forums. [/QUOTE]

What do you think will happen, now that the people surrounding Bush are all "yes men," and Iran is re-starting nuclear activities?

Think about the ramifications of a conflict with Iran. Think about it in terms of how hard Iraq has been. I'd say there isn't much of a prayer of us *not* going into Iran if Bush wants to. Ironically, it may be Iraq that keeps us from it, as we are so depletred now, and the senate opposes a lot of bush's controversial moves this time around.

Interestingly enough it's France that's now yelling the loudest about something being done with Iran. I don't foresee Bush attacking Iran. I think your blabbering hysterical nonsense. One of the biggest problems with Iraq has been the undermining of the hard work of our men and women over there by a leftist media with an anti-american agenda and people like you.
To use a similar statement that the leftist nutwings on this forum use...I know you're all going to attack me now for telling the truth but...*shrug* what can one do but be honest.

 

[kat]

In the meantime, as a secular woman in the U.S., I am fighting to retain my rights against the Christians who would LOVE for me to be back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

Oh please, spare us the hyperbole.

 

[Antiphon]

I'm not meaning to be insulting, but I have researched Bush, his life, etc. as posted in the thread about him and his many lies (I assume you have read it) and in view of these things he is a great embarrassment (a kinder word than fascist traitor).

I'm talking about your insulting me, not Bush! I do quite "know better."
At least its to your credit that you won't call Mr. Bush a horrible thing like
facist traitor. The people who do cheapen the grave import of those
words and they won't have any power against the real thing should it
ever arise. Crying wolf helps no one.

I also have posted quotes form reliable sources regarding the Food for Oil scandal. I agree leaders of other countries have a "get a piece of the action" attitude, which is unacceptable. However, this scandal has gone on with U.S. knowledge, and the U.S. itself sets very bad examples--for example Halliburton. Perhaps you should research these things (with some objectivity?), because I already have.

Halliburton is a fine corporation. But hey- the Democrat party needs
boogey-men so why not Halliburton?

In the meantime, as a secular woman in the U.S., I am fighting to retain my rights against the Christians who would LOVE for me to be back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

Er- people can't be secular, only institutions can.

And please don't flatter yourself by thinking that a Christian man
would ever want to corral someone who is as opposed to their value
system as you seem to be. The woman responsible for the critically
important tasks of child rearing and homemaking is chosen with great
care, and Women of the Left need not apply for the position.

 

[BobG]

Based upon the Duelfer report and the U.N's own reports prior to invasion, it's quite likely (many believe it's a certainty) that Bush's cautionary approach gave the Iraqi's time to move WMD and/or weaponry out of Iraq much as he did during the 1st golf war by moving planes and equipment into Iran. Also, Powells public stance did a lot to undermine President Bush. He also would have had to have known any issues with the Uranium report he spoke of at the U.N.

I would say Bush's cautionary approach made it possible that Iraq would try to move its WMD - a move that would have improved the chances of detection (it might be an overstatement to say movement would make detection likely, let alone guaranteed).

Considering inspectors were unable to find evidence while they were there, considering movement of WMD wasn't detected, and considering no evidence was left behind this possible move, I think a more realistic statement would be "it's possible" that Iraq had weapons and moved them (more realistic still might be "it's not totally impossible that weapons existed and were moved").

Saying it's "quite likely" or "a certainty" would be a gross overstatement of the likelihood. You can start from a position that it would be logical for Hussein to accumulate WMD and work from there, but eventually, there has to be some evidence somewhere down the line or accept it might be just as logical (and easier) to eliminate the WMD, but make sure no one could actually verify all of them had been destroyed (have to keep Iran honest, you know).

 

[2CentsWorth]

Based upon the Duelfer report and the U.N's own reports prior to invasion, it's quite likely (many believe it's a certainty) that Bush's cautionary approach gave the Iraqi's time to move WMD and/or weaponry out of Iraq much as he did during the 1st golf war by moving planes and equipment into Iran. Also, Powells public stance did a lot to undermine President Bush. He also would have had to have known any issues with the Uranium report he spoke of at the U.N.

Please provide evidence of this. There have been in depth analysis of this 'conspiracy theory,' and the consensus time and again is that this could not have happened without our knowledge. Talk about hyperbole.

 

[vanesch]

And please don't flatter yourself by thinking that a Christian man
would ever want to corral someone who is as opposed to their value
system as you seem to be. The woman responsible for the critically
important tasks of child rearing and homemaking is chosen with great
care, and Women of the Left need not apply for the position.

I'm literally rolling on the floor laughing

 

[vanesch]

Based upon the Duelfer report and the U.N's own reports prior to invasion, it's quite likely (many believe it's a certainty) that Bush's cautionary approach gave the Iraqi's time to move WMD and/or weaponry out of Iraq much as he did during the 1st golf war by moving planes and equipment into Iran.

This is entirely correct, they had time to move their non-existent WMD. In fact, 10 seconds are sufficient to move non-existent weapons to another planet.

However, let us assume for a second that those WMD WERE moved (to Syria, or to Iran ?). If those WMD were sufficient to invade Iraq, that means that they are STILL sufficient to invade Syria or Iran, isn't it ? You're not going to stop half-way, aren't you ? So why not invade Syria and Iran ? After all, they are not really democracies either, they have at least as many links to terrorism as Iraq does, so all reasons given for the Iraqi invasion are more than valid to invade Syria and Iran. And now they have almost for sure the WMD Iraq had. So what stops you ?

Interestingly enough it's France that's now yelling the loudest about something being done with Iran. I don't foresee Bush attacking Iran.

Oops, that'll be a big disappointment. I thought that the show would go on. What's happening ?

 

[pattylou]

Women of the left

I agree with Vanesch about the entire quote, and this phrase cracks me up more than even my membership in the "Brotherhood of the Prius."

Kat - I may get back to you later but have been "doing battle" on another political board all day and don't have time for a drawn out discussions here as well. It appears we disagree and as I have no particular axe to grind with you, I'm happy to leave it at that. If you would prefer a response, say the word and I'll get to it later.

 

[Archon]

Riight, and undermine and endanger all of the servicemen that are over there risking their lives and bying into the leftist agenda of Anti-Americanism that's so prevelant on these forums.

First, I'm going to assume you don't mean that the servicemen are buying into this so-called "leftist agenda of Anti-Americanism." Anyway, you seem to have missed something rather important: by refusing to admit his mistakes, Bush is dividing the country during a time when unity is more important than ever before. This division is certainly a more significant result of his denial than the protection of the troops. Incidentally, how will Bush's open acceptance of reality harm the troops?

Interestingly enough it's France that's now yelling the loudest about something being done with Iran. I don't foresee Bush attacking Iran. I think your blabbering hysterical nonsense. One of the biggest problems with Iraq has been the undermining of the hard work of our men and women over there by a leftist media with an anti-american agenda and people like you.
To use a similar statement that the leftist nutwings on this forum use...I know you're all going to attack me now for telling the truth but...*shrug* what can one do but be honest.

The battle-cry of the far right: Freedom for all! Freedom of speech for all! But don't say anything anti-American, or else!

If anything, it seems pattylou was expressing worry over the possibility that our country will be forced into another (more) dangerous conflict, at great cost to everyone involved. This hardly seems anti-American to me. Nor does the invasion in question seem particularly far-fetched, considering our illustrious president's recent history.

 

[SOS2008]

...I think your blabbering hysterical nonsense.

Oh please, spare us the hyperbole.

You make friends wherever you go, huh?

Originally Posted by Antiphon
And please don't flatter yourself by thinking that a Christian man
would ever want to corral someone who is as opposed to their value
system as you seem to be. The woman responsible for the critically
important tasks of child rearing and homemaking is chosen with great
care, and Women of the Left need not apply for the position.

I'm literally rolling on the floor laughing

I agree with Vanesch about the entire quote, and this phrase cracks me up more than even my membership in the "Brotherhood of the Prius."

While Christians are working hard to prevent women from obtaining birth control, if this is hyperbole, at least it has brought the radical-righteous out for all to view.

Regarding WMD, kat is right that many people believe these were moved, per my earlier point on this and continuing connection between 9-11 terrorism and Iraq. And as long as these beliefs persist, of course there will be support for all the things Bush does, including nominating/promoting creeps like Bolton. Maybe it is pro-Bush pride, but it is a disturbing phenomenon in this country.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I remember the first one when it came out.

He played an evil child who possesed the power to do anything he wishes. He holds an entire town hostage and subjects the good people to the horror of his childish whims. The only missing element was the oil demon secretly directing his actions.

 

[edward]

Halliburton is a fine corporation. But hey- the Democrat party needs
boogey-men so why not Halliburton?

Then why is it when I google the term "Halliburton scandal", I get 202,000 hits??

 

[The Smoking Man]

He played an evil child who possesed the power to do anything he wishes. He holds an entire town hostage and subjects the good people to the horror of his childish whims. The only missing element was the oil demon secretly directing his actions.

Did you see the sequel though when his daughter exhibits the same skillsreleased just last year? It was pretty cool watching an exerpt from the original with Billy as a kid and then seeing him again as an adult in the colour version 30 years later.

I swear, I am feeling more and more like the townsfolk. (er? 'Coalition of the Willing'?)

 

[The Smoking Man]

Then why is it when I google the term "Halliburton scandal", I get 202,000 hits??

That's 'cuz there are 202,000 liberals with computers?

I especially liked this story:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040705&s=ireland

The Securities and Exchange Commission has finally opened a formal investigation into allegations that Halliburton (in partnership with French petro-engineering company Technip) funneled $180 million into a slush fund to pay bribes in the construction of a $6 billion Nigerian gas refinery--a scandal that French authorities have been probing for a year (for background, see Doug Ireland, "Will the French Indict Cheney?" December 29, 2003).

The energy conglomerate formerly headed by Dick Cheney disclosed the SEC probe (as it was required to do by law for any legal action potentially affecting the company's stock) on June 11. The timing of the disclosure was no accident--it was a Friday, the last day of the interminable Reagan funeral ceremonies, and Wall Street was thus closed. The national press corps focused on little else but the burial, so the SEC investigation got scant attention in the weekend papers (even the New York Times ran only a brief AP dispatch on its website).

Although the US media have shown little interest in the story, the investigation of the Halliburton Nigeria scandal by France's most celebrated investigating magistrate, Judge Renaud Van Ruymbeke, has continued making headlines in Paris--where the latest revelations bring the scandal right to the front door of Halliburton's Houston headquarters.

Maybe we can run a contest for the most interesting 'Halliburton Hypocritical Henous Crime'.

I must say that I am torn between the Burma Pipeline Slavery Deal and the selling of Neutron Pulse Generators to Libya's nuclear program for which they received a $300 odd million fine.

What is your favorite?

 

[Informal Logic]

I see I am beginning to meander - actually some time ago now. Sorry about that.

I think you make several good points, in particular: "The distinction between Powell and Bush is that Powell urged caution and Bush urged pre-emption."

Er- people can't be secular, only institutions can.

This refers to a philosophy that people hold. From Wikipedia:

Secular humanism is a philosophy that holds a naturalistic worldview and advocates the use of reason, compassion, scientific inquiry, ethics, justice and equality. ...Secular humanism has appeal to atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, rationalists, skeptics, and materialists. Its basic tenets may be simplified as:

* Humans have value and can solve human problems
* Science, free speech, rational thought, democracy, and freedom in the arts go together
* There is nothing supernatural

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

 

[solutions in a box]

Maybe we can run a contest for the most interesting 'Halliburton Hypocritical Henous Crime'.

I must say that I am torn between the Burma Pipeline Slavery Deal and the selling of Neutron Pulse Generators to Libya's nuclear program for which they received a $300 odd million fine.

What is your favorite?

The one most intersting to me was when, Halliburton, Unocal and Enron brought leaders of the Taliban to Houston Texas in 2000. The companies wanted to build a piple line Across Afghanistan. The Taliban declined.
Maybe it was the Texas pork barbecue that soured the deal.

As for Bolton, he will go down in history as just one of the many players in the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people.

 

[edward]

As for Bolton, he will go down in history as just one of the many players in the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people.

You are referring to the little preplanned war in Iraq I presume. The link below indicates just how deeply the U.S. Department of Energy has looked into the oil in Iraq.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html

It is more than coincidence that the planning for the invasion of Iraq began almost concurrently with Iraq's signing of huge oil contracts with; France, Germany and Russia.

 

[kat]

Please provide evidence of this. There have been in depth analysis of this 'conspiracy theory,' and the consensus time and again is that this could not have happened without our knowledge. Talk about hyperbole.

Uhhh...evidence of what? what the Duelfer report says or what some people think? You could try reading the Duelfer report...

 

[kat]

First, I'm going to assume you don't mean that the servicemen are buying into this so-called "leftist agenda of Anti-Americanism.", you seem to have missed something rather important: by refusing to admit his mistakes, Bush is dividing the country during a time when unity is more important than ever before. This division is certainly a more significant result of his denial than the protection of the troops. Incidentally, how will Bush's open acceptance of reality harm the troops?

Well...lol, who's reality are you speaking of? The lefts or the rights...the shiites, Sunni's, Kurds...the terrorists...the Baathist...or the men and women stationed there? Or yours..or mine? or the erm...very unreliable mainstream media's?...or better yet..idiots like "put me on the front page again, please" Biden?

The battle-cry of the far right: Freedom for all! Freedom of speech for all! But don't say anything anti-American, or else!

Why is it whenever someone points out that speech has consequences the left starts declaring their freedom of speech is threatened?

If anything, it seems pattylou was expressing worry over the possibility that our country will be forced into another (more) dangerous conflict, at great cost to everyone involved. This hardly seems anti-American to me. Nor does the invasion in question seem particularly far-fetched, considering our illustrious president's recent history.

It's pretty farfetched. Do I really need to waste time outlining the differences between Iraq and Iran...hello?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I must say that I am torn between the Burma Pipeline Slavery Deal and the selling of Neutron Pulse Generators to Libya's nuclear program for which they received a $300 odd million fine.

What is your favorite?

The one where they paid Rove to take the white house?

 

[Archon]

Well...lol, who's reality are you speaking of? The lefts or the rights...the shiites, Sunni's, Kurds...the terrorists...the Baathist...or the men and women stationed there? Or yours..or mine? or the erm...very unreliable mainstream media's?...or better yet..idiots like "put me on the front page again, please" Biden?

You aren't seriously going to suggest that Iraq is going exactly as Bush planned, are you? In fact, from what I gather, Bush believed we would be greeted with open arms by all of those freedom-loving Iraqis, who would then proceed to calmly and efficiently write their new Democratic Constitution. And of course, the terrorists would just disappear. After all, terrorism can't survive a Democracy...

Now tell me that what's really happening in Iraq doesn't diverge from this plan. Tell me that Bush hasn't spent more time and resources in Iraq than he originally intended. Tell me that Bush's perpetual misguided statements that everything is going well in Iraq aren't dividing the country. If you can't seriously tell me all of these things, then Bush has made a mistake. As our president, he should be admitting his mistakes to the American people.

Why is it whenever someone points out that speech has consequences the left starts declaring their freedom of speech is threatened?

Judging by your comments, your perception is that the consequence of disagreement with the actions of our troops in Iraq, and with Bush's actions in general, is that the person making such comments is Anti-American. I don't believe that disagreement with the policies of the government is necessarily anti-American. After all, the president is not America, the president's advisors are not America, and the members of the government are not America. America is a country and an ideal, and mindlessly following one's leader in the name of nationalism is hardly the best way to go about preserving the American way.

By the way: bonus points if you can name a system of government which equates strong feelings of nationalism with a single powerful leader.

It's pretty farfetched. Do I really need to waste time outlining the differences between Iraq and Iran...hello?

The differences are really no more pronounced than those between Afghanistan and Iraq. Except Iran is better armed, right? But why should that stop the worldwide crusade for Democracy and Rights?

 

[vanesch]

You aren't seriously going to suggest that Iraq is going exactly as Bush planned, are you.

There was a statement, last year I think, that Chirac made when he was on a visit with Blair, which quite upset Blair. "On ne peut quand-meme pas dire - de facon credible - que le monde est devenu plus sur, grace a votre intervention en Iraq ?", translated:
"One can not claim - in a credible way - that the world became a more secure place, thanks to your intervention in Iraq, can you ?"

 

[The Smoking Man]

By the way: bonus points if you can name an system of government which equates strong feelings of nationalism with a single powerful leader.

No wait, don't tell me ... I know this one ...

 

[The Smoking Man]

There was a statement, last year I think, that Chirac made when he was on a visit with Blair, which quite upset Blair. "On ne peut quand-meme pas dire - de facon credible - que le monde est devenu plus sur, grace a votre intervention en Iraq ?", translated:
"One can not claim - in a credible way - that the world became a more secure place, thanks to your intervention in Iraq, can you ?"

Words to be chiseled over the entrance to each tube station and #10 Downing Street.

 

[Skyhunter]

If your boss interviewed you about some screw-up on somebody else's watch, would you consider that sworn testimony?

The State Department has now confirmed that Bolton did in fact answer some questions during the department's internal investigation and stated. The written answers to the Senate Foreign Relations Committe are expected to be revised by Bolton, reflecting the facts around that investigation.

Oops, guess he just forgot about it.

Should we give him the benefit of the doubt and believe it was an honest mistake?

I would, except he hasn't demonstrated a to me that he has any track record for being honest.

Or, Bush has no intentions of taking these hyped up charges seriously, Biden (along with Wilson, for that matter) is absolutely wrong about "yellow cake", Rove had nothing to do with blowing anyone's cover, and the Plame's immediate supervisor should be immediately questioned as to why someone's well known husband was permited to gather take for which he lacked qualifications to recieve.

So where is your evidence to support your claim?

What hyped up charges?

Maybe you should get information from some other source besides FOX news.

Why don't you read the report from the 9/11 commission, much better source of information.

Joseph Wilson was 100% correct about the Niger yellow cake. His wife did not not send him, she did not have the authority to send her husband or anyone else to Niger . The people who did asked if she knew someone who would about a good candidate to go check the story, at the behest of the vice-presidents office. She suggested her husband since he was the last US ambassador to Iraq, (George H. Bush called him a great American hero for this service.) he worked for years in Africa, and had personal connections and good access to Nigerian officials. I think he was as qualified as anyone to check the story.

The document that was used to support this claim by "curve ball" the CIA name for Ahmed Chalabi was proven to be a forgery. The forged signature was that of an official who wasn't even in the government at the time it was signed.

I think Fitzgerald (R), the prosecuter in the Plame case would disagree with you about Rove. The testimony of Matt Cooper and Robert Novak is also contrary to your assertion he had nothing to do with it.

Yeah, one of the few Blacks your side couldn't tear down.

?
What in the world are you talking about?

I thought we were all Americans and on the same side?

So much for Mr. Bush being a "uniter, not a divider."

The left also entertained this quixotic belief that Powell was one of theirs; they have since long before the 2000 election and they still can't shake it.

Again, please cite some supporting evidence for your outrageous claim.

Let's see, Powell went before the UN and testified about weapons you will swear up and down were known to have never existed. He backed the President every inch up over a war that you will swear up and down was based on lies. So either you're buying into your own or somebody else's fiction or Powell is just as slimy as Bolton.

And his testimony was false and the administration knew it. Read the Downing street memo, "the facts and intelligence were being fixed around the policy"

He was the only member of the administration to object to the war, yet because he is a good soldier he did the dirty deeds and sacrificed his good reputation (and the lives of 1806 American soldiers as of 8/1/2005) so they could have their war.

Ever wonder why he didn't stay for the second term?

Ever wonder why Powell doesn't support John Bolton?

We should first start with being honest with each other. You are anti-Republican...

I think you need to be honest with yourself, and stop denying the facts when they don't fit your narrow scope of reality.

...as evidenced by your disgust with whatever Republicans are up to.

Go to cspan.org and watch Senator Voinavich's (R) speech in opposition to John Bolton. He was in tears because of the harm this man will do to the already badly damaged prestige of the US.

Do the world a favor, stop being afraid, educate yourself and learn to check the facts surrounding a story, especially if it is from partisan sources. And please, this is a physics forum, the people here are intelligent and educated, they don't want to listen to extremist rants.

 

[edward]

Chalabi

Ahmad Chalabi had a great influence on the Bush administration. Nearly everything he told them about Iraq was lies lies and more lies.

The administration fell for his lies because he was telling them what they wanted to hear, such as "There are mobile bioweapons factories in Iraq", and much much more. The administration paid Chalabi over $33 million for his services.


From the link referring to Chalabi:
"There are also allegations of financial misdemeanours. In 1992, he was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court to 22 years in prison with hard labour for bank fraud after the 1990 collapse of Petra Bank, which he had founded in 1977."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalabi

The CIA could easily have picked his lies apart. Why didn't they? Or weren't they allowed to?