groovologist, May 19 at 11:13 am #

This entire issue is a cover for evading investigations. It is a silly attempt by the right to threaten the Democrats with the bullshite that, should they commence investigations, they will get burnt as well.

I believe her. I believe Panetta, too. But he wasn’t there. And you’d have to be from another planet to think the CIA wouldn’t lie to cover their asses.

LOL…..and you can’t answer the simplest of questions concerning your long held positions.

—-

A fact you just recently learned and will never be able to change or deny:

Nancy Pelosi believed, and spoke many times, about Iraq’s banned weapons right up to the point when none was found. She publicly spoke of it for years. As much as you attempt to obfuscate that has always been my point.

YOU are the one that made this conversation about Bush. YOU are the one that felt a great need to make me into some phantom neo-con Bush defender. It’s the only way you can make any sense of world as you see it.

On your original misguided assertion that all others were duped? Well, you now realize just how wrong you have been for many years.

Good luck to you

AFriend, May 19 at 6:49 am

Am not now nor was I then a democrat or a democratic apologist. You are now and probably were then a right wing radical, close minded and slippery in your attempts to muddy the waters and refusal to see justice done.

Your defense of Bush belongs at newrepublic.com. Your continual smarmy changing of the subject becomes tedious and your radicalism almost painful in its wriggling and slimy attempt to absolve Bush and company.

Free speech, however misguided or wrong, is what you note when speaking about the Democrats, war crimes and numerous other illegalities and criminal efforts are what I speak to when speaking about Bush. All the bullshit quotes you cite sans attribution resulted in what illegalities?

No further responses from me to you will be forthcoming. I find you dishonest, horribly agendized and clownish. You debate with a complete lack of character.

ardee,

More than two years before Bush entered the White House Nancy Pelosi spoke out about WMD in Iraq. She repeated those beliefs right up to the point when none were found. ONLY THEN did she begin the now famous mantra. Bush lied Bush, Bush lied, Bush lied.

Did you challenge Ms. Pelosi in 93, 98 and 2002, ardee? Or do you, even to this day, simply repeat the famous mantra?

AFriend ( of whom?)

“Hint: Knowing real history does not make one a neo-con. It simply means they’ve paid attention.”

But attempting to deflect the debate from the culpability of Bush/Cheney in lying us into a war in order to defuse potential prosecutions certainly opens one up to the charge of neoconservative rant.

Clinton’s support for sanctions was roundly denounced by the left at the time, and all the talk from anyone in that administration led to no invasion, no torture memos, no constitutional violations that I am aware of, either.

You have attempted to sidetrack a discussion of the need for investigations into constitutional abuses of Bush/Cheney by filling the thread with extraneous and off topic references. All the statements of Albright or Clinton resulted in a continuation of sanctions not illegal invasion of a sovereign nation..

Apples meet oranges

ardee,

So that I may drive home my original point, the point in which you so disastrously took exception to, you should take another look at the words of Nancy Pelosi and recall how she stood at her podium last week and stated, yet again, the lie that Bush “mislead” her on Iraq’s WMD.

“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.” - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

—-

More than two years before Bush entered the White House Nancy Pelosi spoke out about WMD in Iraq. Nothing could be more clear. And she repeated those beliefs right up to the point when none were found. ONLY THEN did she begin the now famous mantra. Bush lied Bush, Bush lied, Bush lied.

Did you question Ms. Pelosi, ardee? Did you recall her previous words and dire warnings throughout the 1990s? Or did you join the mantra? Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied ad nausea until nothing could shake your mind free?

Yes, ardee, you have indeed been lied to.

Hint: Knowing real history does not make one a neo-con. It simply means they’ve paid attention.

ardee,

I am a supporter of knowing what I’m talking about before I speak. I could care less about Bush.

I asked a simple question that you have not been able to answer. You have done everything possible to avoid even pondering the question. The mere idea of the answer shakes your entire world. I think the idea frightens you to have been so wrong for so long.

—How is it possible that two U.S. Presidents, from two different parties, and the ranking minority member of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, and the current Speaker of the House, and the former Vice President, and the former Secretary of State, and the former National Security adviser all said exactly the same things but, it was Bush that lied?

—-

You have been told repeatedly one of the biggest lies to the American public and the world. The lie that it was one president and his administration that believed Iraq held weapons that had been banned to it.

“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.” - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

—-

The mantra - Bush lied! Bush lied! Bush lied!

Forgive my bluntness: You live a very small world, ardee. A world of neo-con goblins in which everyone who thinks unlike yourself must be bad.

There’s a word for people like you, ardee.

My last words to AFriend, May 18 at 7:45 am #
on this particular subject.

I know not why you seek to ignore the obvious, nor do I care any longer. You are ,after all, a Bush supporter, and that pretty much says it all.

I have, on several occasions during this increasingly twilight zone-like discussion, noted that it wasnt the Clinton administration that stood before the American people and lied for the purpose of invading Iraq. It wasnt Clinton who sent our troops into that nation it was Bush. Ignroe or obfuscate all you wish, I believe few here think you an honest poster.

This absurdity of yours:

“When a man or woman aids the enemy and works against the Commander in Chief during times of war they can be put on trial for treason.”

brands you as a dishonest and agendised person and I will no longer attempt to interject sanity as you return insanity. If anyone is to be tried as a traitor to this nation it would be Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice et al.

February 1998 Washington Post—

Politicians are debating the Clinton administration’s plans to launch air attacks against Iraq in an effort to coerce Saddam Hussein into cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors.

Foreign leaders and diplomats may be urging restraint on the Clinton administration in the showdown with Iraq, but a growing chorus at home is calling for stronger measures than the air attacks currently being planned, with the objective of bringing down President Saddam Hussein.

Prominent members of the foreign policy establishment and some leading members of Congress say they are convinced that air attacks aimed at coercing the Iraqis into cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors would not succeed, and would result in too narrow a victory even if they did.

Instead, they argue, the United States should go beyond the objective of curtailing Iraqi weapons programs and adopt a far-reaching strategy aimed at replacing the Baghdad regime. Although they are far from consensus on what that strategy should be, a few openly advocate the possible use of U.S. ground forces, a much greater commitment than the options being pursued by the administration.

—-

“He (Saddam) will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who’s really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too. . . .

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program”—President Bill Clinton Feb. 1998

ardee, - “The only thing I understand is that you do not understand. The facts still remain that Bush lied”

—-

You’re right. I don’t understand.

—-

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Carl Levin, Robert Byrd, John Kerry, Jay Rockerfeller and Bob Graham.

Throughout all of the Clinton Administration each of the above told the world that Saddam Hussein held banned biological and chemical weapons. Most of them stuck to their beliefs right up until none were found. ONLY THEN did they begin to explain their mistake by blaming George Bush for misleading them.

—-

“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.” - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 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 ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” - Jay Rockerfeller (WV), Member-Senate Select Intelligence Committee.

—-

Would you like more verifiable quotes from each of the above, ardee? Or have I shown you conclusively that you have no idea what you’re talking about on this issue? I can go on if you need more evidence.

You’re right. I must be the one between us that has failed to understand exactly how we have been lied to.

AFriend, May 17 at 3:47 pm
Can you explain how two U.S. Presidents said exactly the same things regarding Iraq’s WMD but, only one of them lied?
........
The only thing I understand is that you do not understand. Where on earth did I defend the words or deeds of Bill Clinton? The facts still remain that Bush lied us into an illegal war in which we are still enmired.

The rest is simply your neoconservative propaganda emerging to fester and pester.

ardee,

Your original claim: “The sane among us understand that the names you mentioned echoed what they had been told by your “commander-in-chief” and his administration”

You’ve been reminded of what President Clinton said two years before Bush took office. You’ve read the dire warnings from Secretary of State Albright at Ohio State University before Bush took office. You’ve read the exact warnings of Vice President Gore after eight years of intelligence briefings.

Can you explain how two U.S. Presidents said exactly the same things regarding Iraq’s WMD but, only one of them lied?

jackpine savage, May 17 at 12:35 pm #

I am uncertain as to your motivation here, frankly. I do not doubt that Clinton handled Iraq abysmally, that is far from the issue. While sanctions harmed the population of Iraq gravely it was not Clinton who ordered up faulty intel, it was not Clinton who went on TV spouting about nuclear attacks on US soil from Iraq, nor was it Clinton who invaded that nation.

So, other than trying to prove how clever you are, what the hell is your point in all of this?

ardee,

As detailed on this site by Scott Ritter, Clinton ordered the inspectors out before he claimed that they had been kicked out and commenced bombing Iraq.

Clinton was disingenuous on Iraq throughout his two terms, and pined for an invasion himself…but lacked the guts to commit to it.

The Messopotamia is a long-standing bi-partisan affair, but then both parties are fully on board the American Empire project and have no trouble cooking up reasons that are either wholly make believe or inflated.

Panetta’s a Damn Republican, A Clintonite.Who the hell cares what he says. Please Leon obviously is playing the same revisionist game the rest of his party is playing.
Gee who missed all the evidence indicating AQ was about to attack in the US?
Who failed to stop the highjackers from even entering the country?
Who helped paint the attacks as aimed at US, instead of the HQ’s of the MIC. If they ‘hated US for our freedoms’ why not hit symbols of those freedoms- Lady Liberty? Mall of America?
Who lied about WMD’s giving false photos about ‘mobile labs’, using the only one left in the Bushadmin with creditability to sell the invasion into Iraq?
Who helped push the debunked ‘yellow Cakes’
Who was so sloppy with their covert operations Scooter Libby could ‘Out’ one of their agents.
Who failed to take into consideration and dispense the foreign intell which contradicted their own limited and antiquated findings and conclusions?
Who caried out the illegal Tortures? Performed the Renditions? Were ‘visitors’ to the Black Sites? Got the Hit Lists?
Pelosi may be an accomplice after the fact- but the CIA’s Top brass are Co conspirators. I’m willing to give the low rankers a ‘pass’ just give US the upper echelon for prosecution for Treason, then extradiction to face the International Courts for their International High crimes related to War and Crimes against humanity.
Panettas quick willingness to defend this Agency with a long history of treachery, only proves the man is working for the other side. what are you trying to cover up Leon- some old crimes you were involved with?
Please ‘our Records show’ means ‘We’ve changed the Records to show..’ Who the Hell trusts the CIA- NO ONE!
And if it takes Throwing them Pelosi- so Be it. Do they think the Dems are her supporters- she took Impeachment off the table and buried Kucinichs Articles in ‘committee’ - Please Take Her, Nobody gives a shit over here on the left anyway.Bu tbe aware Right wingers- she was not alone in those meetings and the more you try to implicate her, the more you implicate yourselves.If Torture is not a Crime- then she is guilty of nothing. If Torture is a Crime, all those High Ranking Repugs who controlled congress are just as guilty. Pick one.

28 February 1991: Gulf War ends, leaving Iraq subject to UN sanctions and arms inspections.

29 October 1997: Iraq bars US weapons inspectors, provoking a diplomatic crisis which is defused with a Russian-brokered compromise.

13 January 1998: Iraq blocks an inspection by a US-dominated team and accuses its leader, Scott Ritter, of spying for America.

23 February 1998: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan announces a deal on weapons inspections after meeting Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.

31 October 1998: The Iraqi leadership says it has ceased all co-operation with Unscom, the United Nations Special Commission set up for weapons inspections in Iraq.

14 November 1998: Baghdad tells the UN it is willing to allow inspections to resume.

17 November 1998: Unscom inspectors return to Iraq.

16 December 1998: The UN orders weapons inspectors out of the country after Unscom chief Richard Butler issued a report saying the Iraqis were still refusing to co-operate. US air strikes on Iraq begin hours later.

17 December 1999: Unscom is replaced by the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic). Iraq rejects the resolution.

1 March 2000: Hans Blix assumes the post of Unmovic executive chairman.

3 May 2002: Unmovic and Iraqi officials hold talks - Mr Annan says they are the first to take place at technical level since December 1998.

5 July 2002: UN-Iraq talks end without agreement on inspections as Baghdad seeks assurances that sanctions will be lifted.

31 July 2002: Richard Butler tells a US Senate committee that Iraq stepped up the production of chemical and biological weapons after UN inspections ended - and might even be close to developing a nuclear bomb.

1 August 2002: Iraq says the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, is welcome in Baghdad for “technical talks”.

12 September 2002: President Bush addresses the UN General Assembly and warns Iraq that military action will be unavoidable if it does not comply with UN resolutions on disarmament.

16 September 2002: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan says he has received a letter from the Iraqi Government offering to allow the unconditional return of weapons inspectors.

24 September 2002: Britain publishes a report on Iraq’s weapons programmes.

28 September 2002: Iraq rejects a draft UN resolution proposed by the United States for with strict new rules for weapons inspections.

1 October 2002: Hans Blix and Iraq agree practical arrangements for the return of weapons inspectors. US Secretary of State Colin Powell rejects it and says the US wants a tough new UN Security Council resolution.

11 October 2002: The US Senate follows the House of Representatives in authorising President Bush to use force against Iraq.

15 October 2002: Saddam Hussein wins 100% of the vote in a referendum on a new presidential term for him.

25 October 2002: US formally proposes a new resolution on disarming Iraq to the UN Security Council.

4 November 2002: Saddam Hussein says Iraq will comply with a new UN resolution as long as it does not serve as an excuse for US military action.

8 November 2002: UN Security Council unanimously passes a new resolution on Iraq’s disarmament, warning of “serious consequences” for material breaches.

12 November 2002: Iraq’s parliament rejects the UN resolution.

13 November 2002 Iraq’s Government accepts the UN resolution.

18 November 2002: Hans Blix leads UN inspectors back to Baghdad to start their mission.

ardee,

“The statements by Albright and Clinton led directly to UN weapons inspectors being allowed into Iraq ( yet again”

—-

I’m sorry but that is wrong. Weapons inspectors were not allowed back into Iraq. In fact 1998 was the last year weapons inspectors were in Iraq until the Bush administration.

You went right past the point, Ardee. The point was banned weapons and the fact that President Clinton and Secretary Albright spoke of dire warnings regarding Iraq and it’s banned weapons. Just as Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Carl Levin, Robert Byrd, John Kerry, Jay Rockerfeller and Bob Graham did throughout all of the 1990’s. As they each did right up until none were found. That has clearly always been my point.

—-

Your original claim: “The sane among us understand that the names you mentioned echoed what they had been told by your “commander-in-chief” and his administration”

If you can explain how, then Governor Bush, pulled off these lies from the Texas Capital, how he was able to convince all of the above that Iraq held banned weapons in 1993-96-98-2000 and 2002 I will listen.

If you can explain why, after eight years as Vice President, after eight years of first hand knowledge of intelligence, Al Gore said the following in 2002: 

“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.”

Was Vice President Gore simply too stupid to understand that he was being fooled by the Bush administration?

You’ve just been reminded of what President Clinton said two years before Bush took office. You’ve just read the dire warnings from Secretary of State Albright at Ohio State University. You’ve just read the exact words of Vice President Gore.

Can you explain how two U.S. Presidents said exactly the same things regarding Iraq’s WMD but, only one of them lied?

Re diamond:

While I agree with much of your post, it is INCUMBENT upon The American People, to seek the FACTS.  The facts, WILL (at least in my mind) indict some “Democrats”.

However, until we have the FACTS, it is important to maintain a BI-PARTISAN stance.  If or when we get the facts, I sense that many will fall.

The American People want justice.  In this same regard….. JUSTICE, you will recall….... is blind.  This specific issue is NOT partisan, nor can it be.

We need investigations.

Jesus Christ! The gall of Panetta. Who did the torture? Who did the murders? Who started the wars? Who caused the collapse of the global economy? Was it Nancy? And you must surely have noticed, AFriend, what happens when the COMMANDER IN CHIEF commits treason so he can start a war? What happens then? Well, so far the answer is NOTHING. Nothing at all. He and his fellow fascists just wait until the electoral spinning wheel can be rigged to come around their way again.  Cheney and Rummy were left unemployed and set out to corrupt the corporate world when Nixon got thrown out but then they cheated their way back into the white house. And now look what fun they’ve had! Two wars, the rule of law in tatters, people kidnapped and tortured, driven mad, children raped and the global economy almost destroyed. Of course the CIA would love to throw all this shit onto Nancy or any other Democrat. It’s called creating a diversion. Panetta can say what he likes, Nancy Pelosi wasn’t the government and she wasn’t running the CIA or the Pentagon either. Women in politics are easy targets as everyone knows.

AFriend, May 16 at 7:21 pm #

ardee,

Before you respond to my post below with your typical insults I wish to ask with sincerity; are you too young to recall President Clinton’s speech at the Pentagon Feb. 1998 regarding Iraq?

...First the “typical” insult…I have noted, several times in fact, that I am the grandfather of fourteen and two thirds, thus and rather obviously quite old enough to remember events in the nineties. If you read a freaking post once in a while instead of being so enamored of your own reflection in the monitor you might recall…..

Let us review history for you, not revisionist history that you neocons love so much, not the history of Reagan which he thought was accurately portrayed in movie scripts but the real thing; Bush invaded Iraq, again, not Billy but Shrubya. Got that! Good.

The statements by Albright and Clinton led directly to UN weapons inspectors being allowed into Iraq ( yet again) to prove the lie to those claims. Thus Clinton didnt invade anyone, though the continued sanctions were execrable ( much as you are..oops another “typical”).

Bush ordered the inspectors out, refused to listen to Blix or anyone, Cheney and Roberts camped out with the CIA intelligence analysts to force them into false analysis , and , to their credit , several resigned or took early retirement rather than comply.

Perhaps you recall the news reports of such…Oh wait, they werent mentioned on the Limbaugh, O’Reilly or Hannity shows now were they?

Oh, did you have a point?

I understand both parties are complicit in this, but aren’t Rummy, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice and all their collaborators/aides/attorneys the ones with the most blood on their hands? Won’t all this Pelosi scapegoating come back to bite them? Or do they figure that this is a sufficient distraction to keep the public from asking more questions?
Pelosi and other democrats are culpable, but not as much as the neocons who are calling for her head, aren’t they shooting themselves in the foot?

ardee,

Before you respond to my post below with your typical insults I wish to ask with sincerity; are you too young to recall President Clinton’s speech at the Pentagon Feb. 1998 regarding Iraq? In this speech he states:

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

You may have no knowledge of Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, in a Town Hall Meeting at Ohio State University, February 18, 1998.

“Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. And it is a threat against which we must, and will, stand firm.”
“The evidence is strong that Iraq continues to hide prohibited weapons and materials. There remains a critical gap between the number of weapons we know Iraq produced and the amount we can confirm were destroyed.”
“Saddam continues to deny UNSCOM access to dozens of suspect sites. He’s also trying to discredit UNSCOM, and to change its character so that it will no longer be independent, and its inspections no longer credible. As President Clinton made clear in his strong speech yesterday at the Pentagon, the United States will not allow this to happen. Iraq must permit UN inspectors to do their jobs, as the Security Council has directed. If this does not occur, we must be, and we are, prepared to use military force.”

—-

ardee, if you’re too young to recall these events yourself you could still do some honest research. I would be happy to help if I can.

ardee,

Yes, yes of course. It was the Bush administration that fooled President Bill Clinton, VP. Gore and the democratic leadership throughout all of the 1990’s.

The Congressional testimony, the dozens of presidential speeches, the hundreds of press releases and the speeches of Madeline Albright at the United Nations on the subject of Iraq’s banned weapons was devised by then Gov. George Bush in the Texas capital.

I see what you’re saying. It was Bush that fooled Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Robert Byrd, John Kerry, Jay Rockerfeller and Bob Graham in 1993-94-95-96-97-98 etc., until there were no banned weapons found in 2003.

I had never thought of that. Thank you!

This is the funniest most unbelievable article I’ve ever read.  No wait I’m wrong it is simply a typical article from the republican advertising arm the MSM.  We must remember rupukes are sly and are great “snake oil salesmen”  which is how they came to own most of America. 

But changing the story on the most repugnant, brutal, torturing, gang of criminals ever to usurp power, “the bush administration”, into some indictment of an innocent congressperson is so republican it is unbelievably silly. 

The greatest propaganda machine ever know to man is the republican owned controlled and sponsored MSM in the United States of America.  And because the republican mouthpieces don’t scream at the audience like the americanhatenuts on fox and talkradio, they are called liberal.  If it were not so sad for all the murders, rapes, and tortures they cover up,  it would be hilarious. 
The only act I can think about that is more un-American than torture is being responsible for ordering, others to torture for war profiteering motives.  That is the story a “free press” would be pursuing.

But given the republican owned controlled and sponsored propaganda machine called the “free press” in the United States of America.  Forget it.

AFriend, May 16 at 4:12 pm #

“Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Carl Levin, Robert Byrd, John Kerry, Jay Rockerfeller and Bob Graham.

Each of the above told the world for almost a decade that Saddam Hussein held banned biological and chemical weapons. Most of them stuck to their beliefs right up until none were found. ONLY THEN did they begin to explain their mistake by blaming George Bush for misleading them.

How does Nancy Pelosi have any creditability whatsoever? Or, for that matter, any of the above mentioned?”

—-

When a man or woman aids the enemy and works against the Commander in Chief during times of war they can be put on trial for treason.”

....You couldn’t resist a final paragraph that amply illustrates your lack of credibility..thanks much for that.

The sane among us understand that the names you mentioned echoed what they had been told by your “commander-in-chief” and his administration, including those charged with delivering intel free of political slants yet did no such thing.

The list of democrats certainly displays a naivete unacceptable in those who lead but your post, which has the glaring absence of blame for any of your own republican war mongers who knew the intelligence was manufactured, is pretty typical of your sort.

EYES ON THE BALL

This story is a Neocon talking point. A Neocon-fabricated story - a diversion from two real stories.

Firstly the economy; the economy, the dollar’s collapse and the (in)stability of the world’s financial system. All crimes of the Neocons. All else pales into insignificance beside that.

Secondly, the war crimes of the Neocons. Particularly torture.

1. The Neocons are the problem. The crimes of the Neocons are the problem. The crimes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Addington, Yoo, Wolfowitz, Armitage etc.

2. The Neocons neutered an independent CIA. Any ‘records’ they supposedly have are suspect. Panetta is quoting their supposed ‘records’. End of story. This is a lame attempt by Karl Rove and Cheney to point the finger of blame at anyone else than themselves.  Pelosi is _not_ the problem.

ACTION

1. The first order of business is the economy.

2. The second order of business are war crimes trials for the Neocons. And the very real prospect of the hangman’s noose—the long drop on a short rope—for Cheney, Rumsfeld, Addington, Yoo, Wolfowitz, Armitage and every general involved.

ACLU - Anthony Romero - Put Bush and Cheney on Trial -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFRTfBcrPLc

http://commonwealthclub.blogspot.com/2009/05/aclu-chief-put-bush-and-cheney-on-trial.html

Full progam - available on FORA TV - 1hr 7 minutes

http://fora.tv/2009/04/30/Anthony_Romero_The_Urgency_of_Action_in_the_Age_of_Obama

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Carl Levin, Robert Byrd, John Kerry, Jay Rockerfeller and Bob Graham.

Each of the above told the world for almost a decade that Saddam Hussein held banned biological and chemical weapons. Most of them stuck to their beliefs right up until none were found. ONLY THEN did they begin to explain their mistake by blaming George Bush for misleading them.

How does Nancy Pelosi have any creditability whatsoever? Or, for that matter, any of the above mentioned?

—-

When a man or woman aids the enemy and works against the Commander in Chief during times of war they can be put on trial for treason.