Judge Alito Overqualified

David, David, David,

OK. I'll stop saying BuSh lied if you'll acknowledge that he misled us because he used faulty data that he thought was reliable.

What do you do when you use faulty data that you thought was reliable? You take responsibility, dont you?
 
barry2952 said:
David, David, David,

OK. I'll stop saying BuSh lied if you'll acknowledge that he misled us because he used faulty data that he thought was reliable.

What do you do when you use faulty data that you thought was reliable? You take responsibility, dont you?

I'll settle for "erred", but that's as far as I go. The people who take responsibility are the people who are outlined in the Silberman/Robb Commission, which goes into detail about the faulty intelligence. You can read it if you want to. They exonerate Bush in that he wasn't lying, he was relying on information that was faulty. That's error at worst. Lying is knowingly misrepresenting falsehoods as truth.

Of course he has to take responsibility for it, but what would you have him do? Up and leave in the middle of this critical situation? Don't you agree that at this point we should at least honor the troops and let them finish the job?
 
If Bush has to take responsibility, then all these Democrats do, as well.

Where are they now, and what are they saying? And why aren't you yelling at them to take responsibility?


October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."



John Kerry, January 23rd, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."


Sandy Berger February 18th, 1998
"He''ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."



Senator Carl Levin September 19th, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."


Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."



Madeleine Albright November 10th, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Robert Byrd October 3rd, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."


Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."



Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998
"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."



Madeleine Albright, February 1st, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

Nancy Pelosi December 16th, 1998
"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."


Al Gore September 23rd, 2002
"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry October 9th, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."



Ted Kennedy September 27th, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."



Jay Rockefeller October 10th, 2002
"There was 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 that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."



Senator Bob Graham December 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
 
fossten said:
The people who take responsibility are the people who are outlined in the Silberman/Robb Commission, which goes into detail about the faulty intelligence.

Here are the high points, to save you the trouble.

Below are excerpts from the Report to the President by The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction -- also known as the Silberman-Robb Report -- which make it clear that allegations that intelligence was warped or manipulated are false. Below are some specific findings from the report which came out in March 2005:

(i) "Many observers of the Intelligence Community have expressed concern that Intelligence Community judgments concerning Iraq's purported WMD programs may have been warped by inappropriate political pressure... The Commission has found no evidence of 'politicization' of the Intelligence Community's assessments concerning Iraq's reported WMD programs. No analytical judgments were changed in response to political pressure to reach a particular conclusion." -- Intelligence Capabilities Commission Report, pages 187-188.

(ii) "We looked very closely at that question [Administration pressuring intelligence analysts]. Every member of the commission was sensitive to the number of questions that have been raised with respect to the, what we'll call politicization, or however you want to describe it. And we examined every single instance that had been referred to, in print or otherwise, to see if there was any occasion where a member of the administration or anyone else had asked an analyst or anybody else associated with the intelligence community to change a position that they were taking or whether they felt there was any undo influence, and we found absolutely no instance." -- Charles S. Robb, Co-Chairman, The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, March 31 press conference.

(iii) "The Intelligence Community’s Iraq assessments were ... riddled with errors. Contrary to what some defenders of the Intelligence Community have since asserted, these errors were not the result of a few harried months in 2002. Most of the fundamental errors were made and communicated to policymakers well before the now-infamous NIE of October 2002, and were not corrected in the months between the NIE and the start of the war. They were not isolated or random failings. Iraq had been an intelligence challenge at the forefront of U.S. attention for over a decade. It was a known adversary that had already fought one war with the United States and seemed increasingly likely to fight another. But, after ten years of effort, the Intelligence Community still had no good intelligence on the status of Iraq’s weapons programs." -- Intelligence Capabilities Commission Report Overview, page 9.

(iv) "Post-war investigations concluded that Curveball's [the code-name of an Iraqisource] was not influenced by, controlled by, or connected to, the INC [Iraqi National Congress]. In fact, over all, CIA's post-war investigations revealed that INC-related sources had a minimal impact on pre-war assessments." -- Intelligence Capabilities Commission Report Overview, page 108.

(v) "The NIE simply didn't communicate how weak the underlying intelligence was. This was, moreover, a problem that was not limited to the NIE. Our review found that after the publication of the October 2002 NIE but before Secretary of State Colin Powell’s February 2003 address to the United Nations, intelligence officials within the CIA failed to convey to policymakers new information casting serious doubt on the reliability of a human intelligence source known as 'Curveball.' This occurred despite the pivotal role Curveball’s information played in the Intelligence Community’s assessment of Iraq’s biological weapons programs, and in spite of Secretary Powell’s efforts to strip every dubious piece of information out of his proposed speech. In this instance, once again, the Intelligence Community failed to give policymakers a full understanding of the frailties of the intelligence on which they were relying." -- Intelligence Capabilities Commission Report Overview, pages 10-11.


"Jordan fades back - swish - AND THAT'S THE GAME!!!"
- Jim Carrey
 
David,

You've got to stop blaming Clinton for things that Bush "erred" on. The information was mostly provided by the CIA. GB Sr. ran the CIA and developed and furthered its culture. Blame the son for the sins of the father?

The report may explain the president's actions but it does not exonerate him. Hardly.
 
barry2952 said:
David,

You've got to stop blaming Clinton for things that Bush "erred" on. The information was mostly provided by the CIA. GB Sr. ran the CIA and developed and furthered its culture. Blame the son for the sins of the father?

The report may explain the president's actions but it does not exonerate him. Hardly.

Barry, I've posted myself blue in the face with REAL FACTS here for you to peruse. Furthermore, most of the quotes above are from Democratic Senators DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION (many of them the same senators now accusing him of a coverup), with barely any mention of Clinton. This leads me to believe that you didn't even read it.

My question to you is, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT BUSH LIED? Just because your Dem leaders assert it doesn't make it true. The FACTS that I've laid out for you show that he didn't lie. Joe Wilson's been discredited as a public liar. How can you depend upon the corrupt 9/11 commission while ignoring the Silberman/Robb Commission?

I asked you earlier if you would be able to look at this objectively, yet at every turn you stubbornly resist the truth that I offer. I am starting to think that you never really intended to make this a true debate. If you don't start showing YOUR evidence that Bush lied, then I'm done here.

Back to the original topic of this thread.
 
barry2952 said:
David, David, David,

OK. I'll stop saying BuSh lied if you'll acknowledge that he misled us because he used faulty data that he thought was reliable.

What do you do when you use faulty data that you thought was reliable? You take responsibility, dont you?

Do you want to discuss this, or are you still not talking to me?
 
barry2952 said:
I think BuSh could do a much better job if the special interests didn't keep getting in the way.

So, it is not Bush, it is the special interests? Correct?
 
MonsterMark said:
Take your issues to PM or private EMail. Don't air the dirty laundry with the grease stains out here for all of us to see.

Thank you for your cooperation.


Ive deleted the post. Personal BS doesnt belong in here.
 
Joeychgo said:
Ive deleted the post. Personal BS doesnt belong in here.

You need to make it clear that you deleted Barry’s post directed at me, and not something that I posted.
 
Vitas said:
You need to make it clear that you deleted Barry’s post directed at me, and not something that I posted.


No I dont. I dont NEED to do anything. You two have me about at my wits end. Discuss the facts of the thread or dont post in it! I am so sick of you two throwing jabs at each other. It stops NOW. Anyone who knows me knows I dont get pissed and talk like this often, so take that as an indication of my seriousness.
 
Joeychgo said:
No I dont. I dont NEED to do anything.
a.gif


Well, then I will make it clear. I did not post a hissy fit this morning, whosis did.
 
Vitas said:
a.gif


Well, then I will make it clear. I did not post a hissy fit this morning, whosis did.

Yay for you!

Back to topic. Should Judge Alito be confirmed to the Supreme Court?

I find it interesting that Bryan thinks that conservatives have had to wait 30 years to nominate someone to the bench. That's a laugh. And, I find it confusing and obtuse that he thinks the average voter actually took in to consideration who would go on the Supreme Court...a question that didn't come up at all during the debate (maybe if Bush hadn't pussed out on having more debates, and we'd had the normal 4 or so, it would have gotten around to that)...a question that wasn't in the pundit talking points that I recall...a question that I didn't hear talked about at all until Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement.

I also remember a big bi-partisan push during the Clinton years to make sure that anyone nominated to the bench was a moderate (hence the article quoted that started the liberal/un-biased media debate). To be a proper Judge you should be moderate...neither conservative nor liberal. You should decide things based on the constitution and case law, not your personal value system. The high court is just what Joey said...


Joeychgo said:
Interpeting the Constitution, and how to apply its principals to the laws of today, is the job of the Supreme Court.

So all the 'legislating from the bench' bull is ridiculous...

Should Judge Alito be put on the bench? I don't know...all I've heard are talking points...nothing about him as a judge and his law writings...has he broken the constitution in his rulings? Does he believe in revising the constitution or throwing out basic tenants of it if it suits his beliefs?
 
raVeneyes said:
I find it interesting that Bryan thinks that conservatives have had to wait 30 years to nominate someone to the bench. That's a laugh.


Nice try. What I said was we have had to wait over 30 years for a conservative bench. To think that the Supreme Court has not leaned liberal these past years is laughable. One needs to look no further than the Kelo decision for proof of that. Or to Roe v Wade for when the judicial started legislating.

raVeneyes said:
And I find it confusing and obtuse that he thinks the average voter actually took in to consideration who would go on the Supreme Court...a question that didn't come up at all during the debate
Not the avergae voter. The average voter can't even tell you who's running for President. All they do is walk like sheeple into the voting both and look for that (D) besides the name. That is all they know. Want proof? Go ask people at the next election why they voted for who and sit back and listen in horror. How do I know? Because I am one of those wierd people to who go around to voting venues and talk to the people.

raVeneyes said:
I also remember a big bi-partisan push during the Clinton years to make sure that anyone nominated to the bench was a moderate (hence the article quoted that started the liberal/un-biased media debate).
And what did Clinton do? Nominated the ACLU! Nice moderate bi-partisan effort there Bill.

raVeneyes said:
So all the 'legislating from the bench' bull is ridiculous...
No it is not. The reason you don't like it is because conservatives have distilled this debate down to something that is understandable to the average joe. Judges are supposed to judge. Legislaters legislate. Simple.
 
MonsterMark said:
And what did Clinton do? Nominated the ACLU! Nice moderate bi-partisan effort there Bill.



a. As I already mentioned, Ginsberg was suggested to Clinton by Orin Hatch(R)

b. Whats so bad about the ACLU? They are looking to protect the Constitution

C. Even still, What does Clinton have to do with GW? You didnt like it when he did it, so why should we like it when GW does it. Awfully one sided to me
 
MonsterMark said:
I'm sick of the partisan (can we all get along) line. If the Dems were in power, there would be no talk of reaching out and you know it.



Hmm - and your saying GW reached out with this nomination?
 
barry2952 said:
I believe the analogy to be apt.

I don't buy the statement that we're only out to get Bush. My wife and I are both seasoned letter writers and have been published numerous times. My latest item that sets me off is Daylight Savings Time. Our local paper published my rant a little while ago and I actually got some people fired up.

What the Hell could you have a problem with Daylight Saving Time.
 
Joeychgo said:
b. Whats so bad about the ACLU? They are looking to protect the Constitution

Don't get me started. Do you even know anything about the ACLU?


The ACLU’s position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography. This is the kind of lawyerly distinction that no one on the Supreme Court found convincing. They also fight for public sex acts and legalizing prostitution while suing churches for opposing strip clubs that open right across the street.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top