Proof that Bush lied about Iraq - secret memo

[Random notes]

This article is dated May 1. It's now May 7 and I haven't heard one thing about it - newspapers, tv news, or CNN.com. Anybody else heard anything? White House reaction? Anything??

If the administration ignores it, it just might go away. The press (generalizing wildly here) is cowed - first by the threat of being blasted for their liberal bias and second by people whose reaction will be like izzarina's. Runaway brides and pop-star pedophiles are less controversial and bring in the readers/viewers.

All politicians lie. Actually, pretty much everybody lies one way or another. But when W lied about not having made a decision to go to war, he short-circuited the debate about reasons for war until sufficient evidence had been fabricated, sufficient blood-lust had been raised in the polity and it was too late for anyone to object without the chorus screaming "TRAITOR".

Yeah we're stuck with the Harvard slacker loadie until 2008, but if enough people get hip to what kind of shallow deceitful fool he is then maybe we can minimize the damage and there will still be a country (and a world) left when he is gone.

Roger

[Walden]

Notice, particularly, how well C. Montgomery Burns covered his own involvement in this Right Wing Republican conspiracy.

<img src="http://supak.com/simpsons/images/wallpa ... rs-800.jpg" width="300">

[jGilder]

This article is dated May 1. It's now May 7 and I haven't heard one thing about it - newspapers, tv news, or CNN.com. Anybody else heard anything? White House reaction? Anything??

Susan

This is one of the scariest aspects of the excess of power that the Bush Administration utilizes. The White House, in cooperation with corporate media, can easily control what the majority of Americans believe. It's a lot like the "official truth" in George Orwell's “1984” if you think about it. The fact that something as important as this hasn't seen the light of day in the corporate media should raise serious questions for anyone that believes in democracy. And this isn't even the first time something like this has happened either. When you expand your information sources beyond the Iron Curtain of Ignorance that has been erected around the borders of this country you’ll find out just how much information doesn't get presented.

[s1m0n]

It made it into the Globe and Mail, Canada's national newspaper, which picked it up from the Times.

In the UK, the news has kina been buried by the election. I think that US media will treat it as a UK story unless forced to acknowlege it.

However, it really isn't all that remarkable as far as the US's intentions. As soon as Bush began moving troops to Kuwait, war became inevitable. There is no way that the US would deploy that many troops without using them--bringing them home would have been a massive loss of face.

And the US had begun their buildup months before this memo; and in order for that to happen, the orders and preparations must have happened months before that.

So common sense will tell you that Bush was lying about no decicion having been made.

[anniemcu]

It made it into the Globe and Mail, Canada's national newspaper, which picked it up from the Times.

In the UK, the news has kina been buried by the election. I think that US media will treat it as a UK story unless forced to acknowlege it.

However, it really isn't all that remarkable as far as the US's intentions. As soon as Bush began moving troops to Kuwait, war became inevitable. There is no way that the US would deploy that many troops without using them--bringing them home would have been a massive loss of face.

And the US had begun their buildup months before this memo; and in order for that to happen, the orders and preparations must have happened months before that.

So common sense will tell you that Bush was lying about no decicion having been made.

Common sense (actually an oxymoron in this current US society) *did* tell many of us that he was doing just what he has been proven to have done, but there is the other half of the nation that wants him to be G_D's gift to the world (literally!) and refuses to acknowledge that he lied. This is just another bit of proof that *should* make it clear that he is not actually above board or reproach, or acting in the genuine best interests of the nation as a whole ... it probably will not be accepted as such though.

It is important that this be widely reported. It is indeed a crisis in the US... one of huge proportions actually.

[The Weekenders]

I notice TradR is posting on every single thread in hopes of pushing this thread off the main page.

:roll:

No, you're not paranoid, just everybody who is out to get you says that.

Hurry, push, push, push!!!! Whoops, I sent it to the top of the page.

The horror.

[Caj]

Don't you realize we're talking about the president of the United States here? They aren't supposed to lie to us. Clinton was impeached for lying about consensual sex with an intern.

You can't simply impeach a president for lying. You really have to find some specific violation of law, e.g. perjury, tresspassing, accepting bribes.

If this memo proves that Bush lied under oath, that would be impeachable. All it seems to prove is that the WH knew right from the start that the intel wasn't there. That's big news by itself, but is there evidence of a concrete crime?

Caj

[Jerry Freeman]

I believe it's a crime to lie to Congress, whether under oath or not. I'm no expert. Just thinking out loud.

Of course, Bush is not going to be impeached. Even if it could be proven beyond doubt that he had committed a crime, he would not be impeached. The power structure is lined up in such a way that it can't happen (and that's not accidental).

Best wishes,
Jerry

[izzarina]

so... since they all probably lie, it's OK for this one to lie... even for him to send our loved ones into a WAR that he got through based on those lies?... I beg to differ on that.

I don't believe I ever said that. In fact, I've been rather ticked off about this entire subject since he sent our troops over there to wage an unjust war since the beginning of it all, since I really felt he was lying through his teeth since then. My point (which apparently I didn't get across all that well) was that I'm damn sick and tired of trying to convince those that really don't care about this that it really did happen. I've been telling conservatives for quite some time that our president lied to get what he wanted....yes it's nice to finally have more in the way of concrete proof (and I honestly do appreciate the article more than it seemed), but I'm cynical. Sorry, but I am. I can give this information to conservative friends of mine, and they'll still defend him saying that he really didn't lie. I'm sick of trying, and that really was more my point. I didn't vote for Bush, and I hate the fact that he has allowed thousands upon thousands of innocent people to be slaughtered for a cause that he knew didn't exist. I'm hardly indifferent, and put more into a stupid "news" story like the "Runaway Bride" (which I hardly know the details of). I'm sorry that I didn't represent things better here. Believe me, it's not indifference that makes me feel like this, it's frustration.
Lastly, again about the "Desperate Housewife" statement, I actually thought that it was a rather humorous situation.It's quite interesting to me how the GOP is defending her comments totally. I'm not a fan of Hilary Clinton, but if SHE had said those things, the entire GOP would have had a hissy fit over it (not that she would have.....I believe that she has much more tact). But because it was said by one of their own, she is to be defended. It's quite interesting how politics tend to run that way. We can't be for a position or a belief...we have to be for the PARTY. That's a way of thinking that I just can't abide to.
Anyway, enough of my ramblings. I think I've had enough of trying to express my opinions on political issues for a while

[Lorenzo]

I think what happened is that some VIP decision makers in congress got snookered by the Prez--who got snookered by some advisors...who got snookered by someone in Intelligence.

But you look at the congressional record, and it's been posted here before, congress had a chance to disagree, but many of the Dems, like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, voted Yes to give the Prez authority to go into Iraq while their counterparts, like Sen. Ted Kennedy, voted No.

Jerry's right that it's a crime to lie to congress, but like Caj indicated, it's just not a federal crime. It's called "misinforming" congress, and for congress to believe it, w/o any hard questioning or research--is called "dumb."

[jGilder]

I believe it's a crime to lie to Congress, whether under oath or not. I'm no expert. Just thinking out loud.

Of course, Bush is not going to be impeached. Even if it could be proven beyond doubt that he had committed a crime, he would not be impeached. The power structure is lined up in such a way that it can't happen (and that's not accidental).

This is true, and the fact that we have yet to hear anything about it on US mainstream media isn't accidental either. When the US military finally admitted that they staged the tearing down of Saddam's statue and trucked the small crowd of people in to jump around and look happy I thought that was a worthy story. But the corporate heads didn't; I think the Peterson wife murder case was in full swing at the time.

As far as the question of impeachability goes, Greg Palast says, "A conspiracy to commit serial fraud is, under federal law, racketeering. However, the Mob's schemes never cost so many lives." If congressional fraud can be proved the Republicans in congress might have no other choice but to impeach Bush. Of course they're counting on the corporate power structure of the US government and media to prevent that day from ever arriving.

Here's more of Greg Palast's comments:

Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has "IMPEACH HIM" written all over it.

The top-level government memo marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL," dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed meeting with the President, reads, "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Read that again: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed...."

For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, viewers inevitably ask me, "Isn't this grounds for impeachment?" -- vote rigging, a blind eye to terror and the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil, stupidity and self-dealing are shameful but not impeachable. What's needed is a "high crime or misdemeanor." And if this ain't it, nothing is.

The memo uncovered this week by the Times, goes on to describe an elaborate plan by George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to hoodwink the planet into supporting an attack on Iraq knowing full well the evidence for war was a phony.

A conspiracy to commit serial fraud is, under federal law, racketeering. However, the Mob's schemes never cost so many lives.

Here's more. "Bush had made up his mind to take military action. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." Really? But Mr. Bush told us, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." A month ago, the Silberman-Robb Commission issued its report on WMD intelligence before the war, dismissing claims that Bush fixed the facts with this snooty, condescending conclusion written directly to the President, "After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons." We now know the report was a bogus 618 pages of thick whitewash aimed to let Bush off the hook for his murderous mendacity.

Read on: The invasion build-up was then set, says the memo, "beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections." Mission accomplished.

Now sharp readers may note they didn't see this memo, in fact, printed in the New York Times. It wasn't. Rather, it was splashed across the front pages of the Times of LONDON on Monday.

It has effectively finished the last, sorry remnants of Tony Blair's political career. (While his Labor Party will most assuredly win the elections Thursday, Prime Minister Blair is expected, possibly within months, to be shoved overboard in favor of his Chancellor of the Exchequer, a political execution which requires only a vote of the Labour party's members in Parliament.)

But in the US, barely a word. The New York Times covers this hard evidence of Bush's fabrication of a casus belli as some "British" elections story. Apparently, our President's fraud isn't "news fit to print."

My colleagues in the UK press have skewered Blair, digging out more incriminating memos, challenging the official government factoids and fibs. But in the US press … nada, bubkes, zilch. Bush fixed the facts and somehow that's a story for "over there." The Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over his cigar and Monica's affections. And the US media could print nothing else.

Now, we have the stone, cold evidence of bending intelligence to sell us on death by the thousands, and neither a Republican Congress nor what is laughably called US journalism thought it worth a second look. My friend Daniel Ellsberg once said that what's good about the American people is that you have to lie to them. What's bad about Americans is that it's so easy to do.

[s1m0n]

I think what happened is that some VIP decision makers in congress got snookered by the Prez--who got snookered by some advisors...who got snookered by someone in Intelligence.

I don't think that conclusion can be supported at all.

As the memo makes clear, the executive level--at least in the UK--was firmly aware of the deficiency of the intelligence, and wasn't at all concerned, except in the way it would make "selling" the war difficult. They knew they were starting a war on a pretext.

As well, the President's SOLE job function is the exercise of good judgement. If he--or rather his administration--is so weak as to be manipulable to such a massive extent by a few civil servants, then he is clearly incompetent to hold the position he does.

The US will be paying for this war for more than a generation. That's a huge consequence, and if it was the result of the president's bad judgement, he is in way above his head.

[Lorenzo]

In the US House of Representatives, when the res. was considered over there, Pete Stark (D-CA) said it best, "Now, I am also greatly disturbed that many Democratic leaders have also put political calculation ahead of the President’s accountability to truth and reason by supporting this resolution." -source

Read the resolution (114) carefully: towards the bottom, it authorizes the President to administer the war however and whenever he determines appropriate. 1/2 the Democrates voted for that and several complained later they didn't understand the resolution the way that it read. That's just plain dumb. And don't get me wrong, the Republicans that voted for it were no smarter. If you don't approve of the the resolution, you either offer an amendment showing exactly how you differ from the proposed resolution or get a stop-order passed and signed by the prez and congress afterwards--at least propose it.

Observe the roll call, with the Democrats votes nearly split (one Repub objects), and with Kennedy voting "Nay" and Mrs. Clinton voting "Yea" and all the rest of the "Nay" votes apparently well thought out.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (H.J.Res. 114)
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 2, 2002
Source

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

Vote Summary
Source

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

[The Weekenders]

Lorenzo, don't distract us with all those names. It's all just the evil scoundrel Bush. Why, he has the heads of all the news networks tied up in closets with their @#$ wired up should the "memo" leak out. Last time, he had to get Dan Rather put out to pasture. He had all the congressman tied up too so they would vote correctly with a few dissenters instructed to vote against to retain credibility. He's in control, man, and the sooner you know it, the sooner you, too, will be outraged. Bush has this country sewed up tighter than Joan Rivers' face. Soon, there will be sixty foot posters of our great leader on building across the country. The likely suspects will be rounded up and sent to Camp Gitmo. Beware the Puppetmaster!

Take to the streets! Not in my name! By Any Means Necessary! Power to the People! Slaughter the running dogs of capitalism! Off with their hea...(oops, wrong century).

PS. On a semi-serious note, what happened the last time a memo came out to discredit Bush?

PPSS. And, fwiw, I have stated on this Forum before that when Bush announced his intention to invade Iraq, I wondered why. It didn't smell right at the time. I didn't really believe the WMDs could be there in numbers, or alternatively, I wondered if, unlike all the UN findings, there actually were more than could be admitted because of how it might reflect on supplier nations vis-a-vis UN Oil for Food etc.

I still tend to think that Bush invaded Iraq to: destabilize Middle East monarchies (via bringing in the most likely multicultural country into some form of democracy), destabilize Middle East terror-sponsors (both by aforementioned govt. changes and show of force), sabotage Oil for Food corruption and sever illicit Euro ties with Saddam, throw a new element into Israel-Palestine stalemate (pre-Yasser death), secure some kind of control over the huge oilfield in Iraq before death took Saddam and left new chaos over it. Realpolitik, not necessarily noble. Just like the Euros and other leaders. And under the rules of Realpolitik, he couldn't actually take on the UN corruption, he had to unseat Saddam. he couldn't bring to light various French, German and Russian business dealings with Saddam, just destroy them.

So, Gilder, if you wonder if "all the conservatives here on the Forum" are rushing to defend Bush and say it ain't so, you are wrong, as you so often are in presuming other's intentions. Pragmatic thinkers know better but that seems lost on you. For myself, supporting Bush has been holding my nose and keeping the Clinton and worse types out of power because they scare me more than Bush. Not to say that the latest natl. debt and other changes have been less than alarming. End of story.

[Denny]