Author Topic: It's a little thick... (Read 320 times)

Sandman · « **on:** July 18, 2003, 10:44:06 PM »

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20030718/ts_nm/iraq_bush_dc_13

Christ... now the administration acts as if their information is better than the intelligence community... if the information was good in the first place, Tenet wouldn't be standing in front of Congress taking the hit.

Jeezus, it never ends...

Bush is every bit as bad as Clinton... a coward that won't stand up and tell the straight story.

NUKE · « **Reply #1 on:** July 19, 2003, 06:47:00 AM »

The dems are focusing on the uranium remarks in the State of the union speach. They say that the president new the claim that Iraq tried to obtain unraium from Africa was false, and based on that , Bush purposly lied to justify a war.

The interesting thing to me is that BOTH the House and Senate voted (by large margins) to allow Bush to do whatever he deemed necesary with Iraq....months before that speach with the uranium claim.

Of course, these are the same people that didn't question our need for: Bosnia, Somolia, or the bombing aspiran factories.

Nash · « **Reply #2 on:** July 19, 2003, 06:56:15 AM »

Nuke - lets pretend for a second that the vote happened after the administration used this bs nuclear intel in making its case for war.

Would that change your mind on any of it or will you make some other excuse to let them off the hook for it?

NUKE · « **Reply #3 on:** July 19, 2003, 07:16:11 AM »

Bush needed no excuse to go to war with Iraq based on prior approval of the House and Senate.

As far as me making "another" excuse to let Bush off the hook.....off the hook for what?

By the way, the British still stand by their intelligence regarding Iraqs attempt to buy uranium in Africa.

Nash , let's pretend that it is proven that Iraq tried to get uranium from Africa. Would you then agree that we needed to go to war with Iraq or would you just make some other argument anainst it?

Nash · « **Reply #4 on:** July 19, 2003, 07:44:57 AM »

You raised the point about the Congress and Senate voting in support of military action in Iraq before Bush used the uranium claim in his State of the Union speech... That was your big reply to Sandman's post.

I just asked you a question in regards to the timeline of that...

You disregard the question, say (unrelatedly) that Bush really didn't need an excuse to go to war, then ask me a question which hasn't got anything to do with either of our posts.

Hmm... Why do I not feel very compelled to give you an answer?

Nash · « **Reply #5 on:** July 19, 2003, 07:49:34 AM »

er... but I will....

I've said plenty of times that the US has every right to defend itself in the face of real threats such as those posed by WMD and a country likely to use them against it.

Syzygyone · « **Reply #6 on:** July 19, 2003, 08:10:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash

I've said plenty of times that the US has every right to defend itself in the face of real threats such as those posed by WMD and a country likely to use them against it.

Originally posted by Nash:

Christ... now the administration acts as if their information is better than the intelligence community... if the information was good in the first place, Tenet wouldn't be standing in front of Congress taking the hit.

Nash and Sandy;

Are you saying that an administration should not make a move unless there is unanimity from the intelligence community. As I read the reports on the NIE, the majority of the IC said Iraq was develping a nuclear capability. There was a dissent as well., but it was a minority. So, what is an administration supposed to believe when there is no unanimity about a threat? Go with the minority view?

Sandman · « **Reply #7 on:** July 19, 2003, 10:08:41 AM »

At this point... It's difficult to determine if it's true or false... the admin's story keeps changing.

Yesterday we get news that the White House is releasing data that will show compelling evidence that Iraq sought uranium.

Last week, Rice stated that it was Tenet's fault that those "sixteen little words" were in the speech.

... and whenever anyone points to past statements made by Bush, he likes to call them revisionist historians as if this is some sort of excuse for not keeping his story straight.