Author Topic: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2.... (Read 8433 times)

Nash · « **Reply #315 on:** July 30, 2005, 05:20:43 PM »

Yeah yeah.... didn't think so.

Raider179 · « **Reply #316 on:** July 30, 2005, 05:25:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad

Now, if you have an incontrovertible information that the guesses were based on "complete lies" please link it. And pass it on to the US Congress as well.

Or are you just going by what you read in the media?

86 days since congressional request for investigation.

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. 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. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Lets also not forget the "yellow cake" which was put into the State of the Union, when they knew the intel was bad.

Lets also not forget the use of Chalabi and Curveball for intel. We all know now they they both lied about all the intel they gave.

Lets not forget the attempt to discredit Joe Wilson's report on the Yellow cake. (Which Wilson was right about)

Lets not forget Osama is still running around free.

Lets not forget Mullah Omar is still free.

hell I am trying to think of 1 thing the adminstration got right when it came to the war on terror. Iraq is already in a Civil war. Its not gonna wait till we leave. But as soon as we do, be assured what's going on now over there will look miniscule.

yet no one has taken responsibility for any of these errors. No one is held responsible. That is what this adminstration does. Hell look at Rove. 1st Bush says any leakers will get fired. 2nd when it is found that Rove confirmed it to Novak and leaked it to Matt Cooper, Bush changed it to someone must be charged. This adminstration is awful. And its all coming to light.

Nash · « **Reply #317 on:** July 30, 2005, 05:33:54 PM »

Actually Toad, I gotta question.....

You asked for "incontrovertible information that the guesses were based on "complete lies."

Yet you had no incontrovertible information with which to base your support for the war. So yhy are you suddenly needing this now? Is it a "once bitten twice shy" kind of thing? Or is it safe to conclude that you're being a bit selective here. That's telling for sure.

Actually - forget these questions. Let me ask you just one. Very simple.

Based on everything you know, would you guess that the administration lied in seeking your support for the war, or would you guess that they didn't lie in seeking your support for the war?

Manedew · « **Reply #318 on:** July 30, 2005, 05:47:11 PM »

yup Nash .... and we bite our tounges to avoid saying "I told you so" too all the warmongers.

Many of us never belived all the WMD B.S. .... espesicaly with people like Wilson speaking out..... the timeing of leaking Plames CIA idenity made this clear as daylight.

Toad · « **Reply #319 on:** July 30, 2005, 05:52:49 PM »

I'm believe Bush made a decision on the information available to him.

Now did he "lie" in presenting his case to the American people? So far, I have not seen anything that convinces me that he did.

That's not a dodge.

In my previous example of photo interpreters, would you call one of them a "liar"? I mean one of them has to be wrong, they can't both be right. So which one is "lying"?

I think Bush gave his interpretation of the evidence he was presented. The "imminent threat" of WMD, the reason for invasion, was never proven post-invasion.

If it can be shown he deliberately lied, I think he should be impeached. Have you seen anything in the media on which to base impeachment charges in the Senate?

Why should there be incontrovertible evidence to impeach the President and not to go to war with Iraq? Because they are entirely different situations. The invasion was based on an immediate threat to national security. The possibility Bush lied doesn't fall into that category. You, of course, will feel differently.

Let's flip the question now and you answer. Before you had no incontrovertible evidence that Iraq was NOT a WMD threat, yet you chose not to support the invasion. Now you have no incontrovertible evidence that Bush lied but you are ready to see him impeached. So why have you suddenly changed your standards?

Toad · « **Reply #320 on:** July 30, 2005, 05:55:05 PM »

Raider, I guess it's 86 days then that the opportunity to actually ask the guy that wrote the report exactly what he meant and exactly what was said in the meeting has been studiously avoided.

Why haven't they just asked the guy that wrote the memo?

Why haven't they asked the guy that actually went to DC and talked to the US folks?

Nash · « **Reply #321 on:** July 30, 2005, 06:04:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Let's flip the question now and you answer. Before you had no incontrovertible evidence that Iraq was NOT a WMD threat, yet you chose not to support the invasion. Now you have no incontrovertible evidence that Bush lied but you are ready to see him impeached. So why have you suddenly changed your standards?

Your answer was very unsatisfactory. I'm sorry, it was.

Now to answer yours.

I indeed had no evidence that Iraq was not a threat. Just as I have no evidence that Sweden is not a threat. Before invading either of those two countries, and cosidering the costs, I would need some freaking evidence to do it. Okay?

Now the second part of your question.

The Bush admin lied about Iraq's attempt to buy uranium in Africa. See, it was proven false, yet he still went ahead and said it. This is incontrovertible. And this, Toad, is a lie.

That's your answer right there, right? He lied.

I could continue on with "Mushroom clouds" (they said it, it wasn't true and (whoah look out!) that's another lie), and on....but it just doesn't seem to register.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #322 on:** July 30, 2005, 06:11:20 PM »

Just a small aside...

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
The Bush admin lied about Iraq's attempt to buy uranium in Africa. See, it was proven false, yet he still went ahead and said it.

What Bush said was "British intellegence reports that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake.."

British intel did report that and AFAIK they still stand by that report.

Raider179 · « **Reply #323 on:** July 30, 2005, 06:14:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Raider, I guess it's 86 days then that the opportunity to actually ask the guy that wrote the report exactly what he meant and exactly what was said in the meeting has been studiously avoided.

Why haven't they just asked the guy that wrote the memo?

Why haven't they asked the guy that actually went to DC and talked to the US folks?

Toad, sorry if you cant read that paragraph in the context it is written in. Its simple, straightforward and to the point. You want to debate what "fixed" means go ahead. But you are really really stretching if thats your defense. It's clear to anyone who gives a fair reading to that memo under what context "fixed" is used. The only defense worth even discussing is that its fake, but its not so gotta stretch out for that what does "fixed" mean.

As for the 86 days, Mabe when they actually get the investigation rolling they will have him testify. On the other hand, I doubt Tony Blair wishes to embarass Bush and might find a way to make the "writer" unavailable.

These 2 lines say it all

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.

1)Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action

do you deny it says that?

2)It says he wants to justify it by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD

do you deny it says that

3)it then says BUT the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

want to explain why there is a BUT after the justication line? I cant see those 2 sentences in any other light. Why would the writer say intelligence and facts were being fixed around policy if he didnt mean exactly that. If the facts and intelligence fit policy why didnt he say that. Why not say according to the intelligence and facts such and such policy has been adopted?

Nash · « **Reply #324 on:** July 30, 2005, 06:17:51 PM »

Oh my god... Holden - you're too smart for that.

You of course know that Bush's own intelligence said this was a bunch of bull.

And by "own intelligence" we're not talkin' about the "office of special plans" (picture me rolling me eyes).

So semantically? What you're trying to say is that Bush took precious time out of his State of the Union adress to report on the false claims by some other government. He wouldn't be doing that to convice everyone that those claims were true now, would he? Nooooooo....

He was merely - actually, you tell me. Why did the president take the time to repeat a claim he knew was false?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #325 on:** July 30, 2005, 06:27:54 PM »

IIRC we have had this discussion b4 Nash, About WMD's, Bush was proven wrong, but allegations of him lieing about WMD's are not proven.

Lieing and being wrong are two different things.

Since (1998 I think) it was the policy of the USA to seek regime change in Iraq, that the president should seek regime change is not a surprise: he is sworn to administer the policy of the country.

And unless my information has been superceded, British Intel still stands by the yellowcake story.

Raider179 · « **Reply #326 on:** July 30, 2005, 06:32:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Just a small aside...

What Bush said was "British intellegence reports that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake.."

British intel did report that and AFAIK they still stand by that report.

Where he got it from is of little consequence. The point is he found it and used it to scare Americans and make his case for attacking Iraq. What does matter is if he knew it was bad info and used it anyway. That has been the accusation leveled but have nothing besides Wilson saying he told them so before hand and they used it anyway. Pretty good motive for discrediting him.

Only Tony Blair stands by that report. The IAEA and our own government acknowledge its false.

Nash · « **Reply #327 on:** July 30, 2005, 06:33:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
IIRC we have had this discussion b4 Nash, About WMD's, Bush was proven wrong, but allegations of him lieing about WMD's are not proven.

Lieing and being wrong are two different things.

Since (1998 I think) it was the policy of the USA to seek regime change in Iraq, that the president should seek regime change is not a surprise: he is sworn to administer the policy of the country.

And unless my information has been superceded, British Intel still stands by the yellowcake story.

And the government of Goondawragi believes that the earth is flat. Who cares?

The Bush administration knew it was false, and the Bush administration decided to put it in a freaking State of the Union address anyways?

Why was there no mention of Goondawragi?

More importantly (and again) - why do you think they did that?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #328 on:** July 30, 2005, 06:39:00 PM »

Why don't you rag on British Intel? It's your commonwealth.

Nash · « **Reply #329 on:** July 30, 2005, 06:45:24 PM »

The Bush administration knew it was false, and the Bush administration decided to put it in the State of the Union address anyways.

Why do you think they did that?