Notices
On Topic Serious discussion and debate. No nonsense will be tolerated.

More information about the pre-war lies

Thread Tools
 
Old Nov 19, 2005 | 09:57 PM
  #21  
bluetwo's Avatar
bluetwo
Relevance is irrelevant
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,079
Likes: 0
From: Honolulu, HI
Default

Yeah it's true. My point is we should just realize that even if the govt was twice as shady as it is now we would still be pretty well off.

So yeah. Bring on the bitching.

:hugglez:
Reply
Old Nov 20, 2005 | 01:04 AM
  #22  
ACS S3 3.0's Avatar
ACS S3 3.0
Honda Two Thhhhousand
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,197
Likes: 0
Default

Has anyone ever read this? EX-president Clinton talking about Irag back in 1998.


http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
Reply
Old Nov 20, 2005 | 07:45 AM
  #23  
qtiger's Avatar
qtiger
Moderator
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,776
Likes: 0
Default


Pfft. Only 1 of 7 of the sound bytes provided post-2001 claim he has WMD. None claim Al-Qaeda ties. And all but one of the quotes regarding WMD and imminent threat clearly reference the security briefings as the evidence, security briefings which we know now were based on weak, often contradictory and/or unsubstantiated intelligence.


Second, this shouldn't be a partisan issue. The issue is whether or not the administration knowingly mislead the public. If someone says "Bush lied" you can't refute that claim with "But look at all these people who believed him!"
Reply
Old Nov 20, 2005 | 01:00 PM
  #24  
Bl@ck's Avatar
Bl@ck
Sinner
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,599
Likes: 0
From: NoVA
Default

Originally Posted by qtiger
If someone says "Bush lied" you can't refute that claim with "But look at all these people who believed him!"
But you can say look at all the people who agreed with the claims in the run-up to war who were privy to the same intelligence that the administration was, however flawed it may have been. Both sides of the aisle on capitol hill agreed based on the intel that they had seen, the same intel, oddly enough, that the president based his judgement on, and we went to war.
Reply
Old Nov 20, 2005 | 02:16 PM
  #25  
RB26DETT's Avatar
RB26DETT
Eagles > NFL
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,225
Likes: 0
From: nj
Default

Originally Posted by /^Blackbacca^\
But you can say look at all the people who agreed with the claims in the run-up to war who were privy to the same intelligence that the administration was, however flawed it may have been. Both sides of the aisle on capitol hill agreed based on the intel that they had seen, the same intel, oddly enough, that the president based his judgement on, and we went to war.
i agree.

its the intel's fault, not bush's.

(this is my first post outside the basement in ages :eek3: )
Reply
Old Nov 21, 2005 | 06:21 AM
  #26  
BonzoAPD's Avatar
BonzoAPD
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 16,353
Likes: 0
From: Ossining, New York
Default

Benjamin get your facts straight. :blah:

https://www.honda-acura.net/forums/s...54#post2621354
Reply
Old Nov 21, 2005 | 07:24 AM
  #27  
DVPGSR's Avatar
DVPGSR
I need sleep...
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
Default

Michael Barone has a very good article on this very issue on Townhall.com.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...21/176229.html

When I have some further free time I want to investigate the findings of those commissions more that have said the intelligence was solid.

I like these comments from Barone...
To the charges that Bush "cherry-picked" intelligence, the commission co-chaired by former Democratic Sen. Charles Robb found that the intelligence available to Bush but not to Congress was even more alarming than the intelligence Congress had.
Reply
Old Nov 21, 2005 | 11:13 AM
  #28  
BonzoAPD's Avatar
BonzoAPD
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 16,353
Likes: 0
From: Ossining, New York
Default

Originally Posted by DVPGSR
Michael Barone has a very good article on this very issue on Townhall.com.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...21/176229.html

When I have some further free time I want to investigate the findings of those commissions more that have said the intelligence was solid.

I like these comments from Barone...
I read that as well. Great article.
Reply
Old Nov 21, 2005 | 12:48 PM
  #29  
qtiger's Avatar
qtiger
Moderator
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,776
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by /^Blackbacca^\
But you can say look at all the people who agreed with the claims in the run-up to war who were privy to the same intelligence that the administration was, however flawed it may have been. Both sides of the aisle on capitol hill agreed based on the intel that they had seen, the same intel, oddly enough, that the president based his judgement on, and we went to war.

Are you really saying that Congress has access to the exact same intelligence as the President? That seems a little naive to me.
Reply
Old Nov 21, 2005 | 01:00 PM
  #30  
DVPGSR's Avatar
DVPGSR
I need sleep...
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
Default

Originally Posted by qtiger
Are you really saying that Congress has access to the exact same intelligence as the President? That seems a little naive to me.
No...but read the quote from the Barone article in my post above that is attributed to a former Democratic Senator.
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:37 PM.