More information about the pre-war lies
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:
So yeah. Bring on the bitching.
:hugglez:
Has anyone ever read this? EX-president Clinton talking about Irag back in 1998.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
Originally Posted by reno96teg
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!"
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!"
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.
its the intel's fault, not bush's.
(this is my first post outside the basement in ages :eek3: )
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...
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.
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...
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...
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.
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.


