I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to save the address of this thread, perhaps even archive it....so that the next time someone here tells me that AI isn't extradordinarly liberal I'll have it to reference.
Mac user's are primarily artists. Artists are primarily empathetic (i.e. liberal in the true sense of the word, not the dirty word politics has turned it into).
You just don't get it. This story has been TAKEN AWAY by the White House. You don;t honestly think that Bush's teeam is going to let him take the fall on this, do you? Let's be real here.
It's amazing how hypocritical you can be. Is dishonesty allowed in the White House or not?
"The report had already been discredited," said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings."
He was told it was false. He didn't listen. He made the decision to put it in the state of the union address. This is pegged on Bush.
If you're trying to say no one will care, that's one thing. If you're trying to say Bush can legitimately blame someone else, I say you're wrong.
No, bunge...you're still building that huge strawman!
No one has said that Bush was told. That's the whole point. They have said that "The White House" was told. Yes, it made it into the State of the Union. If Bush believed the intelligence and allowed it to be included, that actually means he didn't lie at all. The only question is whether he knew or not...and anyone who thinks the man is stupid enough to use something he knew to be false in the State of the Union cannot be serious.
That would mean he is grossly and immensly incompetent. Incompetent in the way that a PVS patient is incompetent. There's no way around that.
If the President's trusted advisors give him intelligence which later turns out to be wrong, that makes the President incompetent? How? What are you saying...that Bush should have known the intel on Niger was wrong?
Bush has trained professionals whose job it is to present him with information. Decisions are then made on the basis of that information. This is either the fault of the people who gathered and recorded the intel, or the people that presented it to the President.
Let me ask you this: Let's say you have a professional helping you with something in your life. This person is considered an expert in his field, say, Real Estate. Your Broker tells you that you should list your house for $250,000. The house doesn't sell. You later find out the house is only worth $200,000. This broker came highly reccomended as has tremendous credentials. As it turns out though, the appraisal company he used overstated the value because it got a kick back from the Real Estate Broker's Branch Owner for the house selling higher. The appraisal company took a gamble and lost. Now tell me...this makes YOU incompetent?
It's the same with the President. If the President is presented information, he has to assume it is accurate unless it is obviously wrong. There can be no case that Bush should or could have known this. Let's say the Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld tell the President that from North Korea absolutely WILL launch an ICBM at San Francisco at 8 a.m. tomorrow morning. Bush orders a pre-emptive surgical strike on the launch facility, which we later learn was actually a Grain Silo, as opposed to a Missile Silo. This is Bush's fault?
The President can only act on what he is presented with. So too can you and I. "Lying or incompetent" is simple use of false dilemma technique. "Disingenuous Debate Tactic Day 2003" continues, apparently.
Isn´t this beginning to be a bit to technical? Are we now to discuss what "The White House" is? What lying means? What excatly "is" is?
Apparently.
SDW seems to also think that the President isn't responsible for what he does.
But, as Bunge pointed out, Bush knew:
"The report had already been discredited," said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings."
As for you, SDW, if you actually believed anything you say, shouldn't you be a bit more concerned about the fact that the entire Bush admin knew but didn't tell Bush (or so the vooices tell you). Since when you elect the president you are more so electing the admin, you better hurry up and hop on the bandwagon to get the Bush admin out of office.
No matter what you think of Bush the person, the Bush admin is corrupt as hell by your own measure.
There is? So if your claim is that information that was used to justify a major war was known in the white house to be false it is the fault of the mail system? "Oops. The report that Russia was launcing a rocket bringing food to the ISS wasn´t delivered to the president himself so therefore we thought it was a missile and we nuked Moscow. That calls for drastic matters. Fire the mail boy!"
The president is responsible for getting the right information. He desides how the infrastructure of the white house is and therefore he is responsible.
SDW seems to also think that the President isn't responsible for what he does.
But, as Bunge pointed out, Bush knew:
"The report had already been discredited," said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings."
As for you, SDW, if you actually believed anything you say, shouldn't you be a bit more concerned about the fact that the entire Bush admin knew but didn't tell Bush (or so the vooices tell you). Since when you elect the president you are more so electing the admin, you better hurry up and hop on the bandwagon to get the Bush admin out of office.
No matter what you think of Bush the person, the Bush admin is corrupt as hell by your own measure.
I'd like to see that quote linked please. Somehow I doubt your word.
And, apparently "Disingenuous Debate Tactics 2003 Day" continues with your coninued use of Strawman technique. I didn't say the "entire Bush administration". You did. The report was wrong. If Bush knew it, then we have a problem. If someone else knew it, he/she has a problem. If someone suspected the repport was wrong, but didn't bring it to President's attention, that person again has a problem.
The Bush administration is "corrupt as hell"? Come on. If you were anymore polarized you'd be a battery. My God...take a step back. Get some perspective...perhaps take a vacation.
Anders:
Quote:
here is? So if your claim is that information that was used to justify a major war was known in the white house to be false it is the fault of the mail system? "Oops. The report that Russia was launcing a rocket bringing food to the ISS wasn´t delivered to the president himself so therefore we thought it was a missile and we nuked Moscow. That calls for drastic matters. Fire the mail boy!"
The president is responsible for getting the right information. He desides how the infrastructure of the white house is and therefore he is responsible.
Oh My God. The President is presented with information. If the information is wrong, he cannot be held responsible. The person or persons that PRESENTED the info to him must be held responsible.
giant and jimmac:
You not agreeing with me doesn't mean a thing. 10,000 people, 50,000 or the entire population of France (apparently) won't disuade me. Bush used information which has now been proven inaccurate. The only question is: Did he know it at the time? There is no evidence of that. There is no evidence Bush lied to start a war, as you are so fond of claiming. There is no case for impeachment. The hunt for WMD is not over and has not been totally fruitless. The war did not violate any domestic or international law, was not without merit and was not for the purposes of enriching Bush's friends, pampering white males, empire building or the conquest of Iraqi natural resources.
But by all means, continue. Wait 'till you see the thread I start on Election night 2004.
Since we actually know for a fact that all major offices, Cheney's, Rumsfeld's, Rice's and Powell's, were notificed multiple times that one of the most crucial elements of their case was totally invalid, we know for a fact that that information was intentionally withheld. End of story. Bush Admin decieved the american people.
But, now you have to acknowlege that Bush was personally informed of the fact on multiple occasions, as stated above. As such, he knew what he was saying had been discredited.
Quote:
The only question is: Did he know it at the time? There is no evidence of that.
You are also a liar. The board is repeatly hitting you on the head and you still claim there is no board.
The ONLY evidence that exists AT ALLpoint to Bush knowing. The only defense put forward has been Ari Fleischer's contorted denials coupled with your inability to think clearly. Have you even read the transcripts of the exchange? I didn't think so.
Comments
Originally posted by jimmac
They may not have any choice!
Nver gonna happen my friend.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to save the address of this thread, perhaps even archive it....so that the next time someone here tells me that AI isn't extradordinarly liberal I'll have it to reference.
Mac user's are primarily artists. Artists are primarily empathetic (i.e. liberal in the true sense of the word, not the dirty word politics has turned it into).
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2...200206102.html
Originally posted by SDW2001
You just don't get it. This story has been TAKEN AWAY by the White House. You don;t honestly think that Bush's teeam is going to let him take the fall on this, do you? Let's be real here.
It's amazing how hypocritical you can be. Is dishonesty allowed in the White House or not?
Originally posted by bunge
It's amazing how hypocritical you can be. Is dishonesty allowed in the White House or not?
We're not talking about that. We are talking about Bush taking the fall. It's not going to happen. Wow, this is strawman day, isn't it?
Originally posted by SDW2001
We're not talking about that. We are talking about Bush taking the fall. It's not going to happen. Wow, this is strawman day, isn't it?
He was told it was false. He didn't listen. He made the decision to put it in the state of the union address. This is pegged on Bush.
If you're trying to say no one will care, that's one thing. If you're trying to say Bush can legitimately blame someone else, I say you're wrong.
Originally posted by bunge
He was told it was false. He didn't listen. He made the decision to put it in the state of the union address. This is pegged on Bush.
If you're trying to say no one will care, that's one thing. If you're trying to say Bush can legitimately blame someone else, I say you're wrong.
No, bunge...you're still building that huge strawman!
No one has said that Bush was told. That's the whole point. They have said that "The White House" was told. Yes, it made it into the State of the Union. If Bush believed the intelligence and allowed it to be included, that actually means he didn't lie at all. The only question is whether he knew or not...and anyone who thinks the man is stupid enough to use something he knew to be false in the State of the Union cannot be serious.
Originally posted by SDW2001
If Bush believed the intelligence and allowed it to be included, that actually means he didn't lie at all.
That would mean he is grossly and immensly incompetent. Incompetent in the way that a PVS patient is incompetent. There's no way around that.
Originally posted by giant
That would mean he is grossly and immensly incompetent. Incompetent in the way that a PVS patient is incompetent. There's no way around that.
If the President's trusted advisors give him intelligence which later turns out to be wrong, that makes the President incompetent? How? What are you saying...that Bush should have known the intel on Niger was wrong?
Bush has trained professionals whose job it is to present him with information. Decisions are then made on the basis of that information. This is either the fault of the people who gathered and recorded the intel, or the people that presented it to the President.
Let me ask you this: Let's say you have a professional helping you with something in your life. This person is considered an expert in his field, say, Real Estate. Your Broker tells you that you should list your house for $250,000. The house doesn't sell. You later find out the house is only worth $200,000. This broker came highly reccomended as has tremendous credentials. As it turns out though, the appraisal company he used overstated the value because it got a kick back from the Real Estate Broker's Branch Owner for the house selling higher. The appraisal company took a gamble and lost. Now tell me...this makes YOU incompetent?
It's the same with the President. If the President is presented information, he has to assume it is accurate unless it is obviously wrong. There can be no case that Bush should or could have known this. Let's say the Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld tell the President that from North Korea absolutely WILL launch an ICBM at San Francisco at 8 a.m. tomorrow morning. Bush orders a pre-emptive surgical strike on the launch facility, which we later learn was actually a Grain Silo, as opposed to a Missile Silo. This is Bush's fault?
The President can only act on what he is presented with. So too can you and I. "Lying or incompetent" is simple use of false dilemma technique. "Disingenuous Debate Tactic Day 2003" continues, apparently.
Originally posted by Anders
Isn´t this beginning to be a bit to technical? Are we now to discuss what "The White House" is? What lying means? What excatly "is" is?
I think there is a HUGE distinction here. HUGE.
Originally posted by Anders
Isn´t this beginning to be a bit to technical? Are we now to discuss what "The White House" is? What lying means? What excatly "is" is?
Apparently.
SDW seems to also think that the President isn't responsible for what he does.
But, as Bunge pointed out, Bush knew:
"The report had already been discredited," said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings."
As for you, SDW, if you actually believed anything you say, shouldn't you be a bit more concerned about the fact that the entire Bush admin knew but didn't tell Bush (or so the vooices tell you). Since when you elect the president you are more so electing the admin, you better hurry up and hop on the bandwagon to get the Bush admin out of office.
No matter what you think of Bush the person, the Bush admin is corrupt as hell by your own measure.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I think there is a HUGE distinction here. HUGE.
There is? So if your claim is that information that was used to justify a major war was known in the white house to be false it is the fault of the mail system? "Oops. The report that Russia was launcing a rocket bringing food to the ISS wasn´t delivered to the president himself so therefore we thought it was a missile and we nuked Moscow. That calls for drastic matters. Fire the mail boy!"
The president is responsible for getting the right information. He desides how the infrastructure of the white house is and therefore he is responsible.
No one buying your ideas today either I see.
Originally posted by jimmac
SDW,
No one buying your ideas today either I see.
buying? most people would probably pay to get rid of them.
*note, for those of you that need help, that's an attack on the idea, not the person*
Originally posted by Longhorn
Nothing for Bush supporters to say. He was caught with his pants down ....... ...end of story.
I think your confusing him with the previous president.
Originally posted by giant
Apparently.
SDW seems to also think that the President isn't responsible for what he does.
But, as Bunge pointed out, Bush knew:
"The report had already been discredited," said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings."
As for you, SDW, if you actually believed anything you say, shouldn't you be a bit more concerned about the fact that the entire Bush admin knew but didn't tell Bush (or so the vooices tell you). Since when you elect the president you are more so electing the admin, you better hurry up and hop on the bandwagon to get the Bush admin out of office.
No matter what you think of Bush the person, the Bush admin is corrupt as hell by your own measure.
I'd like to see that quote linked please. Somehow I doubt your word.
And, apparently "Disingenuous Debate Tactics 2003 Day" continues with your coninued use of Strawman technique. I didn't say the "entire Bush administration". You did. The report was wrong. If Bush knew it, then we have a problem. If someone else knew it, he/she has a problem. If someone suspected the repport was wrong, but didn't bring it to President's attention, that person again has a problem.
The Bush administration is "corrupt as hell"? Come on. If you were anymore polarized you'd be a battery. My God...take a step back. Get some perspective...perhaps take a vacation.
Anders:
here is? So if your claim is that information that was used to justify a major war was known in the white house to be false it is the fault of the mail system? "Oops. The report that Russia was launcing a rocket bringing food to the ISS wasn´t delivered to the president himself so therefore we thought it was a missile and we nuked Moscow. That calls for drastic matters. Fire the mail boy!"
The president is responsible for getting the right information. He desides how the infrastructure of the white house is and therefore he is responsible.
Oh My God. The President is presented with information. If the information is wrong, he cannot be held responsible. The person or persons that PRESENTED the info to him must be held responsible.
giant and jimmac:
You not agreeing with me doesn't mean a thing. 10,000 people, 50,000 or the entire population of France (apparently) won't disuade me. Bush used information which has now been proven inaccurate. The only question is: Did he know it at the time? There is no evidence of that. There is no evidence Bush lied to start a war, as you are so fond of claiming. There is no case for impeachment. The hunt for WMD is not over and has not been totally fruitless. The war did not violate any domestic or international law, was not without merit and was not for the purposes of enriching Bush's friends, pampering white males, empire building or the conquest of Iraqi natural resources.
But by all means, continue. Wait 'till you see the thread I start on Election night 2004.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I'd like to see that quote linked please. Somehow I doubt your word.
Why, because everything I've posted has been demonstrated true? Anyway, here's a bone, doggy:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_2518.shtml
The Bush administration is "corrupt as hell"?
Since we actually know for a fact that all major offices, Cheney's, Rumsfeld's, Rice's and Powell's, were notificed multiple times that one of the most crucial elements of their case was totally invalid, we know for a fact that that information was intentionally withheld. End of story. Bush Admin decieved the american people.
But, now you have to acknowlege that Bush was personally informed of the fact on multiple occasions, as stated above. As such, he knew what he was saying had been discredited.
The only question is: Did he know it at the time? There is no evidence of that.
You are also a liar. The board is repeatly hitting you on the head and you still claim there is no board.
The ONLY evidence that exists AT ALLpoint to Bush knowing. The only defense put forward has been Ari Fleischer's contorted denials coupled with your inability to think clearly. Have you even read the transcripts of the exchange? I didn't think so.