One, Dean is never going to get the nomination...just to sober you up there.
Two, we're talking about an opinion from a guy who is hugely anti-war and is running against the man he is criticizing. Perhaps he has a motive here? Nooooo.... And really..Watergate? He wishes....from the bottom of his heart.
bunge:
You haven't been saying like what Tenet said. Not at all. Your position is that Bush knowingly used false intel. That's been proven to be false in ITSELF.
Quote:
Technically it wasn't a lie, even though we knew it wasn't true.'
That's going to be tough to prove, even if I agreed with you. So changes were made...so what? It seems to me they were trying to be as accurate as possible by getting into specifics such as amounts of materials, etc. (that's only my interpretation...there are several other possible ones).
It doesn't matter now anyway, because the Dirrector of the CIA has publicly said it was his fault...that he should have told the President but didn't. That's pretty much the end...unless someone can prove beyond any real doubt that Bush was told.
You haven't been saying like what Tenet said. Not at all. Your position is that Bush knowingly used false intel.
They shifted the intelligence from the CIA (because the CIA's intelligence did not support the Niger info) to Britain so Bush could use it. Not because it was accurate. That's what I've been saying. That's what Tenet says.
Yes, it will take some time to unfold, and I guess because of this you and Bush both need to take the attitude that "This is meaningless, it's over" or you'll risk things getting worse.
They shifted the intelligence from the CIA (because the CIA's intelligence did not support the Niger info) to Britain so Bush could use it. Not because it was accurate. That's what I've been saying. That's what Tenet says.
Yes, it will take some time to unfold, and I guess because of this you and Bush both need to take the attitude that "This is meaningless, it's over" or you'll risk things getting worse.
Stop trying to paint me as a blindly partisan tool, bunge. Oh, and let me pre-empt any comment about to made such as "well, that's what you're portraying yourself as".
The bottom line is the CIA cleared it. That's the end of the story.
Condoleeza Rice: "If [the CIA] said take the information out....it would have been out of there".
I'm not talking about Britain, I'm talking about OUR intelligence services which cleared the speech. In other words, it was up to them to find inaccuracies. That's WHY it goes through them first.
You may suspect, speculate, suggest, doubt...whatever. But, that's all it will be. You have no proof AT ALL that Bush knew.
Stop trying to paint me as a blindly partisan tool, bunge. Oh, and let me pre-empt any comment about to made such as "well, that's what you're portraying yourself as".
The bottom line is the CIA cleared it. That's the end of the story.
Condoleeza Rice: "If [the CIA] said take the information out....it would have been out of there".
I'm not talking about Britain, I'm talking about OUR intelligence services which cleared the speech. In other words, it was up to them to find inaccuracies. That's WHY it goes through them first.
You may suspect, speculate, suggest, doubt...whatever. But, that's all it will be. You have no proof AT ALL that Bush knew.
Oh SDW? Did you click on the link to that same text and read the poll like I asked? I know you would like to think this is over but I have a feeling this is just the begining. Look even groverat admits he thinks Bush lied. Any thinking unpartisan person would come to that conclusion. This still means that the main reason we went to war was false! This whole Iraq has WOMD and is a threat is sounding really half baked. I think the voters are starting to realize that also. Mix that with a litttle bad economics and.....well you know. The morning paper here in Salem just said ( right on the front page ) Oregon's unemployed has just jumped to 8.5. It hasn't been that since 1986! Tell me again how the economy's going to improve! Even a little.
The bottom line is the CIA cleared it. That's the end of the story.
Are you dense? What did the CIA clear? They cleared the fact that the CIA was no longer implicated in the claim. They cleared the fact that the Brits said X was true because the Brits said X was true. If the CIA thought it were true the State of the Union Address would have been about Tenent saying it was true, not the Brits.
I know this is a scary time for you, but please try and be reasonable.
ooohhh! The Guardian and Time magazine! I'm convinced. Just before I came here this morning, I read the time article. Literally, I just read it the second before.
It's ridiculous. And I quote:
...
Quote:
It was a line that had launched a dozen memos, several diplomatic tugs of war and some mysterious, last-minute pencil editing.
Please. Oh no! Last minute editing! I smell deception!
Quote:
The line?"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"?wasn't the Bush team's strongest evidence for the case that Saddam wanted nuclear weapons. It was just the most controversial, since most government experts familiar with the statement believed it to be unsupportable.
(emphasis added)
Oh really...which experts. Talk about irony. Where't the *support* for that statement?
Quote:
Last week the White House finally admitted that Bush should have jettisoned the claim. Designed to end a long-simmering controversy, the admission instead sparked a bewildering four days of changing explanations and unusually nasty finger pointing by the normally disciplined Bush team.
Notice the added characterization of "nasty finger pointing" and the rather obvious implication that the Bush Team was falling apart.
Quote:
If so many doubted the uranium allegations, who inside the government kept putting those allegations on the table?
So many? Who?
Quote:
In what looked like a command performance of political sacrifice, the head of the agency that expressed some of the strongest doubts about the charge took responsibility for the President's unsubstantiated claim.
It just keeps getting better. The first sentence is blatant, unsupported opinion.
Quote:
Yet the controversy over those 16 words would not have erupted with such force were they not emblematic of larger concerns about Bush's reasoning for going to war in the first place.
Such colorful writing. "Erupted with such force". The second part should read "Time's concerns over going to war in the first place".
Quote:
He wrapped the evidence in the even more controversial doctrine of pre-emption, saying America could no longer wait for proof of its enemies' intentions before defending itself overseas?it must sometimes strike first, even without all the evidence in hand. Much of the world was appalled by this logic, but Congress and the American public went along. Four months after the war started, at least one piece of key evidence has turned out to be false, the U.S. has yet to find weapons of mass destruction, and American soldiers keep dying in a country that has not greeted its liberators the way the Administration predicted it would. Now the false assertion and the rising casualties are combining to take a toll on Bush's standing with the public.
Wow...just when I thought it safe to open my eyes. "Wrapped the evidence". People dying! The Iraqis want us out! The horror! The shame!
Quote:
How did a story that much of the national-security apparatus regarded as bogus wind up in the most important speech of Bush's term? The evidence suggests that many in the Bush Administration simply wanted to believe it.
Three words: Criminal Liberal Media
Quote:
Cheney's interest hardly came as a surprise: he has long been known to harbor some of the most hard-line views of Saddam's nuclear ambitions.
Hard Line views of a nuclear Iraq. Imagine!
I'll stop there. Nearly every paragraph of the artcile shows the absoltutely INCREDIBLE bias with which it is written. It looks like a damn Maureen Dowd Column for God's own sake.
Are you dense? What did the CIA clear? They cleared the fact that the CIA was no longer implicated in the claim. They cleared the fact that the Brits said X was true because the Brits said X was true. If the CIA thought it were true the State of the Union Address would have been about Tenent saying it was true, not the Brits.
I know this is a scary time for you, but please try and be reasonable.
Your first line is a direct violation of the posting guidelines. Let's not be giant-esque here...agreed?
The CIA cleared the speech in its entirety. That's what they cleared. Your last sentence doesn't even make sense. The State of the Union is run through the CIA to make sure it doesn't contain any false information (or overly sensitive information). The CIA officially cleared the speech. Let me say that again: The speech. One more time, all together now: THE SPEECH IN ITS ENTIRETY.
As I said, you may suspect Bush of knowing before hand, but you have no real evidence. No one does. Every single charge to that effect is totally unsubstantiated.
I for one don't believe he lied at all. I have two reasons:
1) I've seen no real evidence he lied.
2) I believe Bush means what he says and is an honest man.
I know you, giant, jimmac et al think that's insane. Think what you will.
Are there any magazines, news channels, newspapers etc. that AREn't commie, liberal, pinko, jane fonda loving, katie coric felatio giving, mouthpieces of the ho-chin-min hand holding, Mayday celebrating, stalin savioring, politcal left?*
just wondering....
*and by politcal left i mean the welfare giving, taxing to death joe main street, death penalty reversing, fetus destroying, immigrant embracing, hollywood sleeping with, media manipulating, gay marriage endorsing, socializing medicine party on the other side of the politcal aisle.
Are there any magazines, news channels, newspapers etc. that AREn't commie, liberal, pinko, jane fonda loving, katie coric felatio giving, mouthpieces of the ho-chin-min hand holding, Mayday celebrating, stalin savioring, politcal left?*
just wondering....
*and by politcal left i mean the welfare giving, taxing to death joe main street, death penalty reversing, fetus destroying, immigrant embracing, hollywood sleeping with, media manipulating, gay marriage endorsing, socializing medicine party on the other side of the politcal aisle.
[climbs out from pile of sarcastic goo]
I have said many times there are. Fox News and The Wall Street Joural are two major examples. There's also the Washington Times and the New York Post.
You do now that Fox News is run by Roger Ailes and that they have a direct line to the white house which the white house is more than happy to answer. (and call back - collect)
NY Post:
A tabloid.
Both of these are doing what you claim katie and the rest of the liberal media is doing, only to the policatl opposite.
<picks himself up off the floor from laughing his ass off his aereon super chair>
I don't know how to put this but if you honestly consider these sources to honest, objective and ones that have more then a sliver of jounalist intengrity then...
god i don't know what to say. You've made me speechless...
As I said, you may suspect Bush of knowing before hand, but you have no real evidence. No one does. Every single charge to that effect is totally unsubstantiated.
Rice knew, Cheney knew, Powell knew, Tenent knew, the U.K. knew, everyone knew. If Bush was kept in the dark that holds as much trouble as if he did know.
It's Bush's job to know what all of these people know. And if they're keeping him in the dark as you claim, the entire administration is undermined.
Take your pick, choose your own poison. We can debate either one to the same end.
Rice knew, Cheney knew, Powell knew, Tenent knew, the U.K. knew, everyone knew. If Bush was kept in the dark that holds as much trouble as if he did know.
It's Bush's job to know what all of these people know. And if they're keeping him in the dark as you claim, the entire administration is undermined.
Take your pick, choose your own poison. We can debate either one to the same end.
Well that cleared things up. The white house blame CIA, they take responsibility and Bush say he has 100% confiedence in Tenet. No need to investigate that
Comments
Two, we're talking about an opinion from a guy who is hugely anti-war and is running against the man he is criticizing. Perhaps he has a motive here? Nooooo....
bunge:
You haven't been saying like what Tenet said. Not at all. Your position is that Bush knowingly used false intel. That's been proven to be false in ITSELF.
Technically it wasn't a lie, even though we knew it wasn't true.'
That's going to be tough to prove, even if I agreed with you. So changes were made...so what? It seems to me they were trying to be as accurate as possible by getting into specifics such as amounts of materials, etc. (that's only my interpretation...there are several other possible ones).
It doesn't matter now anyway, because the Dirrector of the CIA has publicly said it was his fault...that he should have told the President but didn't. That's pretty much the end...unless someone can prove beyond any real doubt that Bush was told.
Originally posted by SDW2001
You haven't been saying like what Tenet said. Not at all. Your position is that Bush knowingly used false intel.
They shifted the intelligence from the CIA (because the CIA's intelligence did not support the Niger info) to Britain so Bush could use it. Not because it was accurate. That's what I've been saying. That's what Tenet says.
Yes, it will take some time to unfold, and I guess because of this you and Bush both need to take the attitude that "This is meaningless, it's over" or you'll risk things getting worse.
Originally posted by bunge
They shifted the intelligence from the CIA (because the CIA's intelligence did not support the Niger info) to Britain so Bush could use it. Not because it was accurate. That's what I've been saying. That's what Tenet says.
Yes, it will take some time to unfold, and I guess because of this you and Bush both need to take the attitude that "This is meaningless, it's over" or you'll risk things getting worse.
Stop trying to paint me as a blindly partisan tool, bunge. Oh, and let me pre-empt any comment about to made such as "well, that's what you're portraying yourself as".
The bottom line is the CIA cleared it. That's the end of the story.
Condoleeza Rice: "If [the CIA] said take the information out....it would have been out of there".
I'm not talking about Britain, I'm talking about OUR intelligence services which cleared the speech. In other words, it was up to them to find inaccuracies. That's WHY it goes through them first.
You may suspect, speculate, suggest, doubt...whatever. But, that's all it will be. You have no proof AT ALL that Bush knew.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Stop trying to paint me as a blindly partisan tool, bunge. Oh, and let me pre-empt any comment about to made such as "well, that's what you're portraying yourself as".
The bottom line is the CIA cleared it. That's the end of the story.
Condoleeza Rice: "If [the CIA] said take the information out....it would have been out of there".
I'm not talking about Britain, I'm talking about OUR intelligence services which cleared the speech. In other words, it was up to them to find inaccuracies. That's WHY it goes through them first.
You may suspect, speculate, suggest, doubt...whatever. But, that's all it will be. You have no proof AT ALL that Bush knew.
Oh SDW? Did you click on the link to that same text and read the poll like I asked? I know you would like to think this is over but I have a feeling this is just the begining. Look even groverat admits he thinks Bush lied. Any thinking unpartisan person would come to that conclusion. This still means that the main reason we went to war was false! This whole Iraq has WOMD and is a threat is sounding really half baked. I think the voters are starting to realize that also. Mix that with a litttle bad economics and.....well you know. The morning paper here in Salem just said ( right on the front page ) Oregon's unemployed has just jumped to 8.5. It hasn't been that since 1986! Tell me again how the economy's going to improve! Even a little.
Originally posted by SDW2001
The bottom line is the CIA cleared it. That's the end of the story.
Are you dense? What did the CIA clear? They cleared the fact that the CIA was no longer implicated in the claim. They cleared the fact that the Brits said X was true because the Brits said X was true. If the CIA thought it were true the State of the Union Address would have been about Tenent saying it was true, not the Brits.
I know this is a scary time for you, but please try and be reasonable.
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's the end of the story.
Whoops.
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's the end of the story.
"Turn your head, cough."
It's ridiculous. And I quote:
...
It was a line that had launched a dozen memos, several diplomatic tugs of war and some mysterious, last-minute pencil editing.
Please. Oh no! Last minute editing! I smell deception!
The line?"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"?wasn't the Bush team's strongest evidence for the case that Saddam wanted nuclear weapons. It was just the most controversial, since most government experts familiar with the statement believed it to be unsupportable.
(emphasis added)
Oh really...which experts. Talk about irony. Where't the *support* for that statement?
Last week the White House finally admitted that Bush should have jettisoned the claim. Designed to end a long-simmering controversy, the admission instead sparked a bewildering four days of changing explanations and unusually nasty finger pointing by the normally disciplined Bush team.
Notice the added characterization of "nasty finger pointing" and the rather obvious implication that the Bush Team was falling apart.
If so many doubted the uranium allegations, who inside the government kept putting those allegations on the table?
So many? Who?
In what looked like a command performance of political sacrifice, the head of the agency that expressed some of the strongest doubts about the charge took responsibility for the President's unsubstantiated claim.
It just keeps getting better. The first sentence is blatant, unsupported opinion.
Yet the controversy over those 16 words would not have erupted with such force were they not emblematic of larger concerns about Bush's reasoning for going to war in the first place.
Such colorful writing. "Erupted with such force". The second part should read "Time's concerns over going to war in the first place".
He wrapped the evidence in the even more controversial doctrine of pre-emption, saying America could no longer wait for proof of its enemies' intentions before defending itself overseas?it must sometimes strike first, even without all the evidence in hand. Much of the world was appalled by this logic, but Congress and the American public went along. Four months after the war started, at least one piece of key evidence has turned out to be false, the U.S. has yet to find weapons of mass destruction, and American soldiers keep dying in a country that has not greeted its liberators the way the Administration predicted it would. Now the false assertion and the rising casualties are combining to take a toll on Bush's standing with the public.
Wow...just when I thought it safe to open my eyes. "Wrapped the evidence". People dying! The Iraqis want us out! The horror! The shame!
How did a story that much of the national-security apparatus regarded as bogus wind up in the most important speech of Bush's term? The evidence suggests that many in the Bush Administration simply wanted to believe it.
Three words: Criminal Liberal Media
Cheney's interest hardly came as a surprise: he has long been known to harbor some of the most hard-line views of Saddam's nuclear ambitions.
Hard Line views of a nuclear Iraq. Imagine!
I'll stop there. Nearly every paragraph of the artcile shows the absoltutely INCREDIBLE bias with which it is written. It looks like a damn Maureen Dowd Column for God's own sake.
Originally posted by bunge
Are you dense? What did the CIA clear? They cleared the fact that the CIA was no longer implicated in the claim. They cleared the fact that the Brits said X was true because the Brits said X was true. If the CIA thought it were true the State of the Union Address would have been about Tenent saying it was true, not the Brits.
I know this is a scary time for you, but please try and be reasonable.
Your first line is a direct violation of the posting guidelines. Let's not be giant-esque here...agreed?
The CIA cleared the speech in its entirety. That's what they cleared. Your last sentence doesn't even make sense. The State of the Union is run through the CIA to make sure it doesn't contain any false information (or overly sensitive information). The CIA officially cleared the speech. Let me say that again: The speech. One more time, all together now: THE SPEECH IN ITS ENTIRETY.
As I said, you may suspect Bush of knowing before hand, but you have no real evidence. No one does. Every single charge to that effect is totally unsubstantiated.
I for one don't believe he lied at all. I have two reasons:
1) I've seen no real evidence he lied.
2) I believe Bush means what he says and is an honest man.
I know you, giant, jimmac et al think that's insane. Think what you will.
Are there any magazines, news channels, newspapers etc. that AREn't commie, liberal, pinko, jane fonda loving, katie coric felatio giving, mouthpieces of the ho-chin-min hand holding, Mayday celebrating, stalin savioring, politcal left?*
just wondering....
*and by politcal left i mean the welfare giving, taxing to death joe main street, death penalty reversing, fetus destroying, immigrant embracing, hollywood sleeping with, media manipulating, gay marriage endorsing, socializing medicine party on the other side of the politcal aisle.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
SDW,
Are there any magazines, news channels, newspapers etc. that AREn't commie, liberal, pinko, jane fonda loving, katie coric felatio giving, mouthpieces of the ho-chin-min hand holding, Mayday celebrating, stalin savioring, politcal left?*
just wondering....
*and by politcal left i mean the welfare giving, taxing to death joe main street, death penalty reversing, fetus destroying, immigrant embracing, hollywood sleeping with, media manipulating, gay marriage endorsing, socializing medicine party on the other side of the politcal aisle.
[climbs out from pile of sarcastic goo]
I have said many times there are. Fox News and The Wall Street Joural are two major examples. There's also the Washington Times and the New York Post.
But then, there's:
Time Magazine
The NYT
The LA Times
The Washington Post
MSNBC
ABC
CBS
CNN
The Guardian
Have a nice day.
Originally posted by SDW2001
the New York Post.
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH
if you were from NY you would know the ridiculousness of that claim...
the post is a tabloid with decent circulation...
you may want to take a look at the New York Sun instead. I think you will like it... I haven't read it since it re-opened two years ago or so...
You do now that Fox News is run by Roger Ailes and that they have a direct line to the white house which the white house is more than happy to answer.
NY Post:
A tabloid.
Both of these are doing what you claim katie and the rest of the liberal media is doing, only to the policatl opposite.
<picks himself up off the floor from laughing his ass off his aereon super chair>
I don't know how to put this but if you honestly consider these sources to honest, objective and ones that have more then a sliver of jounalist intengrity then...
god i don't know what to say. You've made me speechless...
Originally posted by SDW2001
As I said, you may suspect Bush of knowing before hand, but you have no real evidence. No one does. Every single charge to that effect is totally unsubstantiated.
Rice knew, Cheney knew, Powell knew, Tenent knew, the U.K. knew, everyone knew. If Bush was kept in the dark that holds as much trouble as if he did know.
It's Bush's job to know what all of these people know. And if they're keeping him in the dark as you claim, the entire administration is undermined.
Take your pick, choose your own poison. We can debate either one to the same end.
Originally posted by bunge
Rice knew, Cheney knew, Powell knew, Tenent knew, the U.K. knew, everyone knew. If Bush was kept in the dark that holds as much trouble as if he did know.
It's Bush's job to know what all of these people know. And if they're keeping him in the dark as you claim, the entire administration is undermined.
Take your pick, choose your own poison. We can debate either one to the same end.
Maybe he's just like a hood ornament on a car!
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Today's NY Post cover:
Typical tabloid. Claiming Bush is a woman
http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix_u.htm
Originally posted by SDW2001
I for one don't believe he lied at all. I have two reasons:
1) I've seen no real evidence he lied.
2) I believe Bush means what he says and is an honest man.
I know you, giant, jimmac et al think that's insane. Think what you will.
I don't think it's insane, just dogmatic.
This should be some food for thought. If not for you, for some others here.