What, was a admin official misspeaking again? Well, golly.
The Bush admin sure is lucky that every accident favors the advancement of their policy. If only I was that clumsy and simultaneously that lucky. I'd be tripping so much I couldn't walk straight, but I wouldn't have to work since I'd always land in piles of unclaimed money.
Whether you agree with them or not, we have a very talented and qualified team in the White House.
Cheney said there is evidence to suggest Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear program. He did NOT say "Saddam has nuclear weapons", as Condoleeza Rice recently did.
This whole thing is really getting funny. I can see I won't convince jimmac, giant, BR, bunge etc...but it's still funny.
Cheney said there is evidence to suggest Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear progra
And he was wrong. I think the 50 point question is WHY did he say this. To this day the KILLER of 3000 americans(and world citizens) is running free thru the world.
Saddam has inflected 300 american causalities yet he's the one this admin (daddy, oil, revenge, right wing nut's plans to turn the whole area into a democracy.) went after first.
That's like a person going on a 3000 person killing spree in Iowa, then america turns around invades Nicaragua.
These questions and MORE will hopefully but the next election...
stay tuned. (to the liberal or conservative media, i don't care just stay tuned!)
Cheney said there is evidence to suggest Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear program.
you are lying, and apparently didn't really understand the defense in National Review.
actual quotes of the interaction:
Quote:
MR. RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree, yes. . . . We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. . . .
of course, he is also wrong either way, and had no evidence whatsoever to support even the 'program' claim either.
Yes, yes, Bush and Blair are evil. Saddam and the B'aathists are victims, they are innocent, they never slaughtered thousands of Kurds, they never deployed chemical weapons. Bush and Blair just seek war and never pursue International concensus in stamping our innocent maniac dictators. They never went to the UN to seek their assistance in dealing with the situation.
God, people grow some balls, sometimes (hell most of the time) doing the right thing is ugly.
...sometimes (hell most of the time) doing the right thing is ugly.
You should be telling this to the Bush administration. This is what some of us anti-war people have been saying all along. Stand up and go to war for just reasons, even if it's not popular. Honest reasons are better than lying. Bush failed us all in this respect, exactly what he said he wouldn't do.
I don't think that's quite right giant. I saw the interview. He shouldn't have said that ("weapons vs. program") if it is accurate.
keyboard:
Quote:
Saddam has inflected 300 american causalities yet he's the one this admin (daddy, oil, revenge, right wing nut's plans to turn the whole area into a democracy.) went after first.
Over the top... Expecting our country to apply its full resources to find the killer of 3000 people before starting another war...
Its all good...
The notion that we must find one man before doing anything else is fatally flawed. I'd love to see bin laden captured or dead, but the real goal has to be destroying Al-Queda itself. Don't act as if we haven't done some serious, serious damage to Al-Queda.
And, no one has an answer for me on this: (Disclaimer: If you're giant, just skip this part because you don't believe Saddam had any WMD).
What if Saddam was to give a chemical, biological or other weapon to one of bin laden's cronies? Do you deny this possibility? Do you deny his hatred of the US? I am not willing to accept this possibility. Period.
The notion that we must find one man before doing anything else is fatally flawed.
tell it to the families. Al queda != iraq. He could have done both though as you say, with more crediblity if not for his piss ant complex and right wing nuts that joined him in a rush to war. Bring the world community in that way it does not turn out as it has, something that looks like the U.S. vs. the world.
Quote:
What if Saddam was to give a chemical, biological or other weapon to one of bin laden's cronies? Do you deny this possibility? Do you deny his hatred of the US? I am not willing to accept this possibility. Period.
What weapons? (I smell a bumper sticker.) No wait, how about "Bush JUNIOR busted the budget and all he got me was this stupid property tax increase."
Besides, I was for going in, if we went in with the rest of the world. Instead we urinated on our allies and pissed off more people then JUNIOR can count to.
You are not willing to accept the possibility... I think many would be feel as you do IF we hadn't unilateral invaded a country under possibly false pretenses, then to top it off. found nothing.
Now we are ARE living with the reality. Another couple of weeks and the "Q" word will not only be tossed around, but be fully applicable.
See, that's what your problem is. It doesn't matter what you 'think' when we are talking about facts. You can look up the transcript on lexis-nexis, so go get it and get back to me.
But as I said about the core of the issue:
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
What, was a admin official misspeaking again? Well, golly.
The Bush admin sure is lucky that every accident favors the advancement of their policy. If only I was that clumsy and simultaneously that lucky. I'd be tripping so much I couldn't walk straight, but I wouldn't have to work since I'd always land in piles of unclaimed money.
(Disclaimer: If you're giant, just skip this part because you don't believe Saddam had any WMD).
I can't tell if this statement is true since I have no clue about what exactly you mean by 'WMD'.
Quote:
What if Saddam was to give a chemical, biological or other weapon to one of bin laden's cronies? Do you deny this possibility? Do you deny his hatred of the US? I am not willing to accept this possibility. Period.
What if a unicorn beat bin ladin with a hobbit? If you can't back your statement up with fact, then it is just as fantastical.
1. With Senate Intelligence Committee chair Pat Robert's promising public hearings in September, it's now clear that CIA Director George Tenet is no longer prepared to let the Agency take the fall for President Bush's use of discredited information on Iraqi nuclear procurement in the State of the Union address.
-- in closed testimony yesterday, sources confirm, Tenet named NSC non-proliferation official Bob Joseph as the White House staffer who forced the CIA to accept the "negotiated truth" Bush used to "prove" assertions by Vice President Cheney, and DOD Secretary Rumsfeld, that the Administration "knew" that Saddam Hussein was trying to "reconstitute" his nuclear bomb program.
2. Tenet's decision shows that the professional intelligence community has been pushed one time too many in a process that includes Cheney's historically unprecedented three visits to Langley, and DOD Undersecretary Feith's rump intel assessment group.
-- while CIA professionals have always had to fight political appointees over the interpretation of intelligence (the misuse of Vietnam war intel being a classic, tragic example), in this case, the straw that broke the camel's back was Joseph's insistence on what he knew was flawed British intelligence for the political purpose of persuading the American people to support the Iraq war.
3. The implications of Tenet's counterattack are potentially huge: while Joseph is a career professional, his highly ideological approach to arms control, and refusal to countenance compromise, has made him a major political player by default, sources confirmed as early as 2002, due to his central role in blocking negotiations with North Korea?more on this in the next section of today's Report.
-- but no career professional could have had such impact on the decision-making process if he didn't receive the backing of his political masters. Tenet, who came to the CIA from Capitol Hill, thus knew exactly what he was doing when he threw Joseph's name out to the Senators yesterday.
4. As Tenet obviously intended, even Republicans are now asking tough questions about the role of National Security advisor Condi Rice, and, in particular, her deputy, Steve Hadley?the two senior political appointees who's approval of Joseph's actions were essential, observers agree.
-- Hadley, especially, has some explaining to do, given that Tenet called him in early October, 2002, to warn that the Niger information was doubtful, and should be deleted from the prepared text of an Oct. 9 Bush speech.
5. And this incident alone puts Rice in the difficult position of having to explain why she said just last week (July 11) that no one at her level knew of the CIA's doubts about the Niger information at the time of the State of the Union, several months after the Tenet/Hadley chat.
-- so far, Rice and other White House officials have sought to minimize, or localize, the harm to the "bigger picture" of how the President went about persuading the American people to support a war to overthrow Saddam?that's what this talk of "just 16 little words" is all about.
Comments
Originally posted by giant
Here, let me dumb it down so you can understand:
Cheney (March):
Rice (July):
And Bush:
It just gets better and better!
PS. " End of story " yeah right!
This story's going to stick to Bush like glue! It couldn't happen to a nicer fella.
Originally posted by giant
Here, let me dumb it down so you can understand:
Cheney (March):
Rice (July):
And Bush:
ummm...except that's not what Cheney said.
Originally posted by SDW2001
ummm...except that's not what Cheney said.
What, was a admin official misspeaking again? Well, golly.
The Bush admin sure is lucky that every accident favors the advancement of their policy. If only I was that clumsy and simultaneously that lucky. I'd be tripping so much I couldn't walk straight, but I wouldn't have to work since I'd always land in piles of unclaimed money.
At least we don't have to worry so much about the capabilities of our intelligence departments. They are doing a good job.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Agreed, we just have to worry about the "intelligence" of the men in the whitehouse.
Or lack there of!
Cheney said there is evidence to suggest Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear program. He did NOT say "Saddam has nuclear weapons", as Condoleeza Rice recently did.
This whole thing is really getting funny. I can see I won't convince jimmac, giant, BR, bunge etc...but it's still funny.
By all means, keep the rant going.
Cheney said there is evidence to suggest Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear progra
And he was wrong. I think the 50 point question is WHY did he say this. To this day the KILLER of 3000 americans(and world citizens) is running free thru the world.
Saddam has inflected 300 american causalities yet he's the one this admin (daddy, oil, revenge, right wing nut's plans to turn the whole area into a democracy.) went after first.
That's like a person going on a 3000 person killing spree in Iowa, then america turns around invades Nicaragua.
These questions and MORE will hopefully but the next election...
stay tuned. (to the liberal or conservative media, i don't care just stay tuned!)
Originally posted by SDW2001
Cheney said there is evidence to suggest Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear program.
you are lying, and apparently didn't really understand the defense in National Review.
actual quotes of the interaction:
MR. RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree, yes. . . . We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. . . .
of course, he is also wrong either way, and had no evidence whatsoever to support even the 'program' claim either.
God, people grow some balls, sometimes (hell most of the time) doing the right thing is ugly.
Originally posted by LiquidR
...sometimes (hell most of the time) doing the right thing is ugly.
You should be telling this to the Bush administration. This is what some of us anti-war people have been saying all along. Stand up and go to war for just reasons, even if it's not popular. Honest reasons are better than lying. Bush failed us all in this respect, exactly what he said he wouldn't do.
keyboard:
Saddam has inflected 300 american causalities yet he's the one this admin (daddy, oil, revenge, right wing nut's plans to turn the whole area into a democracy.) went after first.
Wow dude. You're really over the top.
Wow dude. You're really over the top.
Over the top... Expecting our country to apply its full resources to find the killer of 3000 people before starting another war...
Its all good...
Originally posted by giant
to support even the 'program' claim either. [/B]
Oh but now they're trying this response on for size: Because it can't be proven, it can't be proven wrong.
Didn't Fleischer say something nearly identical to that on his way out the door?
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Over the top... Expecting our country to apply its full resources to find the killer of 3000 people before starting another war...
Its all good...
The notion that we must find one man before doing anything else is fatally flawed. I'd love to see bin laden captured or dead, but the real goal has to be destroying Al-Queda itself. Don't act as if we haven't done some serious, serious damage to Al-Queda.
And, no one has an answer for me on this: (Disclaimer: If you're giant, just skip this part because you don't believe Saddam had any WMD).
What if Saddam was to give a chemical, biological or other weapon to one of bin laden's cronies? Do you deny this possibility? Do you deny his hatred of the US? I am not willing to accept this possibility. Period.
The notion that we must find one man before doing anything else is fatally flawed.
tell it to the families. Al queda != iraq. He could have done both though as you say, with more crediblity if not for his piss ant complex and right wing nuts that joined him in a rush to war. Bring the world community in that way it does not turn out as it has, something that looks like the U.S. vs. the world.
What if Saddam was to give a chemical, biological or other weapon to one of bin laden's cronies? Do you deny this possibility? Do you deny his hatred of the US? I am not willing to accept this possibility. Period.
What weapons? (I smell a bumper sticker.) No wait, how about "Bush JUNIOR busted the budget and all he got me was this stupid property tax increase."
Besides, I was for going in, if we went in with the rest of the world. Instead we urinated on our allies and pissed off more people then JUNIOR can count to.
You are not willing to accept the possibility... I think many would be feel as you do IF we hadn't unilateral invaded a country under possibly false pretenses, then to top it off. found nothing.
Now we are ARE living with the reality. Another couple of weeks and the "Q" word will not only be tossed around, but be fully applicable.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't think that's quite right giant
See, that's what your problem is. It doesn't matter what you 'think' when we are talking about facts. You can look up the transcript on lexis-nexis, so go get it and get back to me.
But as I said about the core of the issue:
Originally posted by giant
What, was a admin official misspeaking again? Well, golly.
The Bush admin sure is lucky that every accident favors the advancement of their policy. If only I was that clumsy and simultaneously that lucky. I'd be tripping so much I couldn't walk straight, but I wouldn't have to work since I'd always land in piles of unclaimed money.
Originally posted by SDW2001
(Disclaimer: If you're giant, just skip this part because you don't believe Saddam had any WMD).
I can't tell if this statement is true since I have no clue about what exactly you mean by 'WMD'.
What if Saddam was to give a chemical, biological or other weapon to one of bin laden's cronies? Do you deny this possibility? Do you deny his hatred of the US? I am not willing to accept this possibility. Period.
What if a unicorn beat bin ladin with a hobbit? If you can't back your statement up with fact, then it is just as fantastical.
More from this evening's Nelson Report ...
1. With Senate Intelligence Committee chair Pat Robert's promising public hearings in September, it's now clear that CIA Director George Tenet is no longer prepared to let the Agency take the fall for President Bush's use of discredited information on Iraqi nuclear procurement in the State of the Union address.
-- in closed testimony yesterday, sources confirm, Tenet named NSC non-proliferation official Bob Joseph as the White House staffer who forced the CIA to accept the "negotiated truth" Bush used to "prove" assertions by Vice President Cheney, and DOD Secretary Rumsfeld, that the Administration "knew" that Saddam Hussein was trying to "reconstitute" his nuclear bomb program.
2. Tenet's decision shows that the professional intelligence community has been pushed one time too many in a process that includes Cheney's historically unprecedented three visits to Langley, and DOD Undersecretary Feith's rump intel assessment group.
-- while CIA professionals have always had to fight political appointees over the interpretation of intelligence (the misuse of Vietnam war intel being a classic, tragic example), in this case, the straw that broke the camel's back was Joseph's insistence on what he knew was flawed British intelligence for the political purpose of persuading the American people to support the Iraq war.
3. The implications of Tenet's counterattack are potentially huge: while Joseph is a career professional, his highly ideological approach to arms control, and refusal to countenance compromise, has made him a major political player by default, sources confirmed as early as 2002, due to his central role in blocking negotiations with North Korea?more on this in the next section of today's Report.
-- but no career professional could have had such impact on the decision-making process if he didn't receive the backing of his political masters. Tenet, who came to the CIA from Capitol Hill, thus knew exactly what he was doing when he threw Joseph's name out to the Senators yesterday.
4. As Tenet obviously intended, even Republicans are now asking tough questions about the role of National Security advisor Condi Rice, and, in particular, her deputy, Steve Hadley?the two senior political appointees who's approval of Joseph's actions were essential, observers agree.
-- Hadley, especially, has some explaining to do, given that Tenet called him in early October, 2002, to warn that the Niger information was doubtful, and should be deleted from the prepared text of an Oct. 9 Bush speech.
5. And this incident alone puts Rice in the difficult position of having to explain why she said just last week (July 11) that no one at her level knew of the CIA's doubts about the Niger information at the time of the State of the Union, several months after the Tenet/Hadley chat.
-- so far, Rice and other White House officials have sought to minimize, or localize, the harm to the "bigger picture" of how the President went about persuading the American people to support a war to overthrow Saddam?that's what this talk of "just 16 little words" is all about.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
What weapons? (I smell a bumper sticker.)
That's pretty good!
Now we are ARE living with the reality.
Of course, that 'we' must not include SDW, since reality is something he tries to avoid with hypotheticals every chance he gets.