I am not sure I understand why if Bush has given false reasons to invade another country to secure oil deals and further geopolitical goals that such deception would not warrant impeachment.
Fellowship, that is your interpretation of the events and a faulty one at that. One sentence of the State of the Union was based on information that LATER turned out to be incorrect. This doesn't mean that the motivation for war was wrong, or anything other than what has been stated.
Fellowship, that is your interpretation of the events and a faulty one at that. One sentence of the State of the Union was based on information that LATER turned out to be incorrect. This doesn't mean that the motivation for war was wrong, or anything other than what has been stated.
Wait. It didn't 'LATER' turn out to be incorrect. That's a lie. That's the whole reason it is such a big deal. Already a LARGE number of officials have come forward stating that it was discredited prior to the address. Why would you try to lie about the currently most high profile issue in US news?
As for the motivation of the war, since it was to 'disarm' Saddam of 'WMD' that were an 'urgent' and 'immediate threat,' the motivation was in fact not based in reality. And this is not something that has just been revealed, so don't try to play that games. I've been posting to primary sources since early last fall demonstrating this fact.
Wait. It didn't 'LATER' turn out to be incorrect. That's a lie. That's the whole reason it is such a big deal. Already a LARGE number of officials have come forward stating that it was discredited prior to the address. Why would you try to lie about the currently most high profile issue in US news?
Really? Show me the sources that say that it was already discredited? According to cnn.com, msnbc.com, foxnews.com, etc the Director of the CIA signed off on the ENTIRE State of the Union Speech...
from cnn.com:
Quote:
Amid growing questions over pre-war intelligence claims, the White House today said the CIA had signed off on the president's State of the Union address "in its entirety" -- including the controversial statement that Iraq was planning to buy uranium from Africa. "If the CIA -- the director of central intelligence -- had said, 'Take this out of the speech,' it would have been gone," National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said.
Since you indicate that a "LARGE" number have come forward, could you please name them? According to the reports I have read, the only person who has indicated that it was an inaccurate statement was the Press Secretary!!!!
I'll express my opinion when I vote against him in 16 months. But what's funny is that, for all your posturing now, Fellowship, I'd give 100-to-1 odds that if you vote, you will vote for him.
I will keep you posted BRussell. I don't plan on voting for him.
Spotcatbug had this to say in an earlier post:
Quote:
I voted for Bush.
I struggled, in my mind, over the issue of going to war with Iraq - as most did. In the end, I decided I would have to trust The Administration, and that I would, you know, "support our troops." I distinctly remember discussing this with my wife, and saying something like, "If it turns out that this war was sold to us with lies or half-truths made the Bush administration, I am going to be pissed off." My wife (who also voted for Bush, by the way) completely agreed.
Basically, if Bush lied about this stuff (oath or not), I want him out. It doesn't matter whether Iraq is better off now. I mean, come on, the President shouldn't lie to the public to get what he wants. I think you'll find a lot of conservatives will be very upset by this. We aren't all Bush-lovers in the same (yet opposite) way that some are Bush-haters.
I can't speak for all conservatives, but I can speak for myself (as a conservative): I won't put up with crap like that from my President
Since you indicate that a "LARGE" number have come forward, could you please name them? According to the reports I have read, the only person who has indicated that it was an inaccurate statement was the Press Secretary!!!!
Wow! Apparently the internet has made it out to fantasy land as well! Welcome to the 21st century!
According to cnn.com, msnbc.com, foxnews.com, etc the Director of the CIA signed off on the ENTIRE State of the Union Speech...
No offense intended, but I would expect someone in your position to be a better critical thinker than you're displaying here.
The CIA doesn't approve the State of the Union Address. When the 'sign off' on it, it means that the CIA agrees with how the CIA is implicated in the Address, not that everything in the Address is accurate. The CIA is in no way responsible or capable of correcting any and all factual errors in the State of the Union Address.
To pretend that the CIA 'signing off' on the Address means they are responsible for what the president says is dishonest of you. It's dishonest of Ms. Rice to do it too. It means as much as them saying that the FCC signed off on it, or the EPA. That means he isn't attributing false information to those departments, not that they can approve or disapprove of anything else.
No offense intended, but I would expect someone in your position to be a better critical thinker than you're displaying here.
The CIA doesn't approve the State of the Union Address. When the 'sign off' on it, it means that the CIA agrees with how the CIA is implicated in the Address, not that everything in the Address is accurate. The CIA is in no way responsible or capable of correcting any and all factual errors in the State of the Union Address.
To pretend that the CIA 'signing off' on the Address means they are responsible for what the president says is dishonest of you. It's dishonest of Ms. Rice to do it too. It means as much as them saying that the FCC signed off on it, or the EPA. That means he isn't attributing false information to those departments, not that they can approve or disapprove of anything else.
I will never understand those who make excuses for Bush. I voted for the man twice. Gov. then Pres. However if Bush has used lies and deception to sell a war he has lost my support period. End of story. I will never understand the apologists.
The CIA doesn't approve the State of the Union Address. When the 'sign off' on it, it means that the CIA agrees with how the CIA is implicated in the Address, not that everything in the Address is accurate. The CIA is in no way responsible or capable of correcting any and all factual errors in the State of the Union Address.
Actually for the record:
Quote:
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet says the CIA wrongly approved a speech by President Bush that used faulty intelligence on Iraq.
And
Quote:
The CIA director shouldered the blame, saying late Friday he is responsible for the approval process in the agency.
What is with you people defending with a claim of incompetence? If you punch someone in the face, saying that 'Oh, it was bad timing,' is just complete BS.
The guy made a mistake. I'm sure he didn't intentionally lie, he probably didn't write half of the State of the Union. I find it amazing that one sentence is being picked out of a hour+ long speech and all the sudden Bush is this evil person. Cmon people. And I highly doubt that the whole Iraq war was started based solely on this one bit of evidence that OUR CIA cleared and came from the British. There were plenty of justifications for the war, the world has one less evil man, let's move on with it and deal with the task at hand...
I read an article in my paper today that was beautiful. It described the current Iraq as a scene out of "Mad Max." Ouch. Bad hair and all!?
Bush messed up, there is no question. People are dying every day. 77 US soldiers died, many in noncombat. Did he lie? We can NOT ANSWER THAT YET. My personal theory is that he did, but OBRA as you say we have to wait for things to sort themselves out.
Meanwhile in Iraq...It's a looter free for all. Why haven't we called in the UN and NATO? We should have waited for them to begin with but now that we f'd up why don't we call them in? I heard on the news Bush expect the troops to be home for Christmas. Are you kidding me? The article in my paper today said it would take a minimum 4 years to fix Iraq. I doubt it'll be that short. I hope this screw up in Iraq shows most average Americans what a terrible guy and President he really is. Informed people already know. I don't know how much a Federal Prosecutor makes but the only reason you would vote for Bush is if you are rich and want to keep your money from the elderly, the poor, the nation's children, charities, the environment, government infrastructure, education, jobs, do I need to go on?
When is the rest of the world going to invade us? We have WoMD! When are we going to invade Chine? They have nukes and they're commie bastards! When will it stop?
I heard on the news Bush expect the troops to be home for Christmas.... The article in my paper today said it would take a minimum 4 years to fix Iraq.
You see, Iraq probably will take a minimum of 4 years to fix, but Bush will still pull out by Christmas which will be yet another major **** up and turn Iraq into Afghanistan Part II.
Comments
I am not sure I understand why if Bush has given false reasons to invade another country to secure oil deals and further geopolitical goals that such deception would not warrant impeachment.
Fellowship, that is your interpretation of the events and a faulty one at that. One sentence of the State of the Union was based on information that LATER turned out to be incorrect. This doesn't mean that the motivation for war was wrong, or anything other than what has been stated.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Fellowship, that is your interpretation of the events and a faulty one at that. One sentence of the State of the Union was based on information that LATER turned out to be incorrect. This doesn't mean that the motivation for war was wrong, or anything other than what has been stated.
Wait. It didn't 'LATER' turn out to be incorrect. That's a lie. That's the whole reason it is such a big deal. Already a LARGE number of officials have come forward stating that it was discredited prior to the address. Why would you try to lie about the currently most high profile issue in US news?
As for the motivation of the war, since it was to 'disarm' Saddam of 'WMD' that were an 'urgent' and 'immediate threat,' the motivation was in fact not based in reality. And this is not something that has just been revealed, so don't try to play that games. I've been posting to primary sources since early last fall demonstrating this fact.
Wait. It didn't 'LATER' turn out to be incorrect. That's a lie. That's the whole reason it is such a big deal. Already a LARGE number of officials have come forward stating that it was discredited prior to the address. Why would you try to lie about the currently most high profile issue in US news?
Really? Show me the sources that say that it was already discredited? According to cnn.com, msnbc.com, foxnews.com, etc the Director of the CIA signed off on the ENTIRE State of the Union Speech...
from cnn.com:
Amid growing questions over pre-war intelligence claims, the White House today said the CIA had signed off on the president's State of the Union address "in its entirety" -- including the controversial statement that Iraq was planning to buy uranium from Africa. "If the CIA -- the director of central intelligence -- had said, 'Take this out of the speech,' it would have been gone," National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said.
Since you indicate that a "LARGE" number have come forward, could you please name them? According to the reports I have read, the only person who has indicated that it was an inaccurate statement was the Press Secretary!!!!
Originally posted by BRussell
I'll express my opinion when I vote against him in 16 months. But what's funny is that, for all your posturing now, Fellowship, I'd give 100-to-1 odds that if you vote, you will vote for him.
I will keep you posted BRussell. I don't plan on voting for him.
Spotcatbug had this to say in an earlier post:
I voted for Bush.
I struggled, in my mind, over the issue of going to war with Iraq - as most did. In the end, I decided I would have to trust The Administration, and that I would, you know, "support our troops." I distinctly remember discussing this with my wife, and saying something like, "If it turns out that this war was sold to us with lies or half-truths made the Bush administration, I am going to be pissed off." My wife (who also voted for Bush, by the way) completely agreed.
Basically, if Bush lied about this stuff (oath or not), I want him out. It doesn't matter whether Iraq is better off now. I mean, come on, the President shouldn't lie to the public to get what he wants. I think you'll find a lot of conservatives will be very upset by this. We aren't all Bush-lovers in the same (yet opposite) way that some are Bush-haters.
I can't speak for all conservatives, but I can speak for myself (as a conservative): I won't put up with crap like that from my President
I guess you don't believe him either...
Some people do have integrity. Watch and see.
Fellowship
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Since you indicate that a "LARGE" number have come forward, could you please name them? According to the reports I have read, the only person who has indicated that it was an inaccurate statement was the Press Secretary!!!!
Wow! Apparently the internet has made it out to fantasy land as well! Welcome to the 21st century!
Originally posted by OBJRA10
According to cnn.com, msnbc.com, foxnews.com, etc the Director of the CIA signed off on the ENTIRE State of the Union Speech...
No offense intended, but I would expect someone in your position to be a better critical thinker than you're displaying here.
The CIA doesn't approve the State of the Union Address. When the 'sign off' on it, it means that the CIA agrees with how the CIA is implicated in the Address, not that everything in the Address is accurate. The CIA is in no way responsible or capable of correcting any and all factual errors in the State of the Union Address.
To pretend that the CIA 'signing off' on the Address means they are responsible for what the president says is dishonest of you. It's dishonest of Ms. Rice to do it too. It means as much as them saying that the FCC signed off on it, or the EPA. That means he isn't attributing false information to those departments, not that they can approve or disapprove of anything else.
Originally posted by bunge
No offense intended, but I would expect someone in your position to be a better critical thinker than you're displaying here.
The CIA doesn't approve the State of the Union Address. When the 'sign off' on it, it means that the CIA agrees with how the CIA is implicated in the Address, not that everything in the Address is accurate. The CIA is in no way responsible or capable of correcting any and all factual errors in the State of the Union Address.
To pretend that the CIA 'signing off' on the Address means they are responsible for what the president says is dishonest of you. It's dishonest of Ms. Rice to do it too. It means as much as them saying that the FCC signed off on it, or the EPA. That means he isn't attributing false information to those departments, not that they can approve or disapprove of anything else.
I will never understand those who make excuses for Bush. I voted for the man twice. Gov. then Pres. However if Bush has used lies and deception to sell a war he has lost my support period. End of story. I will never understand the apologists.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I will never understand the apologists.
I hope people on AO give you the respect you deserve for this. I have a feeling that most of these apologists simply don't have the courage you have.
The CIA doesn't approve the State of the Union Address. When the 'sign off' on it, it means that the CIA agrees with how the CIA is implicated in the Address, not that everything in the Address is accurate. The CIA is in no way responsible or capable of correcting any and all factual errors in the State of the Union Address.
Actually for the record:
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet says the CIA wrongly approved a speech by President Bush that used faulty intelligence on Iraq.
And
The CIA director shouldered the blame, saying late Friday he is responsible for the approval process in the agency.
Originally posted by giant
What is with you people defending with a claim of incompetence? If you punch someone in the face, saying that 'Oh, it was bad timing,' is just complete BS.
Hmmmm....sounds like another experiment by giant
its all the same..
notice how "sure" condi and powell were yesterday. now tenent is hanging in the wind?
that dog don't hunt cause this story aint over....
Originally posted by OBJRA10
by the way, that was from CNN.com
So what you're saying is that you were wrong before, but now CNN.com has come to the rescue?
I read an article in my paper today that was beautiful. It described the current Iraq as a scene out of "Mad Max." Ouch. Bad hair and all!?
Bush messed up, there is no question. People are dying every day. 77 US soldiers died, many in noncombat. Did he lie? We can NOT ANSWER THAT YET. My personal theory is that he did, but OBRA as you say we have to wait for things to sort themselves out.
Meanwhile in Iraq...It's a looter free for all. Why haven't we called in the UN and NATO? We should have waited for them to begin with but now that we f'd up why don't we call them in? I heard on the news Bush expect the troops to be home for Christmas. Are you kidding me? The article in my paper today said it would take a minimum 4 years to fix Iraq. I doubt it'll be that short. I hope this screw up in Iraq shows most average Americans what a terrible guy and President he really is. Informed people already know. I don't know how much a Federal Prosecutor makes but the only reason you would vote for Bush is if you are rich and want to keep your money from the elderly, the poor, the nation's children, charities, the environment, government infrastructure, education, jobs, do I need to go on?
When is the rest of the world going to invade us? We have WoMD! When are we going to invade Chine? They have nukes and they're commie bastards! When will it stop?
</psycho political rant>
Originally posted by Aquatic
I heard on the news Bush expect the troops to be home for Christmas.... The article in my paper today said it would take a minimum 4 years to fix Iraq.
You see, Iraq probably will take a minimum of 4 years to fix, but Bush will still pull out by Christmas which will be yet another major **** up and turn Iraq into Afghanistan Part II.