Funkyalligator Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 There were no illegal dealings...and why would they probe Clinton's personal life if they were looking into financial matters........I guess there was a right wing conspiracy to get Clinton.....oh...my......god......it was a right wing controlled congress that tried to impeach him....and in the process wasted a ton of valuable time....that could have been spent trying to mend the problems of this country and also valuable tax payer money that could have been spent creating a better educated public.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Not TRIED to impeach him. They DID impeach him. There were plenty of illegal activities. OJ was found innocent as well. But the point about his personal life would stand EXCEPT he lied in a Grand Jury inquiry. That's a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 No I don't hate everything he does or stands for but I still dislike him because he is a bad public speaker that comes off as an uneducated idiot.....he has managed to piss off a lot of people with his cavalier attitude and his administration has appeased the oil companies too much with their policies....I want America to be independent from foreign oil, to do this we need to actually invest money in finding alternate fuel sources and such but of course with big oil backing Bush this won't happen as is evidenced by the Energy report that Chaney created with his friends from the Oil/Gas industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 So for all the billions spent for monica and all the other stuff, what charges stuck? Seemed like a witch hunt to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 What illegal dealings/activities were those? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 I'd just like a source that indicates that Bush has taken the blame. By all accounts Bush pointed fingers at the CIA and Tenent responded by saying, "guilty". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 A tough request, googling now..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 "Amid questions about prewar intelligence, the White House is acknowledging that President Bush was incorrect when he said in his State of the Union address that Iraq recently had sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa. " First up on Google. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Admitting that a known bogus statement is bogus is hardly taking the blame for it being in his speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Of course not in the lefts eyes. But nothing short of Bush going in front of the US and Yelling "IM A LIAR" would suffice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Check out the comments by the head Bush attacker. http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/14/120020 The substative part: "admitted last October that he believed Saddam Hussein had "an aggressive program to try and get" nuclear weapons." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Kilmer, Newsmax is an obviously pro-Bush website. How about something more neutral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 So what? It doesnt make the info false (like the NY Times). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Of course not in the lefts eyes. Not in the eyes of anyone. Where in the statement you posted does the president take the blame for intentionally putting or allowing this false statement to be put in the speech? The Whitehouse merely acknowledges it is false. No duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Well it does in the eyes of every rational person in the US without an anti Bush agenda. But let's qualify it. How would YOU describe accepting the blame? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Kilmer, I have no proof, but this is the truth... When I first heard that the comments were not true, I honestly figured and assumed that bush would come out and say something to the extent that he made a mistake, blah blah blah, there was even a thread about how heads were going to roll, but I hadn't heard any blame passed on at the time... I was ready to reply to that post that even though I was not a bush fan by any stretch, I was willing to give him credit for taking responsibiliby. Then, the Tenant story breaks... There's your fall guy. I understand that you or other's may say that bush cannot be responsible for everything in his speech, however, I beg to differ. If I were responsible to give a speech to the school district that I work for and some info turned out to be false, no one is going to want to hear that it was elementary school X's secretary that forgot to mention something. I give the speech, I'm responsible. This was the biggest speech of bush's career, he blew it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 LOL... On Yahoo headlines, there's a new bush article about the whole speech thing, this quote was included: "I think I get is darn good intelligence and the speeches I have given are backed by good intelligence," Bush said. However, the administration has acknowledged the uncertainty of remarks Bush made in his January State of the Union address about Iraq's alleged attempts to buy uranium in Iraq. While bush may get "darn good" intellinence, he still needs to bone up on English... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 But let's qualify it. How would YOU describe accepting the blame? I wouldn't describe blaming the CIA as accepting the blame. Taking responsibility for the statements inclusion would work for me. You know, since it was known to be false before he said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 My god you guys are funny as hell. Does anyone here realize who Walter Pincus & Mike Allen of the WP are? MA has been on the WH sh!t list for months now. He's was publically rebuked (passed over) in a recent WH press briefing. These two are hard core leftists that would love to do everything in their powers to give the WH a black eye. Jeeze you need to consider the source when throwing around press articles and using them as fact. Recent develpoments at the NY Times, CNN, New Republic, the Guardian etc. should give everyone pause to digest what they read in newspapers & see on TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 You leftists are unreal. IT WAS NOT KNOWN TO BE FALSE BEFORE HE SAID IT!. Maybe if you guys would stop trying to find hidden meanings in things and look at things rationally you would see what the majority of Americans see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 The majority was 70% but was down to 52% last time I checked... Note: I don't put faith in polls, but since others do, I was just pointing that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 You leftists are unreal. IT WAS NOT KNOWN TO BE FALSE BEFORE HE SAID IT!. Maybe if you guys would stop trying to find hidden meanings in things and look at things rationally you would see what the majority of Americans see. Makes you wonder how the CIA can be blamed for letting the false statement in if it wasn't known that it was false before the speech. If I didn't know better I'd think you are trying to be insulting. I'm not sure. Is "leftist" an insult? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Not at all. Just a description. If the CIA approved it. And they thought it was credible. It could still be found to be false. I know you guys like trying to figure out alternate meanings to words. BUt this case is pretty clear cut. The CIA approved it, Bush trusted it. And it turns out that one piece was false. But all of the leftist attacks fail to acknowledge important facts. 1- There is other evidence supporting the claims of the attempts to buy from African countries. Niger, Botswana, and MAli. 2- The vote in Congress to authorize war happened MONTHS before this evidence was even available. 3- The same guy who is the lead attack dog admitted that Saddam was attempting to obtain nukes (see other thread today) 4- This was one piece of a broader case. 5- NOBODY is claiming that they would changed their mind if Bush had not offered this peice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Not at all. Just a description. Of anyone who disagrees with you? If the CIA approved it. And they thought it was credible. It could still be found to be false. Well, that would be the whole point. They didn't think it was credible. They signed off after it was attributed to the Brits. They now say they should of pushed harder to have it removed (what they were pushing against is still not known to us). I know you guys like trying to figure out alternate meanings to words. BUt this case is pretty clear cut. The CIA approved it, Bush trusted it. And it turns out that one piece was false. You haven't been following this story very closely, have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 1. The administration failed to properly coordinate and vet the intelligence used in the speech. 2. The fact that this disinformation was used in the SOTU magnifies the administration's failure. 3. The fact that this disinformation was related to the issue of going to war magnifies the error even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.