Kilmer17 Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Im following it fine. The left (yourself included) continues to ignore certain aspects of it and invent other meanings to make it appear like Bush lied. Lots of people disagree with me. Not all are leftists. But if that word offends you, maybe you should take a look at why. The CIA DID think it was credible. Tenet thought so. Even the main attack dog admitted Saddam was after nukes. But in staying with the left playbook, you choose to ignore those facts and focus on the small irrelevant parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 1- No they didnt 2- No it doesnt 3- No it doesnt Tellme which Dem voted for war based on this info? None, because the vote was held MONTHS before the SOTU. You did watch right? You do remember that this was about 10 seconds of a 50 minute speech? It was one piece of a broader puzzle. But that's lost on the Bush-haters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 who is the "main attack dog" again? hillary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Joseph Wilson- Bush Nuke Basher Admitted Saddam Sought the Bomb The diplomat who set off a political firestorm last week when he told the New York Times that President Bush may have "exaggerated" when he told the nation that Iraq sought nuclear fuel in Africa admitted last October that he believed Saddam Hussein had "an aggressive program to try and get" nuclear weapons. Though former acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq Joseph C. Wilson's op-ed in the Times warned that Bush might have led the U.S. to war "under false pretenses" by ginning up a bogus nuclear threat, he was singing a different tune during an appearance on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" nine months ago. Under close questioning by Sean Hannity, Wilson insisted that Saddam "doesn't have nuclear weapons, to the best of anybody's knowledge." But then, in an admission that contradicts the central point of his Times op-ed, Wilson added, "though he has an aggressive program to try and get them." Last week, Wilson cited his inability to confirm an Iraq-Niger nuke connection to conclude in the Times: "Some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the nuclear threat." But if, as Wilson told "Hannity & Colmes" in October, he believed Saddam indeed had an "aggressive" nuclear program at the time, his claim that Bush distorted the nuclear threat seems disingenuous at best. The full exchange between Hannity and Wilson went like this: HANNITY: Wait a minute. If he's still – if he's going after – if he's going after weapons of mass destruction, with his willingness to use them, and your belief, have – they having told you they'd use them, isn't it important we get him before he got these other weapons? Wouldn't that be ... WILSON: Well ... HANNITY: Wouldn't that make good sense in your mind? WILSON: Well, first of all, Sean – just a second. Just let me be very clear. He has chemical weapons. HANNITY: Right. WILSON: He has biological weapon capability ... HANNITY: Right. WILSON: ... and may have biological weapons. He doesn't have nuclear weapons, to the best of anybody's knowledge, even though he has an aggressive program to try and get them. HANNITY: He's working hard to get them, but – but, I mean, if we don't ... WILSON; That's right. [End of Excerpt] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Originally posted by aREDSKIN 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. I think the fact several other news organizations are reporting very similar things takes the impact of the authors personal history with the WH out of the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 C'mon Kilmer, one minute you're saying that Bush accepted blame for the disinformation and the next minute you're saying he did not fail to properly verify the information. So exactly what would he be accepting the blame for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 He's accepting the blame for citing a bogus report in the SOTU. He didnt know it was bogus, the CIA didnt know it was bogus. They got it from the Brits who had OTHER evidence to support the claim as well. Which Dem voted for war ONLY because of this again? Which one of them feels duped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Joseph Wilson- Bush Nuke Basher Admitted Saddam Sought the Bomb The diplomat who set off a political firestorm last week when he told the New York Times that President Bush may have "exaggerated" when he told the nation that Iraq sought nuclear fuel in Africa admitted last October that he believed Saddam Hussein had "an aggressive program to try and get" nuclear weapons. Though former acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq Joseph C. Wilson's op-ed in the Times warned that Bush might have led the U.S. to war "under false pretenses" by ginning up a bogus nuclear threat, he was singing a different tune during an appearance on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" nine months ago. Under close questioning by Sean Hannity, Wilson insisted that Saddam "doesn't have nuclear weapons, to the best of anybody's knowledge." But then, in an admission that contradicts the central point of his Times op-ed, Wilson added, "though he has an aggressive program to try and get them." Last week, Wilson cited his inability to confirm an Iraq-Niger nuke connection to conclude in the Times: "Some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the nuclear threat." But if, as Wilson told "Hannity & Colmes" in October, he believed Saddam indeed had an "aggressive" nuclear program at the time, his claim that Bush distorted the nuclear threat seems disingenuous at best. The full exchange between Hannity and Wilson went like this: HANNITY: Wait a minute. If he's still – if he's going after – if he's going after weapons of mass destruction, with his willingness to use them, and your belief, have – they having told you they'd use them, isn't it important we get him before he got these other weapons? Wouldn't that be ... WILSON: Well ... HANNITY: Wouldn't that make good sense in your mind? WILSON: Well, first of all, Sean – just a second. Just let me be very clear. He has chemical weapons. HANNITY: Right. WILSON: He has biological weapon capability ... HANNITY: Right. WILSON: ... and may have biological weapons. He doesn't have nuclear weapons, to the best of anybody's knowledge, even though he has an aggressive program to try and get them. HANNITY: He's working hard to get them, but – but, I mean, if we don't ... WILSON; That's right. [End of Excerpt] Interesting however pointless. The fact that people believed it was within Sadam's character to try to aquire nuclear weapons doesnt justify putting obviously false information in a speach addressed to the nation. The reason so many people have a problem with the most recent events is that: 1. In october, 3 months prior to the SOTU speach the WH knew that the CIA felt that the Niger story was unreliable, but went ahead and put it in the speech in January--knowing it was likely false. Once people found out it was bogus they threw Tenet to the wolves. 2. This opens up a whole can of worms in that now its okay to lie and make up all kinds of "evidence" to justify any action--with the hopes of the ends justifying the means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 If Bush didn't know it was bogus and the CIA didn't know it was bogus (even though back in October they had it removed from Bush's speech), and it WAS bogus, then someone in the administration failed to properly determine the accuracy of the information. See how neatly 2 + 2 = 4? The thing with you Kilmer is that if you talk long enough you sometimes wind up with inconsistent arguments. This is one of those times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 storm...I believe that precedent was established elsewhere a while ago........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Like the sinking of the Maine... fan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Im following it fine. The left (yourself included) continues to ignore certain aspects of it and invent other meanings to make it appear like Bush lied. If you're talking about your attempts to change the subject, yes I will ignore them. Why Dems voted for the war has nothing to do with this. The only reason I don't think you're following too closely is that you are ignorant of some pretty basic facts. Lots of people disagree with me. Not all are leftists. But if that word offends you, maybe you should take a look at why. It doesn't offend me. The fact that you constantly use it when you are cornered says a lot more about you than it does me. The CIA DID think it was credible. Tenet thought so. Even the main attack dog admitted Saddam was after nukes. But in staying with the left playbook, you choose to ignore those facts and focus on the small irrelevant parts. See, here's where you're confused. The CIA didn't think it was credible. That's what this is all about. Once you understand that basic aspect maybe you'll understand what us "leftists" are talking about. And then you try to change the subject with the attack dog thing... again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Kurp, It is not inconsistent until you put your spin on it. As per usual, you will omit certain pieces and add your own inference to reach your conclusions. Bush did not know the info was fake (even though the Brits have OTHER evidence supporting it). Tenet did not know it was faked. Someone did for certain, but that's a huge (even for the left) stretch to say ergo the President is responsible. In October the CIA thought the Niger threat was not substantial, by January they did. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Intel changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Kilmer, Are you dispelling that there is a possibility that the CIA knowingly fudged the data in January? Are you putting all your proverbial eggs in a basket on this belief? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 sfrench, yes they did think it was credible. Tenet himself has said so. Only in your revisionist mind can you change that. The fact that I constantly use the term leftist does not indicate I am cornered, it simply indicates that you and others are so blatant in your koolaid drinking partisanship that it perfectly describes you. But the big picture is still this? Why does this matter? Who would have voted differently or oppsed the war? Who used this as their final straw to say "Okay, go get him!" Admit that this is a desperate attempt by the left to do ANYTHING to try and tarnish Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Not at all TEG, I am saying that people can interpret intel different ways. The CIA didnt crete the forged papers, the French did. Those papers merely supported intel that the Brits ALREADY had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Kilmer, By fudging the data...I mean, do you dispel that the CIA could have manipulated their take on the story. Could they have willingly supported and provided an interpretation of the data that they knew was inaccurate? Could the Bush team have done the same? Yes or no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Slippery slope my friend. I think ANY intel is up fro interpretation. So I guess at it's base I would agree that is possible. But let's not lose sight of the fact that this was one SMALL piece of a broader picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 [WEB]http://www.africaonline.com/site/Articles/1,3,51536.jsp[/WEB] Just in case anyone's really interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 It's not in the NYTimes, so it must not be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 sfrench, yes they did think it was credible. Tenet himself has said so. Only in your revisionist mind can you change that. That would be why he said he didn't push hard to enough to get it removed. Because he believed it. I see. The fact that I constantly use the term leftist does not indicate I am cornered, it simply indicates that you and others are so blatant in your koolaid drinking partisanship that it perfectly describes you. Believe me, I've spent enough time in political discussion forums to know what right wing reactionaries (not insulting you, just being discriptive) mean when they say leftist. But the big picture is still this? Why does this matter? Who would have voted differently or oppsed the war? Who used this as their final straw to say "Okay, go get him!" I've given you my opinion on this before. I'm not in their heads. Are you? As far as "Why does it matter"? I think you've been told that many times in these forums. Admit that this is a desperate attempt by the left to do ANYTHING to try and tarnish Bush. It really shows your desperation to blame this on the left. He does a fine job of tarnishing himself. edit:spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 storm...I believe that precedent was established elsewhere a while ago........ and that would be...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama My problem is that bush lied to Americans on national tv. code do you know something the rest of us don't?? How do you know he lied? Do you have concrete evidence?? Can you read minds?? Lets face it, a lot of the antiwar crowd was(is) antibush so anything he and his administration does will be scrutinized buy the bush haters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 This opens up a whole can of worms in that now its okay to lie and make up all kinds of "evidence" to justify any action--with the hopes of the ends justifying the means. like that hasn't been happening for decades by all administrations, public interest groups, newspapers, tv commentators btw....utilitarianism - favored philosophy by most on the Left - while not directly an ends justfy the means thought process (substituting instead a greatest good for the greatest number) comes awfully close to being the same......and both are completely relativist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 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. kilmer no matter what, the antibush faction will try to discredit bush no matter what is proven or disproven or what he does or doesn't do. I don't understand why such the hatred of bush. The only thing I come up with is the 2000 election and them still being sore about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.