JackC Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Originally posted by redman I've already granted you that the documents are forged. I'll even grant you that the Administration, if not even Bush himself, knew that those documents were forged as of the SOTU. However, they indicated reliance upon the British, not the documents in the SOTU. So I ask you, where's the mounting evidence? Is there something that I've missed? Boy that sure sounds like what some used to call Clinton speak! Hmmm! It's OK to be deliberatly evasive during the State of the Union speech with regard to a coming war? What does this evil administration need to do for you to complain? Come to you house and slap your dog around? Oh I guess the dog deserved it right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Jack, if you have three pieces of good evidence that support a premise, and a fourth forged piece of evidence that purports to also support that premise, is that premise invalidated? Of course not! This ain't even in the same zip code as questioning what "is" means! God knows why the French created that forgery. I suspect it was to either discredit us and the Brits in a high stakes diplomatic contest and/or to sabotage a paper/inteligence trail that led weapons investigators to their doorstep. Clever actually. But that doesn't discredit the intel on the subject at large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Blair asnwered many of these questions vis uranium in hios address to Congress yesterday. hmmmm...whom to trust...washington post hack or leader of Britain.....pincus was on NPR yesterday. much of the assault on Bush and the intelligence agencies focuses on very nuanced interpretations of words and phraseology. admitting thatt his is a game both sides play, it nevertheless doesn't rise to the level of certainty the Left is claiming either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Redman, Don't you think a forged piece of evidence should have been left out of the State of Union address? Come on! Do the Bushies know what their doing? To me they're at best inept and at worse liars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Jack, Point me to a reference to the forged docs in the SOTU. (Hint: it's not there.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Redman, Are we now redefining the word "is" now? Wow how ironic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 No were defining the word "lie" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 No, your love for irony will have to wait until another day. We're defending a trusted ally's intelligence service, a source which is also defending its own information. You can't find that SOTU reference, can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted July 18, 2003 Author Share Posted July 18, 2003 None of you [bush defenders] are speaking to the deceit and the attempt to cover-up that deceit. It is deceitful to withhold information from the U.N. It is deceitful to state the the British has information on Iraq's pursuit of nuclear material and neglect to reveal that our own intelligence discovered forged documents that dispelled that intellgence. It is deceitful to claim that you had no knowledge of the forged documents [prior to the SOTU] and lay blame on the CIA for not sharing that information; when all along the CIA did indeed attempt to strike the Niger reference from the SOTU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Kurp, the British DO have evidence of it. Where did Bush claim he was using the forged document as proof? What info did he withold from the UN? And what difference doies that make? We gave the UN PLENTY of evidence and they did NADA, why would this have made a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted July 18, 2003 Author Share Posted July 18, 2003 Speak to the deciet Kilmer, speak to the deceit. Really man, this type of debate from you might fly with elementary school children but you're going to have to climb a few rungs before I continue to engage you on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Kurp, TO at least part of your post...Eff the UN. Had they actually done something in this case, or used some of the billions they get every year to form their own intelligence agency instead of living high on the hog in New York, we wouldn't be having this discussion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted July 18, 2003 Author Share Posted July 18, 2003 The thing is Sarge, we went to the U.N. to gather support for our issue with Iraq. We at least owed them the courtesy of fair play, otherwise I agree, what's the point of trying to present a case to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 The UN is powerless......I say we send in our secret weapon...Barbara Bush! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Kurp, there is no deceit except in the mind of the Bush Haters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross3909 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Democrats and the far left want us to believe that Bush was the only one before the war saying that Saddam was a dangerous man with a WMD program. Maybe they dont remember the years after the war in 1991 when they admittedly used Chemical and Biological weapons on their own people killing hundreds. Or the 1998 report from the weapons inspectors that listed the large cache of Chemical, Biological, and early stages of Nuclear weapons programs that Saddam's regime was in possession of. But even if they dont recall all of that, I hope their little short attention span minds remember UN article 1441, where the entire UN security council agreed that Saddam Hussien's store of WMD posses a serious threat to his neighbors and the rest of the world. No, all the arguments being made against the president right now is just the normal anti-American sentiment from a party that has totaly lost touch with the population at large. God bless America and thank God we have a leader like George Bush right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted July 18, 2003 Author Share Posted July 18, 2003 So I can presume then Ross3909 that you have no issue with the administration counting on your gullibility, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross3909 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 I am just not chasing every ridiculous claim that a liberal puts on paper. Just because someone writes it down does not make it true. And this president is not another Clinton. It is going to be harder than that to catch him trying to decieve the American public. So tell me Kurp, do you think that Saddam Hussien posed no threat to the world? Do you think the world would have been safer with him in power? If you think so, why dont you ask some people from Iraq. I happen to have the honor of having a couple of friends from there. Try to convince them that Saddam was a great ruler that should be left in power. Better yet, why dont you call anyone in Kuait. The Liberals view of foreign affairs is wake up and see if you are still alive, that means everything is ok right? Dont worry about the guy next door with a bazooka aimed at you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted July 18, 2003 Author Share Posted July 18, 2003 Listen Ross, you're speaking to the "ends". I'm talking to the "means". Predictably, just about every person on the right responds to this debate by saying, "Well so what, Saddam is a bad man." I'm not arguing that Saddam shouldn't have been removed. I'm on record in support of the war. However I don't give a free pass to anyone for walking on a tightrope with regards to the truth, and that includes Bill Clinton. Apparently you're okay with the government spoon-feeding you partial truths, half-truths, and non-truths; just so long as you agree with the objective. I'm not okay with that. So spare me the "Saddam is a bad man" rationale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross3909 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 So it is your argument that we should burn Bush at the stake for information that no one has proven to be false. Matter of fact, in Bush's statement he says the British inteligence claims the nuclear African connection not the US. And as of yesterday, Tony Blair has yet to back off that claim. I just think it is a little early to be accusing Bush of fabricating the truth. It stinks of partisan BS. The nuclear information from Africa was one small brick in a much larger arguement to go to war. If this is all the Democrates have to pick on...Bush has it made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Matt Kyriacou Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Originally posted by TheKurp Apparently you're okay with the government spoon-feeding you partial truths, half-truths, and non-truths; just so long as you agree with the objective. Last I heard the Bush administration didn't control the left run media. You and the rest of the left seem to be okay with desperately searching for and grasping at anything the media spins in an effort to disparage the White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Originally posted by TheKurp It is deceitful to state the the British has information on Iraq's pursuit of nuclear material and neglect to reveal that our own intelligence discovered forged documents that dispelled that intellgence. to respond to this I'll simply repost what I said before:if you have three pieces of good evidence that support a premise, and a fourth forged piece of evidence that purports to also support that premise, is that premise invalidated? Of course not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Kurp, I don't want my leaders lying to me. Teh problem here is two-fold: 1) I see no evidence of a lie as of yet; and 2) when dealing with intelligence matters, telling the whole truth - even to dispel rumors that you're lying - becomes a very problematic thing. We never expect our leaders to divulge everything they know about intel, but yet we're demanding that we do it here. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted July 18, 2003 Author Share Posted July 18, 2003 Because Redman, the administration was selective in what it chose to reveal, not for security reasons, but because they wanted to mold public opinion in their favor. I'm insulted by that; so should the rest of America. Our support for the government and our country should come with full knowledge of their policies and the rationale for those policies. Frankly right now as an American I'm a bit ashamed. I want to be able to stand before the rest of the world with the full knowledge that we are a righteous and moral country that demands the highest of ethical behavior from our leaders. Instead, Bush has demonstrated that he is willing to manipulate the facts and practice low-level deceit to achieve his political goals. It is a black-eye on America regardless of how good our intentions are in Iraq. I have a set of ethics and live by a moral standard of conduct that at the very least, our leaders should match, if not exceed. It is how I judge the worthiness of a political candidate for office. As much as I'm sure this will surprise everyone, I voted for Bush, as I did for Clinton before him. I can tell you that I am extremely disheartened by the actions of both. It has shaken my faith in this country's ability to lead by example. I only hope that someone emerges in the next election that will restore that faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Fair enough, Kurp. I agree with you in large part, although I don't want such debates over intel occurring in public. But suppose that these forged documents were concocted by the French to undermine the case for war in Iraq which they opposed (there's evidence to suggest that that's precisely what happened). Would that change your view about the President's obligation to be "selective in what he chose to reveal"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.