"I would fire Gonzales"

Yup. No evidence whatsoever. All anyone has is inference and innuendo. Bad intel is bad intel. Lying is a whole different ball game. When all of the intelligence communinities say the same thing about a particular country and you rely on this, its called a mistake.
Click to expand...

Here are a couple where intel was ignored. Neither inference or innuendo. not instances of bad intel, but manipulation of the intel (i.e. lying)

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

The CIA didn't give bad intel, the WH ignored it.

"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

Hmmm, and the intel said that the stocks if they still existed were well past expiration and useless. the WH ignored it.
 
Yup. No evidence whatsoever. All anyone has is inference and innuendo.
Click to expand...
You call repeated briefings and written reports from the CIA that the information if incorrect and an official report from the investigative official that the report is faulty as inference or innuendo?

I am starting to think the Bush administration is not the only one here only willing to hear what they want to hear. I guess we all do that sometimes but...c'mon...the evidense is substancial. Nowhere near just "inference and innuendo."

There is definitive proof he was told it was not true for days before his speech and we have him on tape repeating the info even though he knew it was not true.

Then when you add repeated trips to the senate by the vice president to intmidate desenters and to supress information, repeated e-mails from the adminstration to the intelligence community telling them what info they are interested in and what info they do not want to see, and repeated cases of ignoring info and firing officials that did not support their case it all smells horribly.
 
No one had been allowed in Iraq for close to a decade. No one defeinitively knew what Saddam had or didn't have. The general consensus in the intelligence communoty was that Saddam was trying to acquire weapons and materials for weapons. No one had any idea how far along he was, and he certianly not playing by the rules.

Because Bush wanted to go to war is not proof positive that he lied about anything. The fact that so many reasonable minds can disagree about this shows that there was no black and white here. It was a value judgment he had to make with pros and cons on each side. That usually how life works and this was no different.

Furthermore, this wholly ignores the legality of the war, which is a topic that has been hashed out and definitively settled.
 
No one had been allowed in Iraq for close to a decade.
Click to expand...
What???? In Novemeber of 2002 Blix was allowed into Iraq for weapons inspections. That is mere months before the war. The truth is Iraq kept agreeing to the UN's plans for weapons inspection (in Sep, Oct, and Nov of 2002) but each time they did the Bush administration would reject they acceptance and write new requirements. They were not at all interested in learning the truth.
Because Bush wanted to go to war is not proof positive that he lied about anything. The fact that so many reasonable minds can disagree about this shows that there was no black and white here.
Click to expand...
The fact are that he knew the information was false and repeated it.
Being able to send out talking heads to repeat meaningless defense written by Karl Rove and others does not make it a two-sided story. The administration counts on the fact that people who want to believe them will allow themselves to see this as two sides of an argument when it is not. Just being loud does not mean you have a valid point.

The facts are the facts. He was told it was false and he chose to repeat it anyway. He has consistantly said things and then later denied saying them even though there are tapes of him saying it. There is no denying that he lies.

If you can't see this then there is nothing I could ever do to concince you because you obviously do not want to see the truth. Ignorance is forgiveable. people can be eductaed out of a state of inorance on most any topic. Willfull ignorance is different and the worst kind because it cannot be overcome.
 
I see clearly now. If no one has went to jail, then no one lied. It makes perfect sense. Yellow cake, 9/11 connection, WMDs and "He tried to kill my father" are perfect excuses because no one went to jail.

Its sad to justify Presidental lies based on the fact that no one has went to jail, yet, and dismiss that over 3,000 American heros have died as a direct result of those lies. That is an insult to this country and those who served and died.

Reading this thread kind of makes me feel like I'm watching Fox news, in a washing machine, with a case of vertigo, after spending, I don't know, 15 hours on a sit-and-spin, drunk. I feel like my "10" at 3am, in a dive bar, turned out to be Ann Coulter the next morning, talk about spin...... God help me. :barf:
 
Its sad to justify Presidental lies based on the fact that no one has went to jail, yet, and dismiss that over 3,000 American heros have died as a direct result of those lies. That is an insult to this country and those who served and died.
Click to expand...

Then I guess I'll go on insulting because no one has provided anything that would stand up in court. :rolleyes:
 
Then I guess I'll go on insulting because no one has provided anything that would stand up in court.
Click to expand...

There is currently an investigation. YOU are the one that seems to think he has all the facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top