• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

New GOP Commercial On "Bush Lies"

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
This new commercial from the GOP provides a beautiful backdrop to the revisionist history put forth by leading Democrats.

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv

So funny. I'd love to see someone keep up with the "Bush Lied" meme after this...
 

mikeey

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
776
Reaction score
93
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
NavyPride dont lisen to that shite, let roll all over the world we are the



BEST USA and SCOTLAND.

**** the REST.

Regards mikeey
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It just never ceases to amaze me, that Democrats could be this self-defeating, and ignorant to the fact that they repeated this "lie" as much, if not more then Republicans have!:shock:

Here is what they are telling their party, and millions of Americans, "We are stupid, we were fooled for a decade, we don't deserve to be in a position of power, were just too damn gullible" It really is amazing, they think they are going to gain political ground with this new mantra?:confused:
 

mikeey

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
776
Reaction score
93
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"Bush Lies mybe he done it for the best, 2 get rid of the shite who is trying to
distroy AMERICA can u guys not see it,let him have a go, y not,he is trying to l
look after u fellas,can u not see that.

mikeey
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The Bush administration has lied multiple times to the American people. Get used to hearing the truth because it's not going away.

In fact, Bush lied once again in his Veteran's Day speech by reaffirming that Congress saw the same intelligence. Is there anyone in these forums that doesn't know this isn't true?!

Having a bunch of Dem officials state that Saddam is a bad guy is a damn site different then marching our soldiers into Iraq.

Why is it so difficult for some of you to see the difference in this?
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
RightatNYU said:
This new commercial from the GOP provides a beautiful backdrop to the revisionist history put forth by leading Democrats.

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv

So funny. I'd love to see someone keep up with the "Bush Lied" meme after this...
First off, logically I have to address the axiom that's oversimplified the problem here: If the president lied and the Biden, Pelosi, Clinton et al agreed with the lie, does it stop making it a lie? No. The president would have still lied.


Now, before I'm taken out of context by saying that the president lied to get us into war, let me state fully that I don't believe he did. Let me repeat that, I don't believe that the president lied to get us into Iraq.

The problem with this is that it doesn't and shouldn't exonerate him, the congress that consented, and the intelligence community for the misinformation about the legitimacy of WMDs in Iraq. That still is a bone of contention that needs to be investigated, picked apart, and understood so that we can regain credibility. Not just for our citizenry, but for the world as well.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
RightatNYU said:
This new commercial from the GOP provides a beautiful backdrop to the revisionist history ...
The only revisionist history has been coming from the left. Their constant lies and distortion in an attempt to regain political power has been digusting. It's about time the administration fought back.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Hoot said:
The Bush administration has lied multiple times to the American people. Get used to hearing the truth because it's not going away.

In fact, Bush lied once again in his Veteran's Day speech by reaffirming that Congress saw the same intelligence. Is there anyone in these forums that doesn't know this isn't true?!

Having a bunch of Dem officials state that Saddam is a bad guy is a damn site different then marching our soldiers into Iraq.

Why is it so difficult for some of you to see the difference in this?
I know exactly what you're going to claim, and I know exactly how you're wrong.

So go ahead, tell us how congress saw different material, and I'll show you exactly how the material wasn't different at all.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
shuamort said:
First off, logically I have to address the axiom that's oversimplified the problem here: If the president lied and the Biden, Pelosi, Clinton et al agreed with the lie, does it stop making it a lie? No. The president would have still lied.


Now, before I'm taken out of context by saying that the president lied to get us into war, let me state fully that I don't believe he did. Let me repeat that, I don't believe that the president lied to get us into Iraq.

The problem with this is that it doesn't and shouldn't exonerate him, the congress that consented, and the intelligence community for the misinformation about the legitimacy of WMDs in Iraq. That still is a bone of contention that needs to be investigated, picked apart, and understood so that we can regain credibility. Not just for our citizenry, but for the world as well.
I appreciate greatly that you acknowledge that Bush didn't lie, but I'm confused as to how you still think that there's a matter to pursue in relation to him or Congress.

Imagine you're the President after a decade in which all the prevailing intelligence told you over and over again that Iraq was a threat. Imagine your nation has just been attacked by terrorists and that the majority of the nation thinks that there will most certainly be another attack. Imagine that every intelligence source you have is showing you piles of information that point toward Iraq's dangers. Imagine you have members of your party as well as the opposition party clamoring for war with this nation. What person would fail to take the mantle of the military into their hands and declare war?

This was a case of the intelligence community taking bits and pieces of information and letting their preconceived notions convince them of what the truth was. This had nothing to do with the President or anyone in his administration, so he and Congress should be exempted from this investigation into malfeasance. I don't think that anyone in the intelligence community did this on purpose either, so while I agree it should be investigated thoroughly, I think it should be known by everyone that there was no lies nor coverups.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
KCConservative said:
The only revisionist history has been coming from the left. Their constant lies and distortion in an attempt to regain political power has been digusting. It's about time the administration fought back.
agreed....
 

galenrox

ROCK AND ROLL MASTER
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,571
Reaction score
38
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
man, I was just watching Hannity and Colmes and they were playing this crap. So what? For one, tell me which of those senators has even similar powers over the CIA that the president has?

But the main point is this is completely irrelevent, and just a stupid frickin republican talking point. It's true, a lot of us supported the war, hell, I even supported the war until May. You write off one piece of damning evidense because republicans poked enough holes in it so that it's insignificant in its own right, and you do that the next time, and the next time, and the next time, but after 2 g-damned years of writing of more and more damning evidence, with growingly ridiculous explanations of their insignificance, you just can't take it anymore and accept that you cannot trust the president.
That's what happening now throughout the country, they realize this and they're starting to see through this particular load of bullshit, so unless Bush can get really creative and throw out an entirely brand new load of bullshit to distract us for the next 3 years, you're on a sinking ship brother.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
RightatNYU said:
I appreciate greatly that you acknowledge that Bush didn't lie, but I'm confused as to how you still think that there's a matter to pursue in relation to him or Congress.

Imagine you're the President after a decade in which all the prevailing intelligence told you over and over again that Iraq was a threat. Imagine your nation has just been attacked by terrorists and that the majority of the nation thinks that there will most certainly be another attack. Imagine that every intelligence source you have is showing you piles of information that point toward Iraq's dangers. Imagine you have members of your party as well as the opposition party clamoring for war with this nation. What person would fail to take the mantle of the military into their hands and declare war?

This was a case of the intelligence community taking bits and pieces of information and letting their preconceived notions convince them of what the truth was. This had nothing to do with the President or anyone in his administration, so he and Congress should be exempted from this investigation into malfeasance. I don't think that anyone in the intelligence community did this on purpose either, so while I agree it should be investigated thoroughly, I think it should be known by everyone that there was no lies nor coverups.
I believe that the intelligence that Bush was looking at indicating that Saddam had WMDs was approximately 10 YEARS OLD. Clinton determined that the UN inspections and pressure were working. Interesting. Two men look at the same intelligence and one determines that we don't need to invade Iraq and one says we are in imminent danger. And don't tell me that Bush was worried that if we didn't invade that another September 11th would have happened.

So we rely on 10-year-old evidence to decide to invade a country? Despicable.

I read an article that the National Intelligence Estimate provided to Congress before they voted on the war failed to show dissent regarding facts and made conjecture look like fact. Hmmmmmmm
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
KCConservative said:
The only revisionist history has been coming from the left. Their constant lies and distortion in an attempt to regain political power has been digusting. It's about time the administration fought back.
LOL Bush is accusing the democrats of attempting to rewrite history of how the war began. Hmmmmmm, if it is discovered that his administration failed to provide full disclosure on the 10-year-old intelligence (intelligence that showed doubts in the facts that he and his adminstration were touting), wouldn't that be indicative of him re-writing history at that time? Yeah, I thought so. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,329
Reaction score
2,432
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
aps said:

If is a pretty big word for only being 2 letters long.

Lets stick with the facts for awhile.
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,329
Reaction score
2,432
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
galenrox said:
So what?
But the main point is this is completely irrelevent.


Meh so what all right. The USA needed someone to have a stabilizing foothold on that troubled region for decades anyway. Either way its the results that count and that poll wont be out for quite some time. Partisan BS aside (and there is plenty from both sides), Let the democracy be setup and let it run for awhile. Personally I think there is money to be made there once Iraq gets secured. Just setting up a regional infrastructure is a huge deal and everyone will be better off once its done.

Things could be much worse or really bad.


World Factbook
"Following Kuwait's liberation, the UN Security Council (UNSC) required Iraq to scrap all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and to allow UN verification inspections. Continued Iraqi noncompliance with UNSC resolutions over a period of 12 years resulted in the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and the ouster of the SADDAM Husayn regime. Coalition forces remain in Iraq, helping to restore degraded infrastructure and facilitating the establishment of a freely elected government, while simultaneously dealing with a robust insurgency. The Coalition Provisional Authority transferred sovereignty to the Iraqi Interim Government (IG) in June 2004. Iraqis voted on 30 January 2005 to elect a 275-member Transitional National Assembly that will draft a permanent constitution and pave the way for new national elections at the end of 2005"


All this other stuff the media spends time sensationalizing is partisan BS and distracts from the true issues. Democrats are doing the same exact thing Republicans did back in the Clinton administration and it goes back way further than that. The motto seems to be :Do whatever you can to undermine the other party if you are the minority and do whatever you can to retain power if you are the majority.
The American people are getting sick of them unable to work together to wards common goals.

The only time everyone is on the same page is when we get attacked from the outside. As soon as the attackers get crushed then its back to bickering like two twin brothers again.....


Lied schmied.
 
Last edited:

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
aps said:
LOL Bush is accusing the democrats of attempting to rewrite history of how the war began. Hmmmmmm, if it is discovered that his administration failed to provide full disclosure on the 10-year-old intelligence (intelligence that showed doubts in the facts that he and his adminstration were touting), wouldn't that be indicative of him re-writing history at that time? Yeah, I thought so. :lol: :lol: :lol:
From Colin Powell's speech to the UN...February 6th, 2003...

Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb.

He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed.

These tubes are controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group precisely because they can be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium. By now, just about everyone has heard of these tubes, and we all know that there are differences of opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes are for.

Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Other experts, and the Iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher.

Let me tell you what is not controversial about these tubes.

First, all the experts who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use. Second, Iraq had no business buying them for any purpose. They are banned for Iraq.

I am no expert on centrifuge tubes, but just as an old Army trooper, I can tell you a couple of things: First, it strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets.

Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so.

Second, we actually have examined tubes from several different batches that were seized clandestinely before they reached Baghdad. What we notice in these different batches is a progression to higher and higher levels of specification, including, in the latest batch, an anodized coating on extremely smooth inner and outer surfaces. Why would they continue refining the specifications, go to all that trouble for something that, if it was a rocket, would soon be blown into shrapnel when it went off?

The high tolerance aluminum tubes are only part of the story. We also have intelligence from multiple sources that Iraq is attempting to acquire magnets and high-speed balancing machines; both items can be used in a gas centrifuge program to enrich uranium.

In 1999 and 2000, Iraqi officials negotiated with firms in Romania, India, Russia and Slovenia for the purchase of a magnet production plant. Iraq wanted the plant to produce magnets weighing 20 to 30 grams. That's the same weight as the magnets used in Iraq's gas centrifuge program before the Gulf War. This incident linked with the tubes is another indicator of Iraq's attempt to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.07/index.html

You wanna take a guess on what I think you should do with your "!0 year old intelligence" comment?...:2wave:
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
akyron said:
If is a pretty big word for only being 2 letters long.

Lets stick with the facts for awhile.
I'm sorry, but you can't tell me what I can and cannot discuss. Bye bye
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
From Colin Powell's speech to the UN...February 6th, 2003...

Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb.

He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed.

These tubes are controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group precisely because they can be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium. By now, just about everyone has heard of these tubes, and we all know that there are differences of opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes are for.

Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Other experts, and the Iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher.

Let me tell you what is not controversial about these tubes.

First, all the experts who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use. Second, Iraq had no business buying them for any purpose. They are banned for Iraq.

I am no expert on centrifuge tubes, but just as an old Army trooper, I can tell you a couple of things: First, it strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets.

Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so.

Second, we actually have examined tubes from several different batches that were seized clandestinely before they reached Baghdad. What we notice in these different batches is a progression to higher and higher levels of specification, including, in the latest batch, an anodized coating on extremely smooth inner and outer surfaces. Why would they continue refining the specifications, go to all that trouble for something that, if it was a rocket, would soon be blown into shrapnel when it went off?

The high tolerance aluminum tubes are only part of the story. We also have intelligence from multiple sources that Iraq is attempting to acquire magnets and high-speed balancing machines; both items can be used in a gas centrifuge program to enrich uranium.

In 1999 and 2000, Iraqi officials negotiated with firms in Romania, India, Russia and Slovenia for the purchase of a magnet production plant. Iraq wanted the plant to produce magnets weighing 20 to 30 grams. That's the same weight as the magnets used in Iraq's gas centrifuge program before the Gulf War. This incident linked with the tubes is another indicator of Iraq's attempt to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.07/index.html

You wanna take a guess on what I think you should do with your "!0 year old intelligence" comment?...:2wave:
:shock: Well I never! Seriously, cnredd, you can quote Powell all you want. Are you aware that he has gone on national TV and said that he will always regret the testimony he provided that day? Wilkerson, his chief of staff, said that that day was the lowest day of his life. Wilkerson pointed out that he saw EVERY SINGLE document that the Secretary saw. Why Wilkerson has waited this long to speak out on this issue is beyond me. Regardless, the statements made by Powell about supposed intelligence he had have no probative value. As you know, the more recent intelligence proved to be false.

Check out this website. http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweaponsn.html
 
Last edited:

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,329
Reaction score
2,432
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
aps said:
I'm sorry, but you can't tell me what I can and cannot discuss. Bye bye

:lol:
:2razz:


I saw that Powell retraction coming a mile away.

Powell retraction
"On April 3, 2004 in the New York Times he said: "I looked at the four [sources] that [the CIA] gave me for that one, and they stood behind them, ... Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid. At the time I was preparing the presentation, it was presented to me as being solid."


So what?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
aps said:
:shock: Well I never! Seriously, cnredd, you can quote Powell all you want. Are you aware that he has gone on national TV and said that he will always regret the testimony he provided that day? Wilkerson, his chief of staff, said that that day was the lowest day of his life. Wilkerson pointed out that he saw EVERY SINGLE document that the Secretary saw. Why Wilkerson has waited this long to speak out on this issue is beyond me. Regardless, the statements made by Powell about supposed intelligence he had have no probative value. As you know, the more recent intelligence proved to be false.
I am WELL AWARE of Wilkerson's comments...I've not only seen them previously but also while researching Powell'd speech itself...

Two points...The second one is much more important to your previous comments...

1) Wilkerson's quote - Wilkerson is one of several insiders interviewed for the CNN Presents documentary "Dead Wrong -- Inside an Intelligence Meltdown." The program pieced together the events leading up to the mistaken WMD intelligence that was presented to the public. A presidential commission that investigated the pre-war WMD intelligence found much of it to be "dead wrong."

That part is clear...MUCH was dead wrong...MUCH means "less than 100%"...I don't believe anyone has asked Powell what parts were right, but this leads into the more important part of the program...

You said GWB was relying on "10-year-old intelligence"...That is false...Whether or not the more recent intelligence was right, wrong, green, blue, or read upside-down with a magnifying glass, the fact that the intelligence was less than 4 years old proves your claim is as wrong as the intelligence itself...

Here's ONE SENTENCE that debunks your accusation of "10-year-old intelligence"...from the same article...

"This photograph was taken in April of 2002."...

Are you saying that Powell is lying and the photograph is REALLY from 1993?...:roll:

Your final sentence is all the proof you SHOULD need...As you know, the more recent intelligence proved to be false

Bush relied on that recent intelligence that proved to be false...Are you suggesting that he DIDN'T and only relied on "10-year-old intelligence", whether correct or not?...:roll:
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Doesn't seem any different from the email glurge I've seen a million times.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
BTW - For those with the "Bush lied" painted backwards on their foreheads to remind themselves of their mantra when the look in the mirror, ponder this from the same article about Wilkerson's comment about what Colin Powell said...

Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says....

...After searching Iraq for several months across the summer of 2003, Kay began e-mailing Tenet to tell him the WMD evidence was falling apart. At one point, Wilkerson says, Tenet called Powell to tell him the claims about mobile bioweapons labs were apparently not true.

"George actually did call the Secretary, and said, 'I'm really sorry to have to tell you. We don't believe there were any mobile labs for making biological weapons,'" Wilkerson says in the documentary. "This was the third or fourth telephone call. And I think it's fair to say the Secretary and Mr. Tenet, at that point, ceased being close. I mean, you can be sincere and you can be honest and you can believe what you're telling the Secretary. But three or four times on substantive issues like that? It's difficult to maintain any warm feelings."


Lookie here!...No signs of Bush manipulation, is there?...Looks like Tenet...Mr. CIA himself, after spending ALL THAT TIME with Powell to insure accuracy in the speech, was the one that flubbed...

All along I, and others, have been saying that Bush didn't manipulate anything...he was only going by what the CIA told him...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/

Looks like the CIA head honcho confirms it...
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
cnredd said:
BTW - For those with the "Bush lied" ... Looks like the CIA head honcho confirms it...
This appears to apply to a single incident. I'm hesitant to use this one example to make judgments about other incidents. I'm still thinking that the other examples should be judged on their own merits.

I mean finding an example where someone didn't lie doesn't mean that they told the truth in all other cases.

Reportedly Powell threw out a great deal of what hes was asked to tell the UN. Apparently, he called the stuff he threw out "bullshit." I wonder who asked him to tell the UN bullshit? I wonder if we'll ever get to see the stuff that he was asked to say, but refused to say? The Senate Select Committee has asked to see what Powell through out but has been stymied. I'm not sure why anyone would be hesitant to release the things that they had previously intended to be made public to the world.

Submitted for your perusal, the intel report re al-Libi:
"This is the first report from Ibn al Shaykh in which he claims Iraq assisted al-Qaida's CBRN efforts. However, he lacks specific details on the Iraqi's involved, the CBRN materials associated with the assistance, and the location where the training occurred. It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers. Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.

Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control."
Compare and contrast:The entire time that Team Bush was selling the idea of a meaningful and significant link between Hussein and aQ, the US Intel Community was saying it ain't so.

So, what's your verdict? Does saying things that the US Intel Community said weren't true constitute a lie? Does saying things are certain when they are uncertain constitute a lie? Does saying that its urgent that we go into Iraq when it was not constitute a lie?

I know that when I was growing up if I tried some of these things I'd've gotten a belt-whupping for lying. Perhaps their upbringing was more "sophisticated" about the various forms of untruths than mine was.
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,329
Reaction score
2,432
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
cnredd said:
Looks like the CIA head honcho confirms it...

Dang it I guess he didnt torture enough terrorists to get it straight.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
akyron said:
:lol:
:2razz:


I saw that Powell retraction coming a mile away.

Powell retraction
"On April 3, 2004 in the New York Times he said: "I looked at the four [sources] that [the CIA] gave me for that one, and they stood behind them, ... Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid. At the time I was preparing the presentation, it was presented to me as being solid."


So what?
It shows how the Bush administration even hid from Powell the parts of the intelligence that did not substantiate their assertions of WMD.
 
Top Bottom