- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
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.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...
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.RightatNYU said:This new commercial from the GOP provides a beautiful backdrop to the revisionist history ...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
aps said:
galenrox said:So what?
But the main point is this is completely irrelevent.
From Colin Powell's speech to the UN...February 6th, 2003...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:
akyron said:If is a pretty big word for only being 2 letters long.
Lets stick with the facts for awhile.
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:
aps said:I'm sorry, but you can't tell me what I can and cannot discuss. Bye bye
I am WELL AWARE of Wilkerson's comments...I've not only seen them previously but also while researching Powell'd speech itself...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.
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.cnredd said:BTW - For those with the "Bush lied" ... Looks like the CIA head honcho confirms it...
cnredd said:Looks like the CIA head honcho confirms it...
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?