ryoder 1,590
We interrupt this flame-war for a Public Service Announcement. The rubber-stamp I mentioned before was the October '02 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) produced by the CIA under pressure from the Whitehouse. A very good discussion of the background of this document is here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/themes/nie.html
(Yes, I know it's kind of long but don't worry; the squabble will still be here when you get back.
)
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuote
The point is however, if you claim a lie with Bush you must claim the same lie years prior to him.
Tenet produced the quoted "Slam Dunk" while with Bush. It was this term that our President addressed the nation saying they had "Slam Dunk" evidence against SH. This is what Tenet addresses in his own book, and from my understanding the majority of the book is about the Bush years.
whoosh......
My lord...my topic first and foremost was on the current stuff and what the book is about. In addition to that, it is this misinformation during the Bush adminsistration that was used wage a war.
If you want to produce qutoes, please do so, and then show how those are worse than what my topic is about. Hell, if the quotes are good enough it will help me get even more upset with Tenet.
You don't seem to get it here. Tenant was in the Clinton Admin too. From early on in the Clinton admin they were saying the exact same things about SH that GWB did. So, you said Bush lied and I ask, did the Clintons and all the Senators and other political figures lie too?
This is not a "Clinton dit it too" line at at all. This is more simple. If Bush lied (as you claimed) did all the others dating back to the early Clinton years lie too? Cause if you claim that those prior to Bush did not lie, how can you claim Bush lied????
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Amazon 7
QuoteThis is not a "Clinton dit it too" line at at all. This is more simple. If Bush lied (as you claimed) did all the others dating back to the early Clinton years lie too? Cause if you claim that those prior to Bush did not lie, how can you claim Bush lied????
But you claim Clinton was soft on terrorism... and when YOU selected Bush and Co.. he was the NEW SHERRIF in Town... he was goging to go after them varmits.... he aint done such a great job there pardner.
Seems there is about 3000+ deputies lying up there in Boot Hill now.
SkyDekker 1,465
I don't remember Clinton claiming that SH was trying to get uranium in Africa during a State of the Union Address.
Nor do I remember Collin Powell's equivalent during the Clinton years rambling off lie after lie to the UN, specifically stating his "speech" was based on sound intelligence and verifiable facts.
Nor do I remember Collin Powell's equivalent during the Clinton years rambling off lie after lie to the UN, specifically stating his "speech" was based on sound intelligence and verifiable facts.
rushmc 23
QuoteI don't remember Clinton claiming that SH was trying to get uranium in Africa during a State of the Union Address.
Nor do I remember Collin Powell's equivalent during the Clinton years rambling off lie after lie to the UN, specifically stating his "speech" was based on sound intelligence and verifiable facts.
Really, I am so surprised you would look at it in this (deceptive) context
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
SkyDekker 1,465
Well, this is where you and I see a difference.
Clinton years: CIA comes over for brunch and says: We think Sh may still have some WMDs and he isn't fully cooperating with the UN. At which point the CIA left the brunch to try and get better intel and the government furthered diplomatic efforts, believing the intel to be possibly true.
Bush years: CIA gets called into the office. We want to invade Iraq, don't particularly care where you get it from, but get me some reasons. That stuff about WMDs should do, let's just tell everybody the same story, except this time we'll get Collin Powell, one of the most trusted people in the government to claim that it is fact and that there is no doubt. We'll scare them with some mushroom cloud reference, confuse the average american enough so they don't know the difference between Iraq, Al Qaeda and the Taliban and we get to invade ourselves a country.
(yes the scenarios have been slightly dumbed down for comparison)
Clinton years: CIA comes over for brunch and says: We think Sh may still have some WMDs and he isn't fully cooperating with the UN. At which point the CIA left the brunch to try and get better intel and the government furthered diplomatic efforts, believing the intel to be possibly true.
Bush years: CIA gets called into the office. We want to invade Iraq, don't particularly care where you get it from, but get me some reasons. That stuff about WMDs should do, let's just tell everybody the same story, except this time we'll get Collin Powell, one of the most trusted people in the government to claim that it is fact and that there is no doubt. We'll scare them with some mushroom cloud reference, confuse the average american enough so they don't know the difference between Iraq, Al Qaeda and the Taliban and we get to invade ourselves a country.
(yes the scenarios have been slightly dumbed down for comparison)
Amazon 7
Quote(yes the scenarios have been slightly dumbed down for comparison)
That is certainly what it takes for the far righties to "get it".. but they will still wiggle and spin trying to make THEIR GUY look good..... like that is possible in any form of reality that makes sence....only in their deluded minds does the Administrations lies and incomptetence equal good performance by the people they put in charge.
rushmc 23
QuoteWell, this is where you and I see a difference.
Clinton years: CIA comes over for brunch and says: We think Sh may still have some WMDs and he isn't fully cooperating with the UN. At which point the CIA left the brunch to try and get better intel and the government furthered diplomatic efforts, believing the intel to be possibly true.
Bush years: CIA gets called into the office. We want to invade Iraq, don't particularly care where you get it from, but get me some reasons. That stuff about WMDs should do, let's just tell everybody the same story, except this time we'll get Collin Powell, one of the most trusted people in the government to claim that it is fact and that there is no doubt. We'll scare them with some mushroom cloud reference, confuse the average american enough so they don't know the difference between Iraq, Al Qaeda and the Taliban and we get to invade ourselves a country.
(yes the scenarios have been slightly dumbed down for comparison)
OK, I will try again.
The stuff you list here, OK, I don't give a dam. But if you are going to say Bush lied about the WMDs and SH you have to Clinton, Clinton, Kerry, Biden et al were lieing for years before Bush came to office. At least if you have any intelectual honesty........
On an aside,, he did have WMDs, he used them, his program was ready to restart once the sanctions were gone, SH did not have any operational links to 911 but he did have strong links with Al Queda, and finally, the yellow cake story has been so distrorted by the Plame BS and all the other shit who cares anymore.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
SkyDekker 1,465
Or you could say that previous administrations didn't use the same information that may have been true to kill thousands.
The current administration didn't give a damn about whether it was true, cause they wanted to kill thousands.
Do you see a difference in those two scenarios?
And to you last point. Of course all these stories (including the yellow cake story) have been so distorted people don't really know what the hell is going on anymore.....do you really think that is a coincidence?
The current administration didn't give a damn about whether it was true, cause they wanted to kill thousands.
Do you see a difference in those two scenarios?
And to you last point. Of course all these stories (including the yellow cake story) have been so distorted people don't really know what the hell is going on anymore.....do you really think that is a coincidence?
rushmc 23
QuoteOr you could say that previous administrations didn't use the same information that may have been true to kill thousands.
The current administration didn't give a damn about whether it was true, cause they wanted to kill thousands.
Do you see a difference in those two scenarios?
And to you last point. Of course all these stories (including the yellow cake story) have been so distorted people don't really know what the hell is going on anymore.....do you really think that is a coincidence?
OK, so now you imply intent. Based on what? The same lie the other admins used. Don't you see how convoluted that logic is?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Thank you, but that problem isn't limited to these forums.
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites