|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/20/2005 07:26:56 PM · #326 |
I don't know why anyone even bothers arguing anymore with this guy. We all know how he twists everything around to make fiction seem like fact in his own mind.
PS: here's some good reading, short and sweet. read this
But then again, it's from a "liberal" newspaper, and not from a "real" source of news like the drudge report.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:26:12 PM · #327 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
I don't know why anyone even bothers arguing anymore with this guy. We all know how he twists everything around to make fiction seem like fact in his own mind. |
Once again we seem to agree. We agree in thinking that our opponent twists everything around to make fiction seem like fact in his/her own mind.
Of course, if YOU all stop bothering, then there will be no argument. If you look carefully at the history of Rants on DPC, you will find that I have only started ONE - and that was to expose Kerry's "misleading" tactics in emphasizing the support of "firemen" without disclosing the fact that the "fireman" on the podium just happened to be one of his campaign managers. ( I don't recall seeing any posts from liberals calling him out for that "misleading" tactic though ). The rest of the time I am only responding to what others have posted - ergo, generally speaking, if they don't post, I don't post. |
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:35:42 PM · #328 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
RonB...
Again, given the contextual information that we now have about what Bush & Co. knew, and when they knew it, as to the serious doubts on the existence of WMD, I find it remarkable that any reasonable person would mount a defense of Bush & Co. that essentially resorts to a narrow and literal definition of what constitutes a "lie" vs. a "misdirection" -- or whatever other term one wants to use instead of the commonly understood definition of what is a "lie." |
Once again I must point out your hypocrisy. YOU find it remarkable that I would mount a defense that essentially resorts to a narrow and literal definition of what constitutes a "lie". BUT for YOU to equally vigourously defend your use of the term "lie" as opposed to a less egregious term, even though you seem to see no substantive difference, is, therefore, equally remarkable. But then, you know that I will rebut the use of the word "lie" but would NOT feel compelled to rebut use of a less damning word - and that's precisely why I think that you insist upon using that specific word. |
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:52:10 PM · #329 |
First, the only hypocritical person in this entire thread has been you. You've used double standards, willfully mischaracterized this BBC article as supporting your position (when, in fact, it refutes it) and, too, you've used extremely narrow semantic games that satisfy no one but you to defend Bush's lies. As I've written, any reasonable person if asked to distinguish between a "lie" and "an intentionally misleading statement" (or "misdirection") would look at you as if you're some kind of moron. Jeesh, even my 4 year old niece knows that a lie, even if called something else, is still a lie and the wrong thing to do. And that you adopt such an unsophisticated defense is extremely telling -- any reasonable person would agree. RonB, get this: Bush intentionally lied to the American public when he told us that Iraq possessed WMD that threatened our immediate national security. And, if your retort is, Well, Clinton lied, too. Then, you're failing to use your adult intellectual capacities to understand that one lie is graver than the other. Bush's lies have costs our nation in terms of blood, treasure, prestige and -- a lot of extremely well informed people argue -- the long-term national security of our nation.
Originally posted by RonB:
you know that I will rebut the use of the word "lie" but would NOT feel compelled to rebut use of a less damning word - and that's precisely why I think that you insist upon using that specific word. |
Message edited by author 2005-02-20 22:26:08.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 10:26:05 PM · #330 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
I don't know why anyone even bothers arguing anymore with this guy. We all know how he twists everything around to make fiction seem like fact in his own mind. |
Originally posted by bdobe:
First, the only hypocritical person in this entire thread has been you. You've used double standards and extremely narrow semantic games that satisfy no one but you to defend Bush's lies. As I've written, any reasonable person if asked to distinguish between a "lie" and "an intentionally misleading statement" (or "misdirection") would look at you as if you're some kind of moron. Jeesh, even my 4 year old niece knows that a lie, even if called something else, is still a lie and the wrong thing to do. And that you adopt such an unsophisticated defense is extremely telling -- any reasonable person would agree. RonB, get this: Bush intentionally lied to the American public when he told us that Iraq possessed WMD that threatened our immediate national security. And, if your retort is, Well, Clinton lied, too. Then, you're failing to use your adult intellectual capacities to understand that one lie is graver than the other. Bush's lies have costs our nation in terms of blood, treasure, prestige and -- a lot of extremely well informed people argue -- the long-term national security of our nation. |
Agreed, and well said.
Here's another article that I hope hasn't already been posted, on topic: THEY KNEW... |
|
|
|
02/21/2005 08:13:39 AM · #331 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
First, the only hypocritical person in this entire thread has been you. You've used double standards, willfully mischaracterized this BBC article as supporting your position (when, in fact, it refutes it) and, too, you've used extremely narrow semantic games that satisfy no one but you to defend Bush's lies. As I've written, any reasonable person if asked to distinguish between a "lie" and "an intentionally misleading statement" (or "misdirection") would look at you as if you're some kind of moron. Jeesh, even my 4 year old niece knows that a lie, even if called something else, is still a lie and the wrong thing to do. And that you adopt such an unsophisticated defense is extremely telling -- any reasonable person would agree. RonB, get this: Bush intentionally lied to the American public when he told us that Iraq possessed WMD that threatened our immediate national security. And, if your retort is, Well, Clinton lied, too. Then, you're failing to use your adult intellectual capacities to understand that one lie is graver than the other. Bush's lies have costs our nation in terms of blood, treasure, prestige and -- a lot of extremely well informed people argue -- the long-term national security of our nation.
Originally posted by RonB:
you know that I will rebut the use of the word "lie" but would NOT feel compelled to rebut use of a less damning word - and that's precisely why I think that you insist upon using that specific word. |
|
First of all, it appears that you lack the intelligence to even KNOW what my position is. So let me state it clearly enought for even a liberal to understand.
Bush did not lie when he said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Note very clearly that he did NOT refer to the [forged] Niger document - he only referred to British Government intelligence.
Now, note that my position is NOT, repeat NOT, that Hussein sought uranium - it appears that he did not. My postion is NOT, repeat NOT, that the Niger document was genuine - it has been shown to be forged. My position is NOT, repeat NOT, that the British intelligence was accurate - it appears that it was not.
My position is that AT THE TIME, the president's statement was believed to be true - not only by HIM but by the British, who verified it AT THE TIME. And Lord Butler, after investigating, stated that he found that "there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the [british] government to mislead." meaning that THEY believed that their findings were true AT THE TIME.
The BBC article does NOT, repeat NOT, refute Bush's statement - in fact, it cannot because his statement did not make reference to ANY evidence, only to findings of the British Government - conclusions that were upheld by the British themselves.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2005 08:45:41 AM · #332 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by RonB:
A "lie" is a statement made that is known to be false when it is made... |
Im sick of seeing this go unchallenged as if its a true black and white statement with no gray.
The full defenition of the word "lie" in this context, acording to dictionary.com is:
lie ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies
v. intr.
To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie. |
Some observations:
1) n) A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression
2) v) To present false information with the intention of deceiving. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
Notice that the generally accepted ( primary ) definitions all show deliberation or intent. Now logically, if there is deliberation or intent, then the "liar" must know that the statement he/she is making is false at the time they are making it - without such knowledge, there can be no intent to deceive.
I therefore stand by my oft-quoted definition of a "lie", to wit: a statement known to be false at the time it is made.
Any "rational" person could come to no other conclusion. |
|
|
|
02/21/2005 01:53:30 PM · #333 |
RonB,
It appears that, as you routinely do, when convenient you cease to use your adult faculties and, too, fail to place information in context. I understand that, as a fervent Bush supporter and as an unabashed rightwing conservative, it is difficult for you to contemplate -- much less concede -- that your leader lied, manipulated and trampled all over your trust for him.
RonB, like a battered spouse, it's clear that you're still in the denial phase and can't bring yourself to recognize how horrible things really are. RonB, you must understand that no one can reach you as long as you remain in the denial phase, so you must quickly move to the second stage: acknowledging the problem. Ron Burr, abandon the narrow literalism you're trying to apply to the situation, place the information and events in context, and you'll arrive at the inevitable conclusion: Bush knew -- well in advanced -- that the evidence that his WMD argument rested on relied too heavily on documents that were known to be forgeries.
Take the next step, RonB... you've already walked to the edge, all you gotta do now is cross the line, and acknowledge that there's a horrible problem in your relationship with Bush. See here... see how close you've come to acknowledging that Bush is battering you, and that it has got to stop. In this statement you concede 90% of my argument, that Bush & Co. lied to the American public about the existence of WMD, and that those lies included relying -- even if tangentially -- on the forged Nigerian documents:
Originally posted by RonB:
Bush did not lie when he said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Note very clearly that he did NOT refer to the [forged] Niger document - he only referred to British Government intelligence.
Now, note that my position is NOT, repeat NOT, that Hussein sought uranium - it appears that he did not. My postion is NOT, repeat NOT, that the Niger document was genuine - it has been shown to be forged. My position is NOT, repeat NOT, that the British intelligence was accurate - it appears that it was not. |
What's key in your statement, and to this debate in general, is this: "[Bush] only referred to British Government intelligence," and did not directly cite the forged document. The question then is, when did Bush & Co. know that the British document on the Iraq/Nigerian uranium connection was a forgery? Any reasonable person would say, Well, if Bush knew before making the speech that the "British Government intelligence" (i.e., Iraq/Nigerian uranium document) was a forgery, he should not have presented it as evidence -- even if just circumstantially. Moreover, this reasonable person would argue, And if Bush used evidence that was known to be false, then Bush lied.
Okay, so, when did Bush & Co. know that the "British Government intelligence" (i.e., Iraq/Nigerian uranium document) was a forgery? Let's refer back to the July 9, 2003, BBC article that RonB misrepresented earlier in this thread:
"The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to make his case for war, the BBC has learned.
Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC."
[...]
"But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech."
[...]
"[F]ormer US diplomat, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, went on the record at the weekend to say that he had travelled to Africa to investigate the uranium claims and found no evidence to support them.
Now the CIA official has told the BBC that Mr Wilson's findings had been passed onto the White House as early as March 2002.
That means that the administration would have known nearly a year before the State of the Union address that the information was likely false."
Given all of the above, why would Bush cite "British Government intelligence" that was known -- by his administration and himself -- to be false?
Again, RonB, take that next step... cross the line... use your full adult faculties... place the information in context... recognize that your relationship with Bush is founded on lies and that the abuse has got to stop. Once you acknowledge the problem, you'll move from denial to standing up for yourself.
Message edited by author 2005-02-21 14:04:53.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2005 02:59:53 PM · #334 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
In this statement you concede 90% of my argument, that Bush & Co. lied to the American public about the existence of WMD, and that those lies included relying -- even if tangentially -- on the forged Nigerian documents:
Originally posted by RonB:
Bush did not lie when he said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Note very clearly that he did NOT refer to the [forged] Niger document - he only referred to British Government intelligence.
Now, note that my position is NOT, repeat NOT, that Hussein sought uranium - it appears that he did not. My postion is NOT, repeat NOT, that the Niger document was genuine - it has been shown to be forged. My position is NOT, repeat NOT, that the British intelligence was accurate - it appears that it was not. |
What's key in your statement, and to this debate in general, is this: "[Bush] only referred to British Government intelligence," and did not directly cite the forged document. The question then is, when did Bush & Co. know that the British document on the Iraq/Nigerian uranium connection was a forgery? |
Ahh. But that is NOT the question. The question is, as any RATIONAL person would agree, when did Bush know that the British Governments' conclusions were in error. Only if the answer to THAT question is "prior to his statement", is Bush guilty of LYING.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Any reasonable person would say, Well, if Bush knew before making the speech that the "British Government intelligence" (i.e., Iraq/Nigerian uranium document) was a forgery, he should not have presented it as evidence -- even if just circumstantially. Moreover, this reasonable person would argue, And if Bush used evidence that was known to be false, then Bush lied. |
Yes, quite correct - thanks for helping me with my point. I agree, if Bush knew beforehand that the British intelligence was a forgery, then he should not have presented it as evidence. But how was he to know beforehand, or even immediately afterward? Prime Minister Blair stated unequivacally that the forged uranium document was NOT the only evidence. He said "The evidence that we had that the Iraqi Government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called 'forged' documents, they came from separate intelligence". I agree, too, that if Bush used evidence known to be false, then he lied ( that, if you remember, is exactly my definition of a lie ). But he didn't use ANY evidence other than stating the the British had learned something - which was 100% true according to the British AT THAT TIME.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Okay, so, when did Bush & Co. know that the "British Government intelligence" (i.e., Iraq/Nigerian uranium document) was a forgery? Let's refer back to the July 9, 2003, BBC article that RonB misrepresented earlier in this thread:
"The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to make his case for war, the BBC has learned. |
So what? We're NOT discussing CIA intelligence - Bush did not cite CIA intelligence. Weren't you paying attention? Then again, the CIA DID say that Hussein had WMD's. So the question then becomes how do you know when to believe the CIA and when not to. It seems hypocritical, once again, that you put GREAT credibility in CIA intelligence when discussing the uranium, but NO credibility in the SAME CIA when discussing WMDs. You really need to make up your mind whether the CIA is to be believed or not.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC." |
Same argument as before. 1) So what, Bush didn't quote the CIA; 2) CIA, credible or not?
Originally posted by bdobe:
[...]
"But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech." |
Same old, same old.
Originally posted by bdobe:
[...]
"[F]ormer US diplomat, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, went on the record at the weekend to say that he had travelled to Africa to investigate the uranium claims and found no evidence to support them. |
Pay attention now. Bush did NOT make any statements relative to what Wilson found, or didn't find. BUT, may I point out that much later, it was learned that Hussein DID seek uranium from Niger and that Wilson did not discover evidence of the attempts. I know, I know - prove it. OK. Here's a link to the full ( pdf ) version of Butler Report ( note: not a BBC article ) where item number 499 says:
"We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:
The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
was well-founded."
Also, of particular interest is item number 497 whidh says:
"In preparing the dossier, the UK consulted the US. The CIA advised caution about any suggestion that Iraq had succeeded in acquiring uranium from Africa, but agreed that there was evidence that it had been sought."
Feel free to read the entire report and tell everyone how my omission of the rest of the report is "misleading".
Originally posted by bdobe:
Now the CIA official has told the BBC that Mr Wilson's findings had been passed onto the White House as early as March 2002.
That means that the administration would have known nearly a year before the State of the Union address that the information was likely false." |
NOT. The administration would have known that SOME of the information was likely false, but not ALL of it. Meaning that WHATEVER decision was made it would have to have been made on the basis of only SOME of the information. I would rather have any error on the side of protecting our country.
[qoote=bdobe]Given all of the above, why would Bush cite "British Government intelligence" that was known -- by his administration and himself -- to be false?[/quote]
Why, William, he wouldn't have. And he didn't.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Again, RonB, take that next step... cross the line... use your full adult faculties... place the information in context... recognize that your relationship with Bush is founded on lies and that the abuse has got to stop. Once you acknowledge the problem, you'll move from denial to standing up for yourself. |
Use YOUR full adult faculties, and listen to those who have access to the REAL documents ( people like Lord Butler ) - not those who claim to know the "real reasons" behind the administrations planning but, in reality, are only dishing out pablum to the eager masses who are unable or unwilling to think for themselves.
Tell you what. Don't argue with ME - argue with Lord Butler. HE's the one who had access to enough classified information to unequivacally state that Bush's statement was "well founded". I'm just interpreting that statement as being equivalent to "Bush didn't lie". |
|
|
|
02/21/2005 03:19:50 PM · #335 |
Originally posted by RonB:
The question is, as any RATIONAL person would agree, when did Bush know that the British Governments' conclusions were in error. Only if the answer to THAT question is "prior to his statement", is Bush guilty of LYING. |
From the July 9, 2003, BBC article that you misrepresented:
"The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to make his case for war, the BBC has learned.
Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC."
[...]
"But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech."
[...]
"[F]ormer US diplomat, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, went on the record at the weekend to say that he had travelled to Africa to investigate the uranium claims and found no evidence to support them.
Now the CIA official has told the BBC that Mr Wilson's findings had been passed onto the White House as early as March 2002.
That means that the administration would have known nearly a year before the State of the Union address that the information was likely false."
|
|
|
|
02/21/2005 05:15:06 PM · #336 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by RonB:
The question is, as any RATIONAL person would agree, when did Bush know that the British Governments' conclusions were in error. Only if the answer to THAT question is "prior to his statement", is Bush guilty of LYING. |
From the July 9, 2003, BBC article that you misrepresented:
"The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to make his case for war, the BBC has learned.
Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC."
[...]
"But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech."
[...]
"[F]ormer US diplomat, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, went on the record at the weekend to say that he had travelled to Africa to investigate the uranium claims and found no evidence to support them.
Now the CIA official has told the BBC that Mr Wilson's findings had been passed onto the White House as early as March 2002.
That means that the administration would have known nearly a year before the State of the Union address that the information was likely false." |
Why do you insist on presenting arguments about Wilson and the CIA? Bush never quoted or denied evidence from either of them. He only referenced the British Government. That's it - the British Government. The bottom line is: was his reference to the British Government accurate at that time or was it not? Answer: YES, it was. The British confirmed it was shortly after the speech, and Lord Butler's investigation into THEIR claim concluded that it was, also.
Face it, William - you are wrong. Bush's statement in the 2003 State of the Union speech was not a lie.
If you insist that Bush's statement was a lie, then by that very insistence, you are essentially calling Lord Butler a liar.
Message edited by author 2005-02-21 17:18:46. |
|
|
|
02/21/2005 08:07:42 PM · #337 |
Once again, Ron, you're failing to put the evidence in context to serve your purpose.
The July 9, 2003, BBC article that you misrepresented makes it clear that the CIA specifically refuted the "British Government intelligence" (i.e., the document that purported that there was an Iraq/Nigeria uranium connection) that Bush relied on during his State of the Union speech to make the case for war; therefore, Bush knowingly lied. Ron, your man is lying to you, and yet you defend him -- way to stand by his side.
Incredibly enough, as an unabashed Bush apologists, you're using the "plausible deniability" line of defense that Bush & Co. made sure they carved out for themselves before they lied to us all:
Originally posted by RonB:
He only referenced the British Government. That's it - the British Government. |
Again, the BBC article -- and many other sources (do yourself a favor, as a consumer of information and as an American citizen, look at the information critically) -- makes it clear that the CIA specifically refuted the "British Government intelligence" that Bush used when he lied to the American people in order to go to war:
"The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to make his case for war, the BBC has learned.
Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC."
[...]
"But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech."
[...]
"[F]ormer US diplomat, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, went on the record at the weekend to say that he had travelled to Africa to investigate the uranium claims and found no evidence to support them.
Now the CIA official has told the BBC that Mr Wilson's findings had been passed onto the White House as early as March 2002.
That means that the administration would have known nearly a year before the State of the Union address that the information was likely false."
|
|
|
|
02/21/2005 08:30:25 PM · #338 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Once again, Ron, you're failing to put the evidence in context to serve your purpose.
The July 9, 2003, BBC article that you misrepresented makes it clear that the CIA specifically refuted the "British Government intelligence" (i.e., the document that purported that there was an Iraq/Nigeria uranium connection) that Bush relied on during his State of the Union speech to make the case for war; therefore, Bush knowingly lied. Ron, your man is lying to you, and yet you defend him -- way to stand by his side.
Incredibly enough, as an unabashed Bush apologists, you're using the "plausible deniability" line of defense that Bush & Co. made sure they carved out for themselves before they lied to us all:
Originally posted by RonB:
He only referenced the British Government. That's it - the British Government. |
Again, the BBC article -- and many other sources (do yourself a favor, as a consumer of information and as an American citizen, look at the information critically) -- makes it clear that the CIA specifically refuted the "British Government intelligence" that Bush used when he lied to the American people in order to go to war:
"The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to make his case for war, the BBC has learned. |
Bush did not use months OLD claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions to make his case for war. If he did, then please point out to me exactly where, in his 2003 State of the Union address he used them.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC." |
First of all, the CIA is not considered to be part of the BRITISH GOVERNMENT.
Secondly, it appears that you simply don't understand the word "recently", which is the word Bush used to describe the timing of the British intelligence he referred to: RECENTLY is an adverb, from the adjective RECENT which means: Of, belonging to, or occurring at a time immediately before the present. Again, he was not referring to intelligence from 10 months earlier. He was referring to RECENT intelligence. Why do I feel compelled to present English and Grammar lessons to you in practically every post?
Originally posted by bdobe:
[...]
"But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech." |
March 2002. Bush's speech said RECENTLY. Sorry, but 10 months earlier is not considered RECENT. And the CIA is not considered to be BRITISH GOVERNMENT.
Originally posted by bdobe:
[...]
"[F]ormer US diplomat, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, went on the record at the weekend to say that he had travelled to Africa to investigate the uranium claims and found no evidence to support them.
Now the CIA official has told the BBC that Mr Wilson's findings had been passed onto the White House as early as March 2002. |
Sorry, not RECENT, and not from the BRITISH GOVERNMENT.
Originally posted by bdobe:
That means that the administration would have known nearly a year before the State of the Union address that the information was likely false." |
It would only have known that the information already deemed false, was false. It would NOT have known that the BRITISH GOVERNMENT information was false, even if it was.
I'm beginning to believe that you really CAN'T understand logic. Perhaps a tutor would help. |
|
|
|
02/21/2005 09:17:32 PM · #339 |
RonB, I wonder if any one, other than you, actually buys your apologists tactics and twisted logic. I certainly don't. The BBC article that you've repeatedly mischaracterized makes it plainly clear that Bush & Co. had been warned that the "British Government intelligence" (i.e., the forged Nigerian documents) that they relied on and presented to the American public was false.
Message edited by author 2005-02-21 22:30:25.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 12:06:19 AM · #340 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
RonB, I wonder if any one, other than you, actually buys your apologists tactics and twisted logic. I certainly don't. The BBC article that you've repeatedly mischaracterized makes it plainly clear that Bush & Co. had been warned that the "British Government intelligence" (i.e., the forged Nigerian documents) that they relied on was false. |
Since you cannot seem to get over or get past the infamous BBC article, let's just expose it for what it is.
First, for context purposes, I will re-iterate the statement that YOU, and others, call "a lie" - a statement that was known to be false when it was made. That statement was made on January 28, 2003 - a date that it is important to remember. The statement itself ( the one William insists is a "lie" ) is as follows: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Now let's look at the BBC article given that context.
Originally posted by BBC Article:
The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to make his case for war, the BBC has learned. |
Several liberal lies there:
1) Bush did not use the claims that the CIA warned about. Bush clearly identified the British intelligence as having been obtained RECENTLY, yet the CIA warning occurred "months before President Bush used them to make his case for war".
2) Bush did NOT use "them" to make his case for war - he used RECENT findings - including those provided RECENTLY by the British.
3) The entire allegation about the CIA warning is credited as being something that the "BBC has learned". Now where have we heard the phrase "has learned" before? Oh yes, in Bush's statement. So what we have here is bdobe's assertion that "BBC has learned" equals absolute credibility, but "British Government has learned" equals absolute poppycock. Yeah, right. Note, that the BBC doesn't say WHEN it "learned".
Originally posted by BBC Article:
Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC." |
More lies:
1) Bush did not include THE allegation ( the one about which doubts had been aired 10 months before the speech ) in his key State of the Union address. What he included was a reference to British intelligence concerning Husseins RECENT activities seeking uranium, as he clearly stated.
2) Bush did not mention Niger. He said Africe, which includes many other countries.
3) Seems another paradox for William. CIA tells BBC equals ironclad truth, CIA tells Bush administration equals pack of lies. Darned CIA - you never know when to believe them. Oh, wait. If we follow William's example we DO know when to believe them. You believe them when their statements support liberal positions.
Originally posted by BBC Article:
On Tuesday, the White House for the first time officially acknowledged that the Niger claim was wrong and suggested it should not have been used in the president's State of the Union speech in January. |
More lies:
1) While the White House DID acknowledge that the Niger claim was wrong it is only by liberal interpretation that one can infer that the White House "suggested IT should not have been used in the president's State of the Union speech in January." The BBC is cleverly trying to IMPLY that the precedent to "IT" is the Niger Claim. Guess what? It's NOT.
What the White House actually said is: "Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech". Note that the WH statement never mentions any NIGER claim. Instead, it mentions "the reference to Iraq's attempt". And what source was being quoted in that reference? Why the British Government, of course.
Originally posted by BBC Article:
But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech. |
More lies:
1) The article says that a former US diplomat had already established that "THE" claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on well before Bush mentioned it in the speech.
Well first of all, Bush never mentioned IT ( THE claim ) in his speech, as any literate individual can ascertain for themselves.
Secondly, as I have already pointed out, the intelligence Bush referenced was RECENT, not from 10 months earlier.
Thirdly, why would you give credence to the CIA, when you know that, according to your own statements, they often "lie"?
Originally posted by BBC Article:
Both President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair mentioned the claim, based on British intelligence, that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Niger as part of its attempt to build a nuclear weapons programme. |
More lies:
1) Bush did NOT mentioned Niger.
2) Bush did NOT say that the uranium was to be used to "build a nuclear weapons programme".
Originally posted by BBC Article:
Mr Blair is under fire from British MPs about the credibility of a dossier of evidence, which set out his case for war.
And in the US, increasing doubts are being raised about the American use of intelligence. |
Oh my. Not just ONE, but TWO accurate statements in a row. Joy, Joy! Let's celebrate the credibility of the BBC.
Originally posted by BBC Article:
In his keynote speech to Congress in January, the President said: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." |
Whoopee! Make that THREE in a row. I'm crying for happy.
Originally posted by BBC Article:
But the documents alleging a transaction were found to have been forged. |
Oh, so sad - the BBC winning streak has come to an end - more lies:
1) To be generous, let's allow that SOME documents alleging a transaction were found to have been forged. But that's not what the BBC says; oh no - they say "THE" documents. Well, apparently there were SOME documents that were NOT forged - enough in fact for Lord Butler to say that the allegations were "well founded" at the time, based on his review of the intelligence. For what it's worth, Lord Butler points out in his report in item number 503d: "The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it."
Originally posted by BBC Article:
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer appeared to concede on Tuesday that the uranium claim in the State of the Union address was based on inaccurate information. |
He "appeared" to concede? or he conceded? Well, I guess if you're a liberal one is as good as another. But I'm curious, how did Ari Fleischer gain access to British secret documents. Oh, wait, maybe he didn't, and maybe that' s why he only "appeared" to concede. Let's find out what he actually said, shall we?
"Q Do you hold that the President -- when you look at the totality of the sentence that the President uttered that day on the subject, are you confident that he was correct?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I see nothing that goes broader that would indicate that there was no basis to the President's broader statement."
Whoops. Doesn't SOUND to me like a concession ON THE PRESIDENT"S STATEMENT.
Originally posted by BBC Article:
"The president's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake [uranium] from Niger," Mr Fleischer said.
"So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the president's broader statement." |
Let me rephrase these two statements contextually to make them a little clearer:
There was some US and allied intelligence that Hussein was attempting to obtain uranium from Niger. It was a FACT that he had done so in the past, so it was a fair assumption that he might very well be doing so again. Based on that assumption, Bush decided to include a reference to it in his speech. BUT. . .given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, he modified the statement to be broader - namely including all of Africa and not specifically Niger.
Originally posted by BBC Article:
But a former US diplomat, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, went on the record at the weekend to say that he had travelled to Africa to investigate the uranium claims and found no evidence to support them. |
Ah, but Wilson only investigated the NIGER claims, not the [British] claims related to the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Originally posted by BBC Article:
Now the CIA official has told the BBC that Mr Wilson's findings had been passed onto the White House as early as March 2002. |
And they had, as Ari Fleischer pointed out - and that's why Bush's statement was broadened so as not to name Niger specifically, but Africa in general.
Originally posted by BBC Article:
That means that the administration would have known nearly a year before the State of the Union address that the information was likely false. |
What information? The only information given was the the British Government had learned that Hussein had RECENTLY sought uranium. How could the administration have know about what British intelligence would learn nearly a year in advance of when they learned it? Is Bush clairvoyant? I don't think so.
Originally posted by BBC Article:
In response, a US Government official told the BBC that the White House received hundreds of intelligence reports every day. |
Meaning that not ALL of them are passed on to the President.
Originally posted by BBC Article:
The official said there was no evidence that this specific cable about uranium had been passed on to the president. |
Ahh. Just like I just said.
Originally posted by BBC Article:
But in Congress, Democrats are demanding a full investigation into the intelligence that underpinned the case for war. |
Well of COURSE they are. They smell conservative blood and like a bunch of sharks they circle for a feeding frenzy.
Originally posted by BBC Article:
They have demanded to know if President Bush used evidence that he knew to be weak or wrong. |
Well, I guess they're not as agressive as William. They didn't use the "L" word.
And finally, the part I originally quoted, which needs no further explanation:
Originally posted by BBC Article:
The British Government has stood by its assertion, saying the forged documents were not the only evidence used to reach its conclusion that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Africa.
On Tuesday Mr Blair defended the assessment, telling a committee of MPs that it was not a "fantasy" and that the intelligence services themselves stood by the allegation.
"The evidence that we had that the Iraqi Government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called 'forged' documents, they came from separate intelligence," Mr Blair said.
However, Mr Blair did not specify what that separate intelligence was. |
And there you have it, William - the ENTIRE BBC Article. You may now stop saying that I misrepresented it, twisted it, mis-quoted it. If you do, you'll be LYING. |
|
|
|
02/22/2005 02:58:05 AM · #341 |
I don't buy your apologist explanation, Ron. Again, that all you have left to fallback on is the limp and dishonest "plausible deniability" defense merely underscores your rabid partisanship, and lack of desire to look at the evidence candidly, critically and in context. Here's how Bush's "plausible deniability" defense was set up: Bush & Co. knew, it is now clear, that elements of their Iraqi WMD argument rested on shaky ground (i.e., hyped evidence and, even, forged documents). Accordingly, Bush & Co.'s statements on Iraqi WMD (and alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons) were crafted so that, while closely straddling the line of common decency and honesty, could not easily be called out as outright fabrications. Given this, I find Bush's statement in his 2003 State of the Union address very telling, and a tell-tale sign of dishonesty in the works (i.e., a lie):
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
That line is purposely crafted to: (1) Give credibility to the claim that Iraq had "recently" reconstituted its nuclear program, (2) all the while giving Bush the ability to distance himself from a claim that was known (by his administration) to be false; since, (3) Bush could factually (even if dishonestly) claim that he had been relying on "British government intelligence" (i.e., the forged Nigerian uranium document) whose veracity he could not control.
For now leave aside the fact that the Bush administration had been informed that the claims made in the "British government intelligence" brief were not true; we're then left with an administration that relied on the advice of a foreign government (i.e., Britain) to formulate our national defense strategy. Moreover, if Bush's defense is, When I made that statement I thought it to be true. Then I ask, When we ask our fellow citizens to make the ultimate sacrifice, shouldn't the standard be a tad higher?
The Bush apologists will never admit that their man mislead and lied to us all; so am not at all surprised that Ron clings to stubbornly to the "plausible deniability" defense. Think of it, if these Bush apologists were to ever acknowledge and recognize that Bush & Co. lied our country into a war, why it would totally shake their foundation -- it would be akin to admitting that the earth is, in fact, round. If the Bush apologists ever admitted that their man lied, they would have to face the ugly truth that their unabashed support for Bush & Co. facilitated Bush's war of choice.
I'll spare you all an already long post, and not reproduce the entire chronology of when Bush & Co. knew what, which you can read here; however, let me leave you with the following:
"March 1, 2002: The State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) sends a memorandum to Secretary of State Colin Powell stating that claims regarding Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium from Niger are not credible, according to a knowledgeable government official."
[...]
"September 24, 2002: The United Kingdom issues a report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program stating "there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Iraq has no active civil nuclear power programme or nuclear power plants, and therefore has no legitimate reason to acquire uranium."
September/October 2002: U.S. intelligence officials tell Senate committees about their differences with the British report regarding the Iraq/uranium claim, according to Tenet (July 11, 2003)."
[...]
"January 28, 2003: President Bush asserts that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" during his State of the Union address."
RonB's argument rests solely on the factual claim that Bush merely cited "British government intelligence;" however, should the standard be just a tad higher? Shouldn't we also expect honesty and unmitigated truthfulness from our leaders before committing our nation to war?
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 09:47:11 AM · #342 |
As I have pointed out, you seem to want to place a LOT of credibility on the CIA, on British Intelligence, etc. when it suits your purpose, but are equally desirous of placing NO credibiltiy on them when it does not suit your purpose.
From that, I deduce that you are in agreement that there is evidence pointing one way, and evidence pointing the other way.
Now when MY life, and the lives of my loved ones are at stake, I'd rather have folks err on the side of caution.
It would appear that the Bush-haters would rather put the lives of their countrymen at risk in order to err on the side of "no problem, be happy", just like Clinton did for 8 years. |
|
|
|
02/22/2005 11:24:17 AM · #343 |
If you really think that the Bush administration is erring "on the side of caution," then your thinking is greatly deluded. There is nothing cautious about Bush tactics and policies. He and his administration are not conservative, but rather reactionary and extreme and imperialistic. People in opposition to Bush do not wish to put anyone at risk but Bush's policies and actions have put the whole world at risk, especially the United States and its citizens. When all else fails in your arguments, and in the arguments of your fellow Bush supporters, you fall back on Clinton-blame.
Originally posted by RonB:
Now when MY life, and the lives of my loved ones are at stake, I'd rather have folks err on the side of caution.
It would appear that the Bush-haters would rather put the lives of their countrymen at risk in order to err on the side of "no problem, be happy", just like Clinton did for 8 years. |
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 12:18:34 PM · #344 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
If you really think that the Bush administration is erring "on the side of caution," then your thinking is greatly deluded. There is nothing cautious about Bush tactics and policies. He and his administration are not conservative, but rather reactionary and extreme and imperialistic. People in opposition to Bush do not wish to put anyone at risk but Bush's policies and actions have put the whole world at risk, especially the United States and its citizens. When all else fails in your arguments, and in the arguments of your fellow Bush supporters, you fall back on Clinton-blame.
Originally posted by RonB:
Now when MY life, and the lives of my loved ones are at stake, I'd rather have folks err on the side of caution.
It would appear that the Bush-haters would rather put the lives of their countrymen at risk in order to err on the side of "no problem, be happy", just like Clinton did for 8 years. |
|
I'm not BLAMING Clinton, I'm merely pointing out the difference between his approach and Bush's. It is my belief that because of a LACK of sufficient response by Clinton, we opened ourselves up to REPEATED attacks. Al Qaeda was thought to be involved in the first attack on the WTC way back in 1993, and Clinton did nothing to go after them in a serious manner ( as Bush finally did in Afghanistan ). So we were attacked again ( Nov, 1995 in Riyadh ) and again ( June 1996 Dhahran ) and again ( Aug 1998 Nairobi ) and again ( Oct 2000 Aden ) and again ( Sept 2001 New York City ).
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 12:56:39 PM · #345 |
"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference."
"But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures."
"Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough." Excerpt from This CNN article.
And here's another article detailing what the Clintons did to combat terrorism.
What exactly do you mean by the "no problem, be happy" approach of Clinton's towards terrorism?
From what I can see, the only approach to terrorism that Bush is taking is the military one, which seems to be failing terror(ibly). Let me remind you that it was under Bush that what should have been the most defended air spaces in the nation got attacked. That despite numerous warnings of terrorism from many sources, Bush chose not to act prior to 9/11.
Militarism, imo, will not get rid of terrorism if not used wisely, and may in fact, worsen the problem over time, which it seems to have done already, as witness the ever increasing opposition in Iraq.
Originally posted by RonB:
I'm not BLAMING Clinton, I'm merely pointing out the difference between his approach and Bush's. It is my belief that because of a LACK of sufficient response by Clinton, we opened ourselves up to REPEATED attacks. Al Qaeda was thought to be involved in the first attack on the WTC way back in 1993, and Clinton did nothing to go after them in a serious manner ( as Bush finally did in Afghanistan ). So we were attacked again ( Nov, 1995 in Riyadh ) and again ( June 1996 Dhahran ) and again ( Aug 1998 Nairobi ) and again ( Oct 2000 Aden ) and again ( Sept 2001 New York City ). |
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 01:39:28 PM · #346 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference."
"But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures."
"Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough." Excerpt from This CNN article.
And here's another article detailing what the Clintons did to combat terrorism.
What exactly do you mean by the "no problem, be happy" approach of Clinton's towards terrorism?
From what I can see, the only approach to terrorism that Bush is taking is the military one, which seems to be failing terror(ibly). Let me remind you that it was under Bush that what should have been the most defended air spaces in the nation got attacked. That despite numerous warnings of terrorism from many sources, Bush chose not to act prior to 9/11.
Militarism, imo, will not get rid of terrorism if not used wisely, and may in fact, worsen the problem over time, which it seems to have done already, as witness the ever increasing opposition in Iraq.
Originally posted by RonB:
I'm not BLAMING Clinton, I'm merely pointing out the difference between his approach and Bush's. It is my belief that because of a LACK of sufficient response by Clinton, we opened ourselves up to REPEATED attacks. Al Qaeda was thought to be involved in the first attack on the WTC way back in 1993, and Clinton did nothing to go after them in a serious manner ( as Bush finally did in Afghanistan ). So we were attacked again ( Nov, 1995 in Riyadh ) and again ( June 1996 Dhahran ) and again ( Aug 1998 Nairobi ) and again ( Oct 2000 Aden ) and again ( Sept 2001 New York City ). |
|
1) The Clinton approach was to treat terrorism as though it were a law enforcement problem - so his response was to "pass legislation". HELLO - the terrorists don't CARE about the law. It's no wonder that the Congress wouldn't act on Clinton's proposals. They were all talk, no action.
This quote from one of your links says it all, as far as I'm concerned:
"Combating terrorism requires patience, courage, imagination, and restraint. Perspective is essential. Overreaction and bombast play into terrorist hands. Good intelligence, a professional security force, and a measured response are necessary. Most important for any democracy in its struggle against terrorism is a public that is informed and engaged, and understands the nature of the threat, its potential cost, and why the fight against terrorism is its fight too. It is how well the United States meets this challenge that will determine the winners, the losers, and the price paid by each."
(emphasis mine)
So we are to combat terrorism with Patience? Well, Clinton was certainly patient - for his entire eight years. And the U.N. was even more patient - for twelve years. And did we see terrorism decline? I certainly didn't. Just the opposite, I saw it increasing.
So we are to combat terrorism with Courage? That would be what Bush has done, not what Clinton did. Unless you call bombing an aspirin factory once in 8 years, and pursuing legal avenues against al-Qaeda "courage".
So we are to combat terrorism with Imagination? Clinton was certainly imaginative - he did things with cigars that I never would have imagined. But did that decrease terrorism? I don't think so. Bunker Busters - now THERE is imagination at work.
So we are to combat terrorism with Restraint? Yeah, like the Spaniards and the Russians showed - and look what it got them. No, sorry, but restraint is only good when the other side reacts to it in a positive manner.
The bpublic has to be "informed and engaged"? It may only be me, but I elect my Representative and Senators to make those heavy decisions for me - because they have access to classified information that I am not privy to. Perhaps YOU would like to reveal ALL of that classified information to the American public so that they can "buy in" to the decisions of our elected leaders. Sorry, but I do not.
As for military action. It seems to be working. And may I remind you that the WTC attacks were planned under Clinton's watch. It was under his watch that the terrorists entered our country and trained at our facilities.
It would also appear that the ever increasing opposition in Iraq is aimed at Iraqi's. What does THAT tell you? It tells ME that it is just like the last election ( where not many were FOR Kerry, but a lot were AGAINST Bush ). Namely, the terrorists are not so much AGAINST Americans as they are FOR establishing and maintaining Fundamental Islamic Theocratic rule ( a la the Taliban ). Otherwise they would be working FOR the Iraqi democratic process - because the sooner it succeeds, the sooner the Americans leave. |
|
|
|
02/22/2005 02:16:39 PM · #347 |
RonB,
Your right-wing conservative ploy has already been called out, but since you were addressing me, I feel obliged to respond. In typical conservative reactionary fashion, rather than critically examining the information in context, you immediately resort to the "blame-Clinton" ploy when backed into a corner. When will you, and those that share your world-view, recognize that your willful ignorance and apologists tactics merely provide political coverage to the irresponsible Bush administration?
And, now, as Bush & Co. begin -- once more -- to prep the country for another invasion, will you contribute to and facilitate Bush's irresponsible misuse of our military? (ex., Condoleezza Rice says an attack on Iran over its nuclear program is "not on the agenda at this point.")
Since you're such a fan of literal and linear logic, how do you square this equation (keep in mind that at the time our own people were, in fact, rather skeptical as to whether Iraq possessed WMD):
(1) 9/11 attack is committed by Al Queda/Osama Bin Ladin; (2) "Osama bin Laden hates Saddam Hussein and considers him an infidel;" [article] (3) Therefore, you and Bush & Co. seem to conclude, "We must attack Iraq."
Originally posted by RonB:
Now when MY life, and the lives of my loved ones are at stake, I'd rather have folks err on the side of caution. It would appear that the Bush-haters would rather put the lives of their countrymen at risk in order to err on the side of "no problem, be happy", just like Clinton did for 8 years. |
Message edited by author 2005-02-22 14:27:16.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 03:06:34 PM · #348 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
RonB,
Your right-wing conservative ploy has already been called out, but since you were addressing me, I feel obliged to respond. In typical conservative reactionary fashion, rather than critically examining the information in context, you immediately resort to the "blame-Clinton" ploy when backed into a corner. When will you, and those that share your world-view, recognize that your willful ignorance and apologists tactics merely provide political coverage to the irresponsible Bush administration?
And, now, as Bush & Co. begin -- once more -- to prep the country for another invasion, will you contribute to and facilitate Bush's irresponsible misuse of our military? (ex., Condoleezza Rice says an attack on Iran over its nuclear program is "not on the agenda at this point.")
Since you're such a fan of literal and linear logic, how do you square this equation (keep in mind that at the time our own people were, in fact, rather skeptical as to whether Iraq possessed WMD):
(1) 9/11 attack is committed by Al Queda/Osama Bin Ladin; (2) "Osama bin Laden hates Saddam Hussein and considers him an infidel;" [article] (3) Therefore, you and Bush & Co. seem to conclude, "We must attack Iraq."
Originally posted by RonB:
Now when MY life, and the lives of my loved ones are at stake, I'd rather have folks err on the side of caution. It would appear that the Bush-haters would rather put the lives of their countrymen at risk in order to err on the side of "no problem, be happy", just like Clinton did for 8 years. |
|
You must really LOVE that kool-aid.
BTW. I didn't "immediately" resort to the "blame Clinton" ploy - in fact I specifically said that I wasn't BLAMING Clinton for anything - merely pointing out the differences in the approach to terrorism between as demonstrated by him and by Bush.
As for (1) 9/11 attack is committed by Al Queda/Osama Bin Ladin; (2) "Osama bin Laden hates Saddam Hussein and considers him an infidel; (3) Therefore, you and Bush & Co. seem to conclude, "We must attack Iraq."
How about using your OWN reasoning to see that your logic, isn't.
1) 9/11 attack is committed by al Qaeda/Osama bin Ladin - shows that the U.S. is vulnerable to attack on its own shores ( namely, border security is not adequate to protect us from attack ).
2) Who cares what Hussein thinks of bin Laden? or vice-versa?
3) Hussein won't comply with U.N Resolutions and the intelligence agencies of many nations concur that he has programs in place for the development of weapons of mass destruction.
4) There is no doubt that if he obtains them, he will use them - and use them against U.S. interests.
5) Therefore, Bush & Co ( including 77 Senators and 296 Representatives, many of them Democrats ) concluded that military force is warranted. |
|
|
|
02/22/2005 03:18:45 PM · #349 |
Originally posted by RonB:
1) 9/11 attack is committed by al Qaeda/Osama bin Ladin - shows that the U.S. is vulnerable to attack on its own shores ( namely, border security is not adequate to protect us from attack ). |
This has always been true, and it will always be true: 100% border security cannot, ever, be guaranteed. Where's your sense of reality?
Originally posted by RonB:
2) Who cares what Hussein thinks of bin Laden? or vice-versa? |
Most reasonable Americans supported Bush's war because they were being told that: 1. Hussein and Bin Laden were cooperating with each other, 2) and that, therefore, there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. You now seem to concede that there was no such connection, but that doesn't seem to matter to you -- you would still continue to stand by your man.
Originally posted by RonB:
3) Hussein won't comply with U.N Resolutions and the intelligence agencies of many nations concur that he has programs in place for the development of weapons of mass destruction. |
Wrong, there was plenty of evidence that Hussein did not posses WMD that threaten our nation, though Bush chose to ignore that evidence and, instead, hyped charges and used forged documents to sell his war of choice to the American people.
Originally posted by RonB:
4) There is no doubt that if he obtains them, he will use them - and use them against U.S. interests. |
Hussein was nowhere close to obtaining or reconstituting his WMD program.
Originally posted by RonB:
5) Therefore, Bush & Co ( including 77 Senators and 296 Representatives, many of them Democrats ) concluded that military force is warranted. |
Under the political climate that Bush created ("You're either with us or against us.") dissent was (and still is) vilified.
---------------------------------------
So, RonB, I guess you're going to shill for Bush & Co.'s call for another invasion... I noticed that you did not address that point.
Message edited by author 2005-02-22 15:31:05.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 03:37:21 PM · #350 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
I don't know why anyone even bothers arguing anymore with this guy. We all know how he twists everything around to make fiction seem like fact in his own mind.
PS: here's some good reading, short and sweet. read this
But then again, it's from a "liberal" newspaper, and not from a "real" source of news like the drudge report. |
Funny how you quote a times article like it is a reliable news source. Yet Ron is twisting the truth. I believe it is the times whose credibilty has been greatly questioned after their writers were caught makingup entire stories. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 12:17:54 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 12:17:54 PM EDT.
|
