interersting Cypress.I don't know who posted that question, but it looks like you sure did Cyber skewer them.
Last edited:
Study: False Statements Preceded War
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
interersting Cypress.I don't know who posted that question, but it looks like you sure did Cyber skewer them.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Since you seem not to be able to comprehend the first time, I will post it again for you....
As I stated earlier.... The Senate and House Intel committees are privy to the same intel. They can request briefings to provide the more sensitive areas that are not included in the paper reports they receive. If this was so "cherry picked" by Bush.... why were the Dems talking the same talking points? Were they all misleading us? Are they ALL liars? Or are we going to continue to play the game that says it was all Bush?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Take a look down towards the bottom at Hillary's comments.... from October 2002. (SHE also makes a connection to Al Queda.... though also points out Saddam had no part in 9/11)
Next take a look at Kerry's comments from January 2003. HE states Saddam needs to be disarmed as well. Yet why does this "study" not show the "false statements" of Kerry, Clinton and company???? Partisan bullshit anyone?
The DIFFERENCE is in the respective individuals faith in the UN. Obviously from their comments, both thought the UN capable of finding a backbone after 12 years and suddenly being able to solve the issue. Bush did not share that view.... though he did give a little window dressing "extra time" for the UN from October 2002 to March 2003. (mainly because we had to build up troop presence anyway)
Ultimately the difference is settled by the CIC. He went with his point of view on the UN and Saddam. Just as previous Presidents have done when confronted with decisions like this. If there is disagreement, then someone has to make the final call. As President that responsibility lies with Bush.
He had a view, supported it and made the call. The fact that he turned out to be wrong does not mean he "cherry picked" data. He made a judgement call. He was wrong. That does not make him a liar (on this issue).... and to call him such, when members of the opposing party were saying very similar comments is partisan hackery.
All of the above does not change the following...
1) The war was ill-timed
2) Bush was wrong about the WMDs
3) Bush completely mismanaged critical aspects of this war that resulted in a nightmare scenario, that while recently seeing improvements, still remains a long way from being resolved.
LOL. I hope he doesn't put him on IA for skewering him so badly. That would really suck.
"I have stated where Bush fucked up."
No, you have not. You STILL do not think the decision to invade was a mistake. How is that "stating where Bush fucked up?"
You're still equating statements about WMD's with statements about the imminent need to go to war. If you can't see the difference, I can't do much for you.
Superfreak & Bush, sittin' in a tree....you know the rest....
No, you have not. You STILL do not think the decision to invade was a mistake. How is that "stating where Bush fucked up?"
You're still equating statements about WMD's with statements about the imminent need to go to war. If you can't see the difference, I can't do much for you.
Superfreak & Bush, sittin' in a tree....you know the rest....
Dude, your getting perilously close to getting IA'd by SF. Massive ownage tends to make him flip out.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"You're like Dixie now. You have crossed that line. You are a complete, unmitigated partisan hack. I'll expect your "I love Bush in blue jeans" thread any ol' day now."
Nah, I didn't really get bent until the above. Compared to Dixie? That is complete bullshit and he knows it. Note he has not responded to my position... He simply keeps giving peoples opinions as if somehow they equate to fact.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Again, you are obviously to ignorant to read and comprehend.....
All of the above does not change the following...
1) The war was ill-timed
2) Bush was wrong about the WMDs
3) Bush completely mismanaged critical aspects of this war that resulted in a nightmare scenario, that while recently seeing improvements, still remains a long way from being resolved.
I am sorry that I didn't make it clear enough to you. Try reading through number three until you manage to comprehend it.
Now, please address....
As I stated earlier.... The Senate and House Intel committees are privy to the same intel. They can request briefings to provide the more sensitive areas that are not included in the paper reports they receive. If this was so "cherry picked" by Bush.... why were the Dems talking the same talking points? Were they all misleading us? Are they ALL liars? Or are we going to continue to play the game that says it was all Bush?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Take a look down towards the bottom at Hillary's comments.... from October 2002. (SHE also makes a connection to Al Queda.... though also points out Saddam had no part in 9/11)
Next take a look at Kerry's comments from January 2003. HE states Saddam needs to be disarmed as well. Yet why does this "study" not show the "false statements" of Kerry, Clinton and company???? Partisan bullshit anyone?
The DIFFERENCE is in the respective individuals faith in the UN. Obviously from their comments, both thought the UN capable of finding a backbone after 12 years and suddenly being able to solve the issue. Bush did not share that view.... though he did give a little window dressing "extra time" for the UN from October 2002 to March 2003. (mainly because we had to build up troop presence anyway)
Ultimately the difference is settled by the CIC. He went with his point of view on the UN and Saddam. Just as previous Presidents have done when confronted with decisions like this. If there is disagreement, then someone has to make the final call. As President that responsibility lies with Bush.
He had a view, supported it and made the call. The fact that he turned out to be wrong does not mean he "cherry picked" data. He made a judgement call. He was wrong. That does not make him a liar (on this issue).... and to call him such, when members of the opposing party were saying very similar comments is partisan hackery.
Yet the Intel committee has the ability and the "need to know" to request a more direct resource. They do not have to rely on the report provided by the President.
Each Senator can also request information on a need to know basis. In this case with a run-up to war the 'need' would be obvious.
This is a weak excuse.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yet you continue to ignore....
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Since opinion equates to fact in your book, why were the Dems saying the same thing as Bush?
Can you explain that you hack?
As I stated, their difference was on timing on on the faith they had in the UN.....
But please continue to post your childish rantings. The fact that you rely on Cypress for support shows how pathetic your view is.
evince
Truthmatters
Yes Damo they should have called for an investigation.
There was a window after 911 in which people trusted other Americans and gave the president the benifit of the doubt. They will hopefully never do it again. Its better to risk acting too slowly than to risk following blindly.
They are guilty of trusting Bush and they should not have.
Battleborne
Terminator
Nope.............!
the timing was right! and it was not a mistake...only fools believe it was!
the timing was right! and it was not a mistake...only fools believe it was!
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
As I have stated many times before.... I believe that military action against Saddam was inevitable. The timing was wrong. The excution was pathetic (at best). But yes, I do think it was going to happen eventually.
The only reason Saddam allowed the UN back in was because we built up a military presence on his border. That is the only reason.
Was the threat immenant.... I do not believe so, nor did I at the time, which is why I thought it was ill-timed given the war in Afghanistan.
But there is no question that the UN had 12 years.... and in those 12 years they did not resolve the issue. For the parrots on the left..... no, the fact that WMDs were not found does not somehow equate to the UN doing their job. Their job was to verify that the WMDs did not exist and to subsequently remove sanctions upon this verification. They failed. Completely. Unless you count the profits certain countries and firms made from the oil-for-food fiasco.
"He had a view, supported it and made the call. The fact that he turned out to be wrong does not mean he "cherry picked" data."
The view which he presented to the public was based on cherrypicked data. THAT is the point. You keep bringing in Kerry, and Clinton, & Democrats. Much of the testimony, if Congress ever puts this thing together for investigation, as they have promised to do, will come from people INSIDE the administration. The intel was FIXED around the policy.
In other words, there was all kinds of intel, some more definitive than others, and in the biggest decision of all - TAKING THE NATION TO WAR, which, again, was the President's, as you readily admit - was supported by evidence that was picked specifically because it supported that case for war. He lied about Curveball in his SOU speech; his office told Colin Powell to make a case for the U.N. out of a "chinese menu" of intel.
This is not an administration that took the intel, and tried to decide whether it warranted invading. This was an admin that made the decision to go to war, and then looked for whatever they could that would make the best case for that decision. That is indisputable.
Do you get that? You may not call it lying, but I do, and the people who did it are no better than common criminals, imo. Saying the war was "ill-timed" is not exactly damning criticism, Superfreak. The war was a friggin' disaster; I was right about it, you & Bush were wrong, but unfortunately, all 3 of us have to live with the consequences of his lies & your stupidity for the rest of our lives.
The view which he presented to the public was based on cherrypicked data. THAT is the point. You keep bringing in Kerry, and Clinton, & Democrats. Much of the testimony, if Congress ever puts this thing together for investigation, as they have promised to do, will come from people INSIDE the administration. The intel was FIXED around the policy.
In other words, there was all kinds of intel, some more definitive than others, and in the biggest decision of all - TAKING THE NATION TO WAR, which, again, was the President's, as you readily admit - was supported by evidence that was picked specifically because it supported that case for war. He lied about Curveball in his SOU speech; his office told Colin Powell to make a case for the U.N. out of a "chinese menu" of intel.
This is not an administration that took the intel, and tried to decide whether it warranted invading. This was an admin that made the decision to go to war, and then looked for whatever they could that would make the best case for that decision. That is indisputable.
Do you get that? You may not call it lying, but I do, and the people who did it are no better than common criminals, imo. Saying the war was "ill-timed" is not exactly damning criticism, Superfreak. The war was a friggin' disaster; I was right about it, you & Bush were wrong, but unfortunately, all 3 of us have to live with the consequences of his lies & your stupidity for the rest of our lives.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
http://ftp.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/congress.pdf
READ page 9-13 Desh.
The Intel committees have the ability to request briefings. These briefings detail the more sensitive data. It does not mean everything is given to them, but the bulk of the intel was available and to act as if it wasn't is partisan hackery.
Yes, that's been SF's contention now, ever since the war he supported turned into an unmitigated disaster. SF still supports invading Iraq, but evidently it should have been done "at a different time".
And since there's no WMD, this little freudian slip, shows that SF wanted to invade Iraq for reasons other than WMD and imminent threats: in fact, I believe SF is on record for wanting to invade Iraq because Saddam was thumbing his nose at us, and skimming money off the oil for food program.