Forums | MacLife

So are you going to give a link or what?

Are you going to answer the question or what?

Quit avoiding.

And here comes Schnick.  All we need is bedstuy now and we can re-create the "more or less" debacle!

MysticCow wrote:

So are you going to give a link or what?

A "link" for what?

You said "every other person on the planet had the exact same intelligence about Iraq."  That's a stupid comment, it's clearly false, and I don't need to provide "a link" to prove it.

Did YOU have the intelligence available to you?  No?  Do you live on this planet?  Oh dear, I think you've just disproved your own statement!



Tailor your statement and try again. 

Are you going to answer the question or what?

What question?  I have never claimed that Bush "fabricated" evidence.  It is my belief that the decision was made to go to war, old and questionable evidence was cobbled together to build a case for an invasion . . . while pressure was put on the intelligence communities within the U.S. to present only evidence that would support the invasion, and uncertainty and guesswork in older intelligence was presented as uncontroverted fact.

Perhaps they DID feel that Hussein was keeping chemical weapons somewhere.  Either way, THEY CERTAINLY HAD TO 'LOOK' FOR THEM!

Are you claiming that Bush could have only "lied" if he "lied" about a belief in the existence AT ALL of banned weapons in Iraq?

Last edited by bratboy (2005-11-20 9:47 pm)

MysticCow wrote:

So you're not going to provide a link and you're not going to answer the question.  How many pages of this can we do?

Fine.

I did not receive the classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. That disproves your claim.

Let's move on.

Here is a link.

Last edited by Jaligard (2005-11-20 9:50 pm)

MysticCow wrote:

bratboy wrote:

MysticCow wrote:

I love how bloggers scream about how Bush lied to us, even though every other person on the planet had the exact same intelligence about Iraq that Bush did and that Clinton had the same intelligence.

False.

Care to give source, or are you going to pontificate?

In other words, if Bush lied, why were several thousand soldiers sent out to find these WMD's and embarrass Bush by not finding anything?

Question:  When Bush spoke of uranium in his State of the Union . . . had the Administration been previously informed that the information was suspect and possibly false?

Question:  When members of the Bush Administration continued to make claims connecting Al-Qaeda to Iraq, were not not already receiving warnings that the sources of those pieces of intelligence questionable? 

You can easily find information on both, if you're uninformed.

So you answered the question with distracting questions.  Great job!

man, m.c. you are pretty feeble. look around. you'll see lots of information was never presented, merely because it did not support the "imminent threat" arguments needed to get people fired up for their war. the omission of critical information in a run-up to war is criminal as far as i'm concerned.
if you actually want to keep your eyes and ears closed, and ignore the facts, say so.

Same article...

Bush, in his speech Friday, said that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." But in trying to set the record straight, he asserted: "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support."

The October 2002 joint resolution authorized the use of force in Iraq, but it did not directly mention the removal of Hussein from power.

The resolution voiced support for diplomatic efforts to enforce "all relevant Security Council resolutions," and for using the armed forces to enforce the resolutions and defend "against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

Hadley, in his remarks, went further. "Congress, in 1998, authorized, in fact, the use of force based on that intelligence," he said. "And, as you know, the Clinton administration took some action."

But the 1998 legislation gave the president authority "to support efforts to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein" by providing assistance to Iraqi opposition groups, including arms, humanitarian aid and broadcasting facilities.

So what happened to MysticCow on this one?

Re-open it . . .

Woodward, the miserable liar

Salon.com with my comments 
The nation's most famous newspaper reporter says he didn't really come to understand that his knowledge about the CIA leak case might be important until the day Patrick Fitzgerald announced the indictment of Scooter Libby. "The day of the indictment, I read the charges against Libby and looked at the press conference by the special counsel," Woodward told King. "And he said the first disclosure on all of this was on June 23, 2003, by Scooter Libby ... I went 'Whoa, Whoa,' because I knew I learned about this in mid-June, a week, ten days before. Then I say, 'Something�s up.' There�s a piece that the special counsel does not have in all of this. Then I went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode."

Go, Jimmy Olsen, go.

Seriously, how can it possibly be that Bob Woodward, the man who helped bring down a president, didn't understand until the day of the indictment of Scooter Libby that it might be important that another administration official -- someone who is not, if all the denials are to be believed, either Libby or Karl Rove -- leaked Valerie Plame's identity to a reporter? Even putting aside the question of timing, the existence of another leaker would go to the question of whether the Rove-Libby leaks were some kind of isolated instances or part of a grander White House conspiracy. And the question of timing can't really be put aside. The general time frame of the Plame leaks wasn't exactly a secret until the day the indictment came down. The dates of some of the leaks had been a matter of public knowledge for months, and the date of Libby's leak to Judy Miller had been reported in the press for weeks. The upshot: Anyone paying even a little bit of attention to the Plame case would have known long before indictment day that a leak in mid-June would have predated any of the other leaks known to have occurred.

How was Woodward so clueless? He wasn't. As Think Progress lays it out, it's pretty clear that Woodward knew full well that his "piece" of the Plame story was important long before the day of the indictment. If there really wasn't any there there, why did Woodward ask his Post colleague, Walter Pincus, to keep news of his leak secret from the Post's readers? Why did Woodward keep it secret from his own editors? Woodward's answer: He didn't want to get subpoenaed. But if Woodward really didn't think his news mattered much, why did he think he was at risk of a subpoena?

Fire his ass.

MysticCow wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Link.

Thank you for providing a link after about a page of request.  It makes me wonder how many times we've done that particular dance, because it wasn't the first time.

oatmeal wrote:

Knock off the personal attacks, folks.  Debate the issue or .

Tetrachloride wrote:

Woodward, the miserable liar

Salon.com with my comments 
The nation's most famous newspaper reporter says he didn't really come to understand that his knowledge about the CIA leak case might be important until the day Patrick Fitzgerald announced the indictment of Scooter Libby. "The day of the indictment, I read the charges against Libby and looked at the press conference by the special counsel," Woodward told King. "And he said the first disclosure on all of this was on June 23, 2003, by Scooter Libby ... I went 'Whoa, Whoa,' because I knew I learned about this in mid-June, a week, ten days before. Then I say, 'Something�s up.' There�s a piece that the special counsel does not have in all of this. Then I went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode."

Go, Jimmy Olsen, go.

Seriously, how can it possibly be that Bob Woodward, the man who helped bring down a president, didn't understand until the day of the indictment of Scooter Libby that it might be important that another administration official -- someone who is not, if all the denials are to be believed, either Libby or Karl Rove -- leaked Valerie Plame's identity to a reporter? Even putting aside the question of timing, the existence of another leaker would go to the question of whether the Rove-Libby leaks were some kind of isolated instances or part of a grander White House conspiracy. And the question of timing can't really be put aside. The general time frame of the Plame leaks wasn't exactly a secret until the day the indictment came down. The dates of some of the leaks had been a matter of public knowledge for months, and the date of Libby's leak to Judy Miller had been reported in the press for weeks. The upshot: Anyone paying even a little bit of attention to the Plame case would have known long before indictment day that a leak in mid-June would have predated any of the other leaks known to have occurred.

How was Woodward so clueless? He wasn't. As Think Progress lays it out, it's pretty clear that Woodward knew full well that his "piece" of the Plame story was important long before the day of the indictment. If there really wasn't any there there, why did Woodward ask his Post colleague, Walter Pincus, to keep news of his leak secret from the Post's readers? Why did Woodward keep it secret from his own editors? Woodward's answer: He didn't want to get subpoenaed. But if Woodward really didn't think his news mattered much, why did he think he was at risk of a subpoena?

Fire his ass.

I agree. Woodward lied and should be fired. His 'interview' with Larry King last night was pitiful it was so lame. It was graphically obvious that he is hot and bothered about his behavior in this matter, which is despicable and without journalistic integrity. Yet, he has the affront to say he is practicing 'journalism' by keeping his information secret from everyone, including his boss.

No doubt! He's sold his soul to the 'company store,' meaning the Administration in order to keep them as a 'friendly source' just as Judy Miller did. If he were in the military, his 'loyalty' would be called 'treason.' Good grief, Charlie Brown, what some people will do for fame, power and money! He needs some of his youthful 'idealism' back as to what his real job is as an investigative reporter.

In total, the three papers with daily circulations greater than one million--USA Today, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times -- made just 36 requests of the Pentagon between 2000 and February 2005. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/23.html#a6032

That is, the papers are too trusting or too afraid of the Pentagon.