Bush never claimed Saddam ties to Al Qaeda or he tried to buy yellow cake from Niger? You’re mistake. He claimed both in his State of the Union address in 2003. I suggest you read it.
quote:
Actually yes he did say Saddam had ties to al Qaeda but not 9/11. And he did mention yellow cake. He was going to but took it out at the last minute. He did however mention there was an attempt to purchase nuclear material from Africa if Im not mistaken
Sure he did, but when did he say this, before or after we invaded Iraq and was called on it?
quote:
Before
Not for the general public? Can you answer then why the Terror Alert was being reported on TV every few minutes before we went to war with Iraq and before 2002 elections?
How can you even make this statement? Weren’t you here to see it or were you out of the country?
quote:
Because the media picked up on it and in the beginning yes it was for the public but you don't see much of it now. Some websites still have it, some governement sites still have it like Homeland Security and it's still on some news channels.
So this administration has to come to agreement about a law that has been on the books for decades? The law is quite clear. No taps without a judge’s signature. Bush claims he has to right to tap phones under the patriot act. Nothing in that act says he can tap phones without a warrant.
The only reason it’s up in the air is because Bush operated with impunity because of the republican dominated houses.
quote:
The problem with that law is that we didn't have people trying to attack us inside our borders. Basically it's designed to protect AMERICANS and it should. But should it also protect TERRORIST? I expect you're ok with a terrorist calling someone in the United States where it would only take 2 minutes to tell a terrorist cell to go into action. YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT RIGHT???
Here you go with that “one of their own” statement. You made this absurd statement to h@ts concerning White Water. For the sake of digression, I chose not to respond to that ridiculous statement.
However, I ask you to show me how Joe Wilson “outted” his own wife. Just like anyone else who shed differing facts than this administration, Joe has been attacked and all sorts of accusations levied against him for simply telling the truth.
quote:
OH COME ON! He would introduce his wife at parties with "This is my Secret Agent Wife" and they were on the cover of Vaniety Fair. It wasn't a secret that he was enjoying being married to a spy.
Very convenient isn’t it? I mean, here’s a guy who is a loyal republican for decades suddenly tries to sink a republican dominated administration because he’s “disgruntled”.
quote:
Yep read up on it.
Anyone who didn’t believe what Bush’s administration believed or offered differing opinion were either minimized or “fired” and your assertion lends credibility to that claim and that Bush was narrow sighted and cherry picked his intel.
That “disgruntled employee” garbage was nothing more than damage control spun by White House aids just as they’ve done with anyone else who publicly descent in opinion.
Do you think a personal blog called "All Things Conservative" is credible evidence that the Downing street memos where fake? The memos were published in the UK national newpaper the Times, which is a Rupert Murdoch paper. I searched it and couldn't find a single article saying the memos were fake.
This from Wikepedia:
Here's an interview with Michael Smith explaining exactly why he had to photocopy and then type up the memos:
Bloggers have proven a lot of thing wrong. and Yes they are credible. What's not credible is Wikipedia. Time and time again it's been proven to be false.
Edward Teach said this in post #62 : Bloggers have proven a lot of thing wrong. and Yes they are credible.
Do you think this blogger is likely to be more credible than Murdoch's Times UK national newspaper, the Washington Post, NBC, The Sunday Times, the LA Times, and all the other newspapers that printed the story?
Why can't I find any respected news outlets or newspapers that say the memos are fake? Have you found any?
Well ask yourself this, why is it not a big issue? It's not in the news, its not being talked up by the politicians or anybody and when it was in the news they all just stopped talking about it. And I'm here to tell you, if it was something that was legit and showed Bush and Blair conspired to trump up the intel to go to war then the MSM would have not let it go. So I'm sure it's because the DSM could not be authenticated. Why? Because the author of the DSM said he transcribed the memos then distroyed the originals.
Maybe this explains why its not a big issue and why it can't seem to grow legs.
quote:
But the main Downing Street document does not introduce us to any hidden or arcane or occult knowledge. As Fred Kaplan wrote in Slate last week, it explains no mystery. As protagonist Jim Dixon observes in another context in Lucky Jim, it is remarkable for "its niggling mindlessness, its funereal parade of yawn-enforcing facts, the pseudo-light it threw upon non-problems." On a visit to Washington in the prelude to the Iraq war, some senior British officials formed the strong and correct impression that the Bush administration was bent upon an intervention. Their junior note-taker committed the literary and political solecism of saying that intelligence findings and "facts" were being "fixed" around this policy.
Well, if that doesn't prove it, I don't know what does. We apparently have an administration that can, on the word of a British clerk, "fix" not just findings but also "facts." Never mind for now that the English employ the word "fix" in a slightly different way—a better term might have been "organized."
We have been here before. In an interview with Sam Tanenhaus for Vanity Fair more than two years ago, Paul Wolfowitz allowed that, though there were many reasons to seek the removal of Saddam Hussein, the legal minimum basis for it was to be sought, inside the U.S. government bureaucracy and at the United Nations, in the unenforced resolutions concerning WMD. At the time, this mild observation was also hailed as a full confession of perfidy.
I am now forced to wonder: Who is there who does not know that the Bush administration decided after September 2001 to change the balance of power in the region and to enforce the Iraq Liberation Act, passed unanimously by the Senate in 1998, which made it overt American policy to change the government of Iraq? This was a fairly open conspiracy, and an open secret. Given that everyone from Hans Blix to Jacques Chirac believed that Saddam was hiding weapons from inspectors, it made legal sense to advance this case under the banner of international law and to treat Saddam "as if" (and how else?) his strategy of concealment and deception were prima facie proof. The British attorney general—who has no jurisdiction in these 50 states—was worried that "regime change" alone would not be a sufficient legal basis. One appreciates his concern. But the existence of the Saddam regime was itself a defiance of all known international laws, and we had before us the consequences of previous failures to act, in Bosnia and Rwanda, where action would have been another word for "regime change."
Ed wrote
Actually yes he did say Saddam had ties to al Qaeda but not 9/11. And he did mention yellow cake. He was going to but took it out at the last minute. He did however mention there was an attempt to purchase nuclear material from Africa if Im not mistaken
Bush said British intelligence says “Saddam recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa”. What do you think he was talking about? That uranium was “yellow cake”.
Let me let you in on a secret. Before Wilson interviewed anyone, he met with at the embassy with then American Ambassador “Owens-Kirkpatrick” who informed him that she already debunked that claim. In spite of that, Wilson still went on a fact finding mission and found out exactly what she told him, that the story was bogus.
The fact that Bush decided to take the name “Yellow cake” out shows you that someone in that administration knew it and decided to juggle the words.
You are wrong. It wasn’t until after Joe Wilson published an article in the NY Times that Bush’s assertion was wrong did Bush admit the statement was “inaccurate”. That date he admitted this? July 7th, 2003, well after Bush stood under his mission accomplished sign on that aircraft carrier.
quote:
Because the media picked up on it and in the beginning yes it was for the public but you don't see much of it now.
I couldn’t agree more, you don’t see much of it now. However it’s because they’ve made the public immune to it and can’t scare America anymore with the “we’re the only ones that can keep America safe” scare campaign. In other words, it doesn’t work anymore.
quote:
The problem with that law is that we didn't have people trying to attack us inside our borders. Basically it's designed to protect AMERICANS and it should. But should it also protect TERRORIST? I expect you're ok with a terrorist calling someone in the United States where it would only take 2 minutes to tell a terrorist cell to go into action. YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT RIGHT???
If you have a problem with the law, then you seek to change the law not subvert it. Because you suddenly now have a “good reason” to do it doesn’t mean it’s suddenly legal. Besides, this isn’t the first law or the first time some politician thought that he was the exception.
quote:
OH COME ON! He would introduce his wife at parties with "This is my Secret Agent Wife" and they were on the cover of Vaniety Fair. It wasn't a secret that he was enjoying being married to a spy.
Not only is that story taking on new lives, it is moot. Novak didn’t state he found out Plame’s identity from Vanity Fair. It all came to light after Wilson discredited Bush’s accounting of yellow cake.
quote:
Yep read up on it.
No need to read up on it.
Funny thing though. What that “disgruntled employee” and “wife outing Joe Wilson” had to say turned out to be true and now Bush is standing there without a justification for war. Doesn’t it matter to you that their story seems to be trustworthy and Bush’s doesn’t?
Goes to show you, if you can’t discredit the story, discredit the person. Judging by your responses, it works like a charm.
Governor Bush on Kosovo war exit strategy in 99 ” Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
President Bush on Iraq war exit strategy from 2003 to 2008. “ “
03-31-2007 06:10 PM
