Page 1 of 1 [ 4 posts ] 

Endersdragon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,666

21 Nov 2005, 3:20 pm

I read an interesting article the other day called "The New Politics of Intelligence: Will the reforms work this time" and in it the author brought up the fact that we (as a nation) blamed the Bush administration with the intelligence failure and not connecting the dots leading to 9/11, then we go and blame him for connecting dots and having action that lead to the Iraq War. Does anyone else see something wrong here???


_________________
"we never get respect ... never a fair trial
[swearing removed by lau] ... as long as we smile"
Im tired of smiling.

Vote for me in 2020 :-D


ed
Odd Duck
Odd Duck

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,878
Location: Whitinsville, MA

21 Nov 2005, 6:44 pm

It is so obvious that Bush and his administration were lying. For example, in his 2003 State of the Union speech, Bush said

Quote:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.


This despite the fact that they had known for months that this British intelligence was false.

Note, however, the way he worded it: "The British government has learned...", which gives them wiggle room. If he had said "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.", it would have been a lie, because they knew that wasn't true. But the British government did learn of this. At one time they thought that, but, like Bush, they had known for quite some time that it wasn't correct. So maybe technically it wasn't a lie, and they might get away with that in an American court. They would not get away with that in the World Court at The Hague, in The Netherlands. That is where they belong, and that is where I plan to send them.



Endersdragon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,666

21 Nov 2005, 7:27 pm

ed wrote:
It is so obvious that Bush and his administration were lying. For example, in his 2003 State of the Union speech, Bush said

Quote:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.


This despite the fact that they had known for months that this British intelligence was false.

Note, however, the way he worded it: "The British government has learned...", which gives them wiggle room. If he had said "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.", it would have been a lie, because they knew that wasn't true. But the British government did learn of this. At one time they thought that, but, like Bush, they had known for quite some time that it wasn't correct. So maybe technically it wasn't a lie, and they might get away with that in an American court. They would not get away with that in the World Court at The Hague, in The Netherlands. That is where they belong, and that is where I plan to send them.


Can you please give me a good source pre Iraq-War that said that Iraq defiently didnt have WMDs and can you give me a good reason why Saddam was "playing" with the weapons inspectors? Also why the heck did Kerry say that Iraq did have WMDs if it was "so obvious" Bush was lying.


_________________
"we never get respect ... never a fair trial
[swearing removed by lau] ... as long as we smile"
Im tired of smiling.

Vote for me in 2020 :-D


Endersdragon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,666

24 Nov 2005, 2:58 pm

Comeon Ed I need some answers to my questions :).


_________________
"we never get respect ... never a fair trial
[swearing removed by lau] ... as long as we smile"
Im tired of smiling.

Vote for me in 2020 :-D