CLAIM vs. FACT: The President on Meet the Press

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/s/content.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24899&content_id={DF7E4BE2-9FC7-4C41-89EC-3345A1EBF121}">THE PROGRESS REPORT

CLAIM vs. FACT: The President on Meet the Press</a>

THE PROGRESS REPORT

CLAIM vs. FACT: The President on Meet the Press

by David Sirota, Christy Harvey and Judd Legum

Statement of John Podesta, President and CEO, Center for American Progress

"President Bush wouldn't have agreed to an hour long network interview without a good reason and today he had one: in the span of a week he's faced the dual challenges of a loss of credibility on the war in Iraq and his management of the economy.

"His statement this morning that he would cut the deficit in half is simply laughable. Analyses by independent organizations like Goldman Sachs, the Concord Coalition, the Committee for Economic Development, and Decision Economics all project deficits of about $5 trillion over the next decade, even assuming a return to strong growth."

"The President's statement that there is ?good momentum' on the job creation front is dishonest: while we are averaging 72,000 new private sector jobs created per month, at that pace, it would not be until May 2007 that this President would have created his first net job. President Bush is well on his way to having the worst job creation record since the Great Depression. His bragging today only served to reinforce his lack of credibility on managing the nation's economy.

"And what the President referred to as a "word contest" regarding the threat from Iraq is, in fact, his attempt to change the rationale for going to war and rewrite the history of what has occurred. His argument today that Iraq had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction and pass them into the hands of shadowy terrorist networks is inconsistent with the intelligence provided to him.

President Bush sought to restore his credibility today and he clearly failed to do so."

CLAIM vs. FACT
Pre-War Assertions

PRE-WAR INTELLIGENCE HYPE

CLAIM: "I expected to find the weapons [because] I based my decision on the best intelligence possible...The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon."

FACT - WHITE HOUSE REPEATEDY WARNED BY INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY: The Washington Post reported this weekend, "President Bush and his top advisers ignored many of the caveats and qualifiers included in the classified report on Saddam Hussein's weapons." Specifically, the President made unequivocal statements that Iraq "has got chemical weapons" two months after the DIA concluded that there was "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons." He said, "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production" three months after the White House received an intelligence report that clearly indicated Department of Energy experts concluded the tubes were not intended to produce uranium enrichment centrifuges. He said, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," three months after "the CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about" the claim. [Sources: WP, 2/7/04; Bush statement, 11/3/02; DIA report, 2002; Bush statement, 1/28/03; NIE, October 2002; WP, 7/23/03; Bush statement, 10/7/02; WP, 9/26/03]

IGNORING INTELLIGENCE

CLAIM: "We looked at the intelligence."

FACT ? WHITE HOUSE IGNORED INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS: Knight Ridder reported that CIA officers "said President Bush ignored warnings" that his WMD case was weak. And Greg Thielmann, the Bush State Department's top intelligence official, "said suspicions were presented as fact, and contrary arguments ignored." Knight Ridder later reported, "Senior diplomatic, intelligence and military officials have charged that Bush and his top aides made assertions about Iraq's banned weapons programs and alleged links to al-Qaeda that weren't supported by credible intelligence, and that they ignored intelligence that didn't support their policies." [Knight-Ridder, 6/13/03; CBS News, 6/7/03; Knight Ridder, 6/28/03]

IGNORING INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS

CLAIM: "The international community thought he had weapons."

FACT ? INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TOLD WHITE HOUSE THE OPPOSITE: The IAEA and U.N. both repeatedly told the Administration it had no evidence that Iraq possessed WMD. On 2/15/03, the IAEA said that, "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq." On 3/7/03 IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said nuclear experts have found "no indication" that Iraq has tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge enrichment of uranium. At the same time, AP reported that "U.N. weapons inspectors have not found any 'smoking guns' in Iraq during their search for weapons WMD." AP also reported, "U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said his teams have not uncovered any WMD." [Source: U.S. State Department, 2/14/03; NY Times, 3/7/03; AP, 1/9/03; AP, 2/14/03]

INFORMING CONGRESS OF INTELLIGENCE CAVEATS

CLAIM: "I went to Congress with the same intelligence. Congress saw the same intelligence I had, and they looked at exactly what I looked at."

FACT ? CONGRESS WAS OUTRAGED AT PRESENTATION BY THE WHITE HOUSE: The New Republic reported, "Senators were outraged to find that intelligence info given to them omitted the qualifications and countervailing evidence that had characterized the classified version and played up the claims that strengthened the administration's case for war." According to Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), many House members were only convinced to support the war after the Administration "showed them a photograph of a small, unmanned airplane spraying a liquid in what appeared to be a test for delivering chemical and biological agents," despite the U.S. Air Force telling the Administration it "sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03; Wilkes Barre Times Leader, 1/6/04; WP, 9/26/03]

CLAIM vs. FACT
Pre-War Assertions

PRE-WAR "IMMINENT THREAT" ASSERTION

CLAIM: "I believe it is essential that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It's too late if they become imminent."

FACT ? ADMINISTRATION REPEATEDLY CLAIMED IRAQ WAS AN "IMMINENT THREAT": The Bush Administration repeatedly claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat before the war ? not that it would "become imminent." Specifically, White House communications director Dan Bartlett was asked on CNN: "Is [Saddam Hussein] an imminent threat to US interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?" Bartlett replied, "Well, of course he is." Similarly, when White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked whether America went to war in Iraq because of an imminent threat, he replied, "Absolutely." And White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the reason NATO allies ? including the U.S. - should support the defense of one of its members from Iraq was because "this is about an imminent threat." Additionally, the Administration used "immediate," "urgent" and "mortal" to describe the Iraq threat to the United States. [Source: American Progress list, 1/29/04]

BUSH'S THREAT RHETORIC BEFORE THE WAR

CLAIM: "I think, if I might remind you that in my language I called it a grave and gathering threat, but I don't want to get into word contests."

FACT ? BUSH MADE FAR MORE DIRE STATEMENTS BEFORE THE WAR: While the President did call Iraq a "grave and gathering" threat, that was not all he said. On 11/23/02, he said Iraq posed a "unique and urgent threat." On 1/3/03 he said "Iraq is a threat to any American." On 10/28/02 he said Iraq was "a real and dangerous threat" to America. On 10/2/02 he said, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency" and that Iraq posed "a grave threat" to America. [Bush, 11/23/02; Bush; 1/3/03; Bush, 10/28/02; Bush, 10/2/02; Bush, 10/2/02]

SADDAM-AL QAEDA-WMD CONNECTION

CLAIM: "Iraq had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network."

FACT ? ASSERTION BELIES PREVIOUS INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS: This assertion belies the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate which told the White House that Iraq would most likely only coordinate with Al Qaeda if the U.S. invaded Iraq. As the NYT reported, "[A] CIA assessment said last October: 'Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks' in the United States." The CIA added that Saddam might order attacks with WMD as 'his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.'" Previously, the CIA had told the White House that Iraq "has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups." And David Kay himself said, " I found no real connection between WMD and terrorists" in Iraq. [Source: NIE, 2002; NY Times, 1/29/03; NY Times, 2/6/02; NBC News, 1/26/04]

DAVID KAY'S REPORT

CLAIM: "And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out."

FACT ? KAY ACTUALLY SAID WMD HAD BEEN DESTROYED AFTER 1991: David Kay didn't say we haven't found the stockpiles of chemical weapons because they are destroyed, hidden or transported to another country. Kay said that they were never produced and hadn't been produced since 1991. As he said, "Multiple sources with varied access and reliability have told ISG that Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled CW program after 1991. Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of U.N. sanctions and U.N. inspections." [Kay Testimony, 2004]

CLAIM vs. FACT
Investigative Commissions

WMD COMMISSION

CLAIM: "The reason why we gave it time is because we didn't want it to be hurried... it's important that this investigation take its time."

FACT ? OTHER COMMISSIONS SHOW THAT THE REPORT IS BEING DELAYED FOR POLITICS: Regardless of upcoming Parliamentary elections, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has set up a similar commission to investigate intelligence that will report by July. Additionally, in 1983 after the terrorist attack on U.S. troops in Beirut, a commission was appointed and completed its report within 2 months.

9/11 COMMISSION

CLAIM: "We have given extraordinary cooperation with Chairmen Kean and Hamilton."

FACT ? WHITE HOUSE HAS STONEWALLED THE 9/11 COMMISSION: According to the Baltimore Sun, President Bush "opposed the outside inquiry" into September 11th. When Congress forced him to relent, Time Magazine reported he tried to choke its funding, noting, "the White House brushed off a request quietly made by 9-11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean" for adequate funding. Then, the NY Times reported, "President Bush declined to commit the White House to turning over highly classified intelligence reports to the independent federal commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, despite public threats of a subpoena from the bipartisan panel." And as the Akron Beacon Journal reported last week, "the 9/11 panel did not receive the speedy cooperation it expected. In a preliminary report last summer, the panel's co-chairmen, Thomas Kean, a Republican and former governor of New Jersey, and Lee Hamilton, a Democrat and former congressman from Indiana, complained about lengthy delays in gaining access to critical documents, federal employees and administration officials. They warned the lack of cooperation would prove damaging, ensuring that a full investigation would take that much longer to complete, if at all." [Source: Baltimore Sun, 6/14/02; Time Magazine, 3/26/03; NY Times, 10/27/03; Akron Beacon Journal 2/2/04]

CLAIM vs. FACT
Economy/Budgetary Priorities

UNEMPLOYMENT

CLAIM: "How about the fact that we are now increasing jobs or the fact that unemployment is now down to 5.6 percent? There was a winter recession and unemployment went up, and now it's heading in the right direction."

FACT ? THE JOB MARKET CONTINUES TO STAGNATE: Since President Bush's first tax cut in March 2001, the economy has shed more than 2 million jobs. He will be the first president since Herbert Hoover to end his term with a net job loss record. Additionally, the White House Counsel of Economic Advisors pledged that the President's "jobs and growth" package would create 1,836,000 new jobs by the end of 2003 as part of its pledge to create 5.5 million new jobs by 2004. But the economy added 221,000 jobs since the last tax cut went into effect, meaning the White House has fallen 1,615,000 jobs short of their mark. [Source: EPI, 2/4/2003; Jobwatch.org]

JOB CREATION

CLAIM: "There is good momentum when it comes to the creation of new jobs."

FACT ? STATISTICS SHOW THERE IS NOT GOOD JOB MOMENTUM: In the last two months we've seen an average of 73,000 private sector jobs created. At this pace, we wouldn't see a new net job created until May 2007. Even beyond the recession and 9/11, just looking at the recovery since November 2001, the current pace of job growth puts us on track to have the worst jobs recovery since the Great Depression.

TAXES

CLAIM: "But what the people must understand is that instead of wondering what to do, I acted, and I acted by cutting the taxes on individuals and small businesses, primarily. And that, itself, has led to this recovery."

FACT ? BUSH TAX CUTS HAD LITTLE EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS The Bush tax cuts had little effect on small business owners. Under the first tax cut, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports, small business owners "would be far more likely to receive no tax reduction whatsoever from the Administration's tax package than to benefit" because only 3.7% of small business owners are affected by the top tax rate cuts that were the bulk of the plan. Under the 2003 tax cut, the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates "nearly four out of every five tax filers (79%) with small business income would receive less than the amount" while "52% of people with small business returns would get $500 or less." [Source: CBPP, 5/3/01; CBPP, 1/21/03]

DEFICIT

CLAIM: "The budget I just proposed to the Congress cuts the deficit in half in five years."

FACT ? WHITE HOUSE ESTIMATES OMIT INEVITABLE COSTS: The President's proposal to cut the deficit in half deliberately "omits a number of likely costs" such as the continued cost of Iraq and its own defense spending plans. All told, he is proposing roughly $3 trillion in new tax cuts and spending, including $1 trillion to make his tax cuts permanent, $70 billion for the Alternative Minimum Tax, and $50 billion more for war in Iraq. The result is that the deficit is predicted to be "in the range of $500 billion in 2009" ? not even near half of what it currently is. [Source: CBPP, 1/16/04; Washington Times, 1/20/04; Reuters, 2/2/04]

STIMULUS

CLAIM: "The economic stimulus plan that I passed is making a big difference."

FACT ? STUDY SHOWS TAX CUTS BARELY MADE A DENT: A study by Economy.com attributes only 0.9 percent out of the total 7.2 percent annualized growth in the third quarter to the 2003 tax cut. In other words, the Economy.com analysis suggests that the strength of the economy in the third quarter was not due primarily to the tax cut: Without the tax cut, growth would have still been an impressive 6.3 percent. [Peter Orszag in the New Republic, 11/6/03]

CLAIM vs. FACT
Personal Military Records

RELEASE OF RECORDS

CLAIM: Russert ? "Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?" Bush ? "Yes, absolutely. We did so in 2000 by the way."

FACT ? RECORDS OFF-LIMITS: "[A]s Bush has risen in public life over the last several years, Texas military officials have put many of his records off-limits and heavily redacted many other pages." [Source: Boston Globe, 5/23/2000]

REPORTING FOR DUTY

CLAIM: "I did show up in Alabama."

FACT ? UNIT COMMANDER DOESN'T BELIEVE HE SHOWED UP FOR DUTY: The Boston Globe reports that Bush's assigned unit commander, William Turnipseed, and his administrative officer, Kenneth K. Lott, do not believe that Bush reported. In an interview Turnipseed said, "Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not. I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered." [Source: Boston Globe, 5/23/2000]
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Excellent article Gaard. Tim Russert was disappointing. He should have pushed like he normally does.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
NICE POST!

What I find particularly interesting is the failure to disclose much intel to the House of Representatives. Those idiots voted without much information and what they had was probably distorted.

This raises the question of what were Kerry and Edwards actually shown by the Administration in support of the war resolution? That hasn't been adequately addressed. (Maybe I missed it, but I don't think so.) My primary objection to Kerry is his support for the war resolution. I'd like an answer to that question. :)

-Robert

 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
Originally posted by: Ldir
Excellent article Gaard. Tim Russert was disappointing. He should have pushed like he normally does.
It would have been nice if he did, but I think he was more careful since it's an incumbent president who does not do these types of things that often. There was also the problem of it being taped and not live, which leaves room for pausing, rephrasing of questions and more time to think through the answers.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,676
136
Headline- "Russert Shills for Dubya, Retains Illusion of Credibility"

Shame on ya, Timmy, acting the Tool...
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
nice link to a highly liberal site...I love this one under their mission statement:

? responding effectively and rapidly to conservative proposals and rhetoric with a thoughtful critique and clear alternatives

This about says it all with re. Americanprogress.org

Liberals Get A Think Tank Of Their Own
New Shop Will Develop Ideas, Fight Conservatives
By David Von Drehle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 23, 2003; Page A29


To most Washington think tank executives, $10 million or $12 million per year for three years would sound like a lot of money.

But then, they are not trying to do what former White House chief of staff John D. Podesta has in mind for his new Center for American Progress. Podesta's ambition is to update the liberal agenda while beating back the conservative tide. Also, to discover, train and promote a new generation of liberal spokesmen. In other words, he wants to give the left of the American political spectrum a think tank to match the Heritage Foundation on the right.

The seed money pledged by such deep-pocketed Democrats as financier George Soros and mortgage billionaires Herbert and Marion Sandler -- while serious dough -- is barely enough to make a beginning.

On the other hand, Heritage got started on less. Hatched amid the ruins of the post-Watergate Republican Party, Heritage has grown into a $30 million-a-year operation -- a hatchery of ideas, yes, but also a packager, promoter, expediter, wholesaler, matchmaker and orchestrator. It is the hub of a network of loosely aligned conservative brain barns with budgets totaling $100 million or so.

Liberals have been pining for many years for something similar on their side, Podesta said in an interview this week. "For as long as I can remember," he said, "people have talked about the rise of the Republican think tank machine with a powerful communications machinery really embedded inside it -- creating the ability not just to develop the philosophy but to sell it."

What really drove home the need was the election of 2002, when Democrats found themselves out of power at every level of government. Podesta, a man with many admirers and few enemies despite 30 years in politics, agreed to take on the project.

Already more than half the anticipated staff has been hired -- 35 of what will become a staff of about 65. The center today plans to name its first nine fellows. Next week, the center will co-sponsor a forum on liberal approaches to foreign policy and national security, guided by Clinton administration veteran Robert O. Boorstin, one of Podesta's first hires. The keynote speaker will be retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark -- an invitation Podesta said was issued long before Clark entered the race for president.

To see the center's early steps is to understand how different it is from the many Washington think tanks that bore deeply into a few veins of public policy. Podesta's shop intends to cover a range of issues, from economics to domestic policy to foreign affairs. But promoting the agenda is at least as important as shaping it.

In the center's temporary offices on 15th Street NW, many of the windowed offices reserved for deep thinkers sit empty, but the bullpen where the PR staff works is crowded and bustling. Even before the center issued its first white paper, staff members began contacting cable television producers, offering to help book guests with a liberal take.

"We progressives feel we're not in the game when it comes to the media," Laura Nichols, the center's vice president for communications, said. "We're not on cable to the extent the other side is. We don't have the talking heads. We're not offering effective pushback for the right-wing agenda. So one of our goals is to start building a new bench of cable commentators."

Nichols has hired Debbie Berger, a senior producer of CNN's "Crossfire," to help set up a media training and booking operation. Berger has an assistant focused on spreading the message to talk radio. Another staffer is assigned to find ways to reach young people. One of the center's earliest hires was blogger David Sirota, who patrols the Internet daily before dawn to compose a summary and critique of the day's news from a liberal perspective.

The belief that long-term thinking can coexist with day-to-day political combat is essential to Podesta's vision. "There is really more interaction than I expected," he said. "Many of the big, credentialed thinkers really like the day-to-day stuff. It helps to animate them."

But, analysis and philosophy amount to little in political terms unless there is someone to sell the results. This Podesta learned from watching Heritage. It is not the largest think tank in Washington (that would be the venerable Brookings Institution) nor is it stocked with the most sheepskins. But it would be hard to name an outfit as good at taking an idea that sounds extreme and moving it onto the agenda.

"When they got started in the 1970s, they had a set of ideas that were radical and out of the mainstream," Podesta said. "Today, while I would still call their ideas radical, they are no longer out of the mainstream." The Heritage Foundation has helped to promote ideas ranging from Social Security privatization to school vouchers to welfare reform.

"I have to give them credit," he said, "for having introduced those ideas well and for having sold them."

When the center finds its ideas, Podesta said, they are likely to reflect certain values: the spirit of community, opportunity for all, "the rule of law in foreign relations." But he does not claim to have all the answers. "The reality is that we need to fill up the idea tank," he said.

For that job, Podesta has commissioned a barnacled veteran of many tanks, Morton H. Halperin, whose r&eacute;sum&eacute; includes Brookings, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Century Foundation and the Council on Foreign Relations. Halperin is in charge of recruiting the center's fellows, and his first list is a mix of familiar liberal spokesmen, promising deep thinkers and unmappables in between. They include, among others, Clinton economic guru Gene Sperling, Africa expert Gayle E. Smith, syndicated columnist Matthew Miller, political demographer Ruy Teixeira, media critic Eric Alterman and health care theorist Jeanne Lambrew.

Podesta realizes that his large budget means that a lot of people will be watching with high expectations. He hopes they will be patient -- "We're not trying to do everything," he said, and he returned repeatedly to the theme that his is a long-term project.

But there is no choice but to be ambitious, Podesta said. "To communicate these ideas effectively to the public, you have to get big," he said. "We have to modernize the movement, marry it to policies that work and sell it all over again."


 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: bozack
nice link to a highly liberal site...I love this one under their mission statement:

? responding effectively and rapidly to conservative proposals and rhetoric with a thoughtful critique and clear alternatives
Shouldn't that read: "responding effectively and rapidly to Conservative proposals and statements with emotional rhetoric, obfuscation, and innuendo"?

That was a nice try but it is based on the theory that each point was refuted with some little tidbit of info - which is not even close to being the case.

Enjoy your little party though.

CkG
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
executive summary:

Bush is an idiot
Bush is a liar
Bush is immoral

gee! it's the liberal trifecta, the Democrat mantra, the DNC talking points...yea, yea, yea, same old stuff over and over

interesting how such a "rube" was able to fool all you smart liberals....

another liberal ploy...state something that is opinion as fact..
your post (if you actually wanted to be accurate) should have read "CLAIM vs. CLAIM", or even "FACT versus CLAIM"
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Nice... Three conservative replies in a row, and not one mention of the facts brought up in the article...just attacking the source.


Some things never change..

Edit: I wonder if heartsurgeon has a special key mapped on his keyboard that allows him to easily input the word "liberal" into all his posts with just the pressing of a single key....the liberal key.

;)
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Nice... Three conservative replies in a row, and not one mention of the facts brought up in the article...just attacking the source.

Some things never change..

Edit: I wonder if heartsurgeon has a special key mapped on his keyboard that allows him to easily input the word "liberal" into all his posts with just the pressing of a single key....the liberal key.

;)
That's because they are very Happy with their President and Commander In Chief of course and will be voting for him again in a few months no matter what.

Aren't you happy? Don't you believe every word he said too?

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Nice... Three conservative replies in a row, and not one mention of the facts brought up in the article...just attacking the source.


Some things never change..

Edit: I wonder if heartsurgeon has a special key mapped on his keyboard that allows him to easily input the word "liberal" into all his posts with just the pressing of a single key....the liberal key.

;)
There is no point in discussing the statements made because the twisting is obvious.
Example - the intelligence stuff. They point to "being warned" - like that refutes that they had the best intel available? Sure in your opinion they should have looked at the other stuff more - but that doesn't mean they didn't look at it or didn't weight it witht the other side.
That is exactly why that whole thing isn't worth even messing with - it's filled with emotional rhetoric, obfuscation, and innuendo.

CkG
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Nice... Three conservative replies in a row, and not one mention of the facts brought up in the article...just attacking the source.
Why would anyone bother wasting their time responding to liberal biased crap? would be the same as a liberal wasting their breath responding to heavily conservative biased crap no?.....

and don't get me started with *attacking the source* if anything the libs/dems are know for that knee jerk response...take a look at any thread containing info cited from a conservative think tank/source and see how many *bash the source* replies you will see from the libs...

post something worth responding to instead of this biased garbage and you might get an response worth reading.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
That's because they are very Happy with their President and Commander In Chief of course and will be voting for him again in a few months no matter what.

Aren't you happy? Don't you believe every word he said too?
has nothing to do with the fact that this is heavily biased information being put up as *fact*....it is crap plain and simple much like all of the heavily conservative crap posted.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
the facts brought up in the article
what facts?
input the word "liberal" into all his posts with just the pressing of a single key
Yeah, it's on every keyboard...you just have to look WAY over on the left side of the keyboard to find it.

yep...a truely neutral source of news and analysis.. Statement of John Podesta, President and CEO, Center for American Progress....why don't you just quote that liar Al Franken as you news source...at least he use to be funny.

Podesta..John Podesta served as Chief of Staff to President Clinton,John Podesta has held a number of positions on Capitol Hill including: Counselor to Democratic Leader Senator Thomas A. Daschle (1995-1996).

More recently: " Soros also is providing up to $3 million to finance a new Washington, DC think-tank called the Center for American Progress, whose president is John Podesta, former chief of staff in the Clinton White House. The new liberal think-tank will have a high profile with Soros' money and the Clinton circle of contacts. ..."

yep..opinion, Fair and Balanced..just quit using that liberal canard of claiming your opinion is "fact".....

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the facts brought up in the article
what facts?
input the word "liberal" into all his posts with just the pressing of a single key
Yeah, it's on every keyboard...you just have to look WAY over on the left side of the keyboard to find it.
I vote we make "liberal" equal to the "~" symbol. Because liberals seem to think things are "almost" or "kind of" but hardly ever "actual" like a "=" would be(which oddly enough is on the right side of the keyboard:Q).

Anyone second the motion?:D

CkG
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
since you ~'s have seen fit to quote Podesta as a source of undisputable truth, you are now going to see Rush and Ann quote in this forum as undisputed sources of fact..you started it...

CAD, i'm just going to start using the symbol since a quorum of conservatives appears to be present to decide the issue!
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
How about:

~but

It is important to add the but. Because liberals will agree with you factually on most anything, only to insert the "but" afterwards.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
How about:

~but

It is important to add the but. Because liberals will agree with you factually on most anything, only to insert the "but" afterwards.
the ~but's are reserved for those who are willing to at least acknowledge fact.

For the truly angry lefties, we have the ~!






 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: alchemize
How about:

~but

It is important to add the but. Because liberals will agree with you factually on most anything, only to insert the "but" afterwards.
the ~but's are reserved for those who are willing to at least acknowledge fact.

For the truly angry lefties, we have the ~!
:D

Now all we need is XeroII to write it into neo-con law and we're golden;):D

CkG
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Good job refuting what the article states guys. Guess I should vault this thread for when complaints about distractions are logged, huh? ;)
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[
There is no point in discussing the statements made because the twisting is obvious.
Example - the intelligence stuff. They point to "being warned" - like that refutes that they had the best intel available? Sure in your opinion they should have looked at the other stuff more - but that doesn't mean they didn't look at it or didn't weight it witht the other side.
That is exactly why that whole thing isn't worth even messing with - it's filled with emotional rhetoric, obfuscation, and innuendo.

CkG
actually them being warned proves they had the best intel avalable, and it also proves that they dissmissed it when they made all their "no doubt" claims.


next?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[
There is no point in discussing the statements made because the twisting is obvious.
Example - the intelligence stuff. They point to "being warned" - like that refutes that they had the best intel available? Sure in your opinion they should have looked at the other stuff more - but that doesn't mean they didn't look at it or didn't weight it witht the other side.
That is exactly why that whole thing isn't worth even messing with - it's filled with emotional rhetoric, obfuscation, and innuendo.

CkG
actually them being warned proves they had the best intel avalable, and it also proves that they dissmissed it when they made all their "no doubt" claims.


next?
No, it doesn't "prove" anything. Just because YOU think it should have carried more weight(now in hind sight) doesn't mean it was "dismissed" and never considered. It could have been outweighed by other things. The whole "article" makes assumptions like that.

CkG

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
NO DOUBT = dismissed all doubt

try again?
No - nice try though.

CLAIM: "I expected to find the weapons [because] I based my decision on the best intelligence possible...The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon."

They try to disput this by saying he didn't look at the intelligence -which they can't prove. YOU may think they didn't look at it hard enough or give it enough credit but that doesn't mean it wasn't a part of what was looked at.

The intelligence not only from US(CIA etc) but also the intelligence from around the world. But yeah, I see how people think Bush just made it all up and didn't look at this or that report.


That is exactly why that whole thing isn't worth even messing with - it's filled with emotional rhetoric, obfuscation, and innuendo. At best - it's Claim vs Claim.

The ~buts, ~!s, and just plain old ~s will just lap this stuff up though.

CkG
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY