Does credibility and the truth no longer matter?

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYDemocrats are using deception(taking quote out of context) to convince people that Bush decieved them with the statement.

Sorry you can't see it.

CkG

And you are saying having done so makes their argument is less valid. It doesn't. And neither does information that has been found after the statement was made (even if it were substantiated). We were misled. Some may feel that war was justified in any case, and others may feel that it would not have been justified in any case, but we were misled.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

Does credibility and the truth no longer matter?

CADkindaGUY, if credibility and the truth can be stretched by Bush, and you accept it, how can you honestly expect to apply a different standard to the democrats?

Thanks for a rational response
That is what I am saying -but in reverse. How can the Democrats think they stand to gain by twisting and stretching the truth in their attack against Bush's supposed "lies" (stretched truths or whatever you want to call it).
Aren't they using the same tactics that they are trying to point out?

I don't expect anything different from them - any of them but if you call one thing X you'd better call the other thing X.

/me ignores rest of comments that aren't part of the threads topic.
CkG

Cad, as usual, you're full of it. This thread is full of on-topic posts, as well as posts that relate to your larger question (but ignore the Q&A) - you just don't want to hear it. Additionally, there's no rule in these forums that say if you slander the republicans you also have to slander the democrats. People are free to discuss events independently and that includes whatever lying the president may or may not have done.

But most importantly, have you ever considered that the democrats are intentionally using Bush's tactics to make a point? Only in their case, the consequences of their little half-truths aren't so dire. We don't have our sons and daughters dying or shot in far off lands because of a TV commercial, do we? But I suppose you're willing to just wander in and say A=B and feel like a better conservative for doing so. Mega dittos to you!

Finally, even if we all agree that both parties are lying little weasles (which I think they are), then at least you're finally admitting that there's something to this whole SotU "scandal" and maybe, just maybe, it fits a larger pattern of deception. So at least we're making progress there

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYDemocrats are using deception(taking quote out of context) to convince people that Bush decieved them with the statement.

Sorry you can't see it.

CkG

And you are saying having done so makes their argument is less valid. It doesn't. And neither does information that has been found after the statement was made (even if it were substantiated). We were misled. Some may feel that war was justified in any case, and others may feel that it would not have been justified in any case, but we were misled.

You are right - it doesn't invalidate their argument since it wasn't valid to begin with. Bush never claimed that WE have intel, he said the BRITS have intel. You can paint it however you wish - he didn't lie. If you question the intel - ask the Brits. Twisting his words is wrong - not what he said.

Oh, and as to your "information that has been found after the statement was made " comment. The info was just recently declassified not found "after"

CkG

 

[jahawkin]

How is this ad taking Bush's words out of context? The CIA had already disproven all claims about Iraq buying uranium from Africa. If Bush asserts a claim he knows to be false, even if attributing it to British intelligence, he is still lying.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
How is this ad taking Bush's words out of context? The CIA had already disproven all claims about Iraq buying uranium from Africa. If Bush asserts a claim he knows to be false, even if attributing it to British intelligence, he is still lying.

You prove my point. You ate it up. By taking the context of "who the info was attributed to and coming from" you twist and distort it's meaning.

f you don't understand that, you are beyond help.

I'm done for good this time - making this argument into things about me or "affects" of lies is just diversion. The fact is that Bush DIDN'T LIE and the Democrats are misrepresenting what Bush said.

Keep trying - something someday might hit the board.

CkG

 

[Corn]

The CIA had already disproven all claims about Iraq buying uranium from Africa.

Really, "all claims" have been disproven? I think that's a lie. There must be an open hearing!!!! Or at the very least you could present some evidence that the CIA had already disproven "all claims" about Iraq buying uranium from Africa.

If Bush asserts a claim he knows to be false.....

I'm sure that you can prove this too, right?

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jahawkin
How is this ad taking Bush's words out of context? The CIA had already disproven all claims about Iraq buying uranium from Africa. If Bush asserts a claim he knows to be false, even if attributing it to British intelligence, he is still lying.

You prove my point. You ate it up. By taking the context of "who the info was attributed to and coming from" you twist and distort it's meaning.

f you don't understand that, you are beyond help.

I'm done for good this time - making this argument into things about me or "affects" of lies is just diversion. The fact is that Bush DIDN'T LIE and the Democrats are misrepresenting what Bush said.

Keep trying - something someday might hit the board.

CkG

So if Bush says "British intelligence has learned that the earth is flat" when Bush himself knows that the earth isn't flat he isn't lying?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jahawkin
How is this ad taking Bush's words out of context? The CIA had already disproven all claims about Iraq buying uranium from Africa. If Bush asserts a claim he knows to be false, even if attributing it to British intelligence, he is still lying.

You prove my point. You ate it up. By taking the context of "who the info was attributed to and coming from" you twist and distort it's meaning.

f you don't understand that, you are beyond help.

I'm done for good this time - making this argument into things about me or "affects" of lies is just diversion. The fact is that Bush DIDN'T LIE and the Democrats are misrepresenting what Bush said.

Keep trying - something someday might hit the board.

CkG

Wow Cad, so let me see if I've got this straight: Bush = Not a liar; Democrats = BIG liars. Is that the point you were trying to make? Damn, you're all over the place with this one... If the democrats are "misrepresenting" what Bush said, then Bush is obviously "misrepresenting" what he (and by extention the rest of the administration and the intel community) knew about Iraq. Do you prefer that term over "lying?"

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Corn

The CIA had already disproven all claims about Iraq buying uranium from Africa.

Really, "all claims" have been disproven? I think that's a lie. There must be an open hearing!!!! Or at the very least you could present some evidence that the CIA had already disproven "all claims" about Iraq buying uranium from Africa.

If Bush asserts a claim he knows to be false.....

I'm sure that you can prove this too, right?

By all claims I mean the obvious Niger forgeries and the "other" British intelligence reports that supposedly don't relay on the Niger documents but were disproven as well, see here

The statement was prompted by publication of a British parliamentary commission report, which raised serious questions about the reliability of British intelligence that was cited by Bush as part of his effort to convince Congress and the American people that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program were a threat to U.S. security.

The British panel said it was unclear why the British government asserted as a "bald claim" that there was intelligence that Iraq had sought to buy significant amounts of uranium in Africa. It noted that the CIA had already debunked this intelligence, and questioned why an official British government intelligence dossier published four months before Bush's speech included the allegation as part of an effort to make the case for going to war against Iraq.

 

[Corn]

But London has stood by the allegation, insisting that the intelligence was not MI6's own and was based on information received from a foreign intelligence service which they could not share with the American CIA.

"The intelligence on which we based this was not the so-called forged documents that have been put to the IAEA, and the IAEA have accepted that they got no such forged documents from British intelligence," Blair said.

It would appear that some disagree.......

 

[EXman]

3. Do you think that this will hurt or help the Democratic candidates?

Credibility and truth never hurt Clinton which is the word I thought of when I read the title.

I don't think the Dems can find an electable candidate. Really today who can beat Bush right now if the election were today? Tough to answer that.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Corn
But London has stood by the allegation, insisting that the intelligence was not MI6's own and was based on information received from a foreign intelligence service which they could not share with the American CIA.

"The intelligence on which we based this was not the so-called forged documents that have been put to the IAEA, and the IAEA have accepted that they got no such forged documents from British intelligence," Blair said.

It would appear that some disagree.......

Right, some secret intelligence that is so firm and damning that Tony Blair says it is not "beyond the bounds of possibility" because Iraq bought uranium in the 80's (wow, that sounds conclusive). Secret intelligence that has only been reviewed by British intelligence and the mystery nation that gave them the info. So why is this being presented in the SOTU as fact?
Edit: also, why did the white house admit that the claim should not have been included in the SOTU? If there's this "other" intelligence (which, BTW we don't learn about until after Joseph Wilson blew the whistle) that we have from the British, why did the admin admit they were wrong only to change their story afterwards.

edit:
and Blair's statement about Iraq buying uranium from Niger in the 80's is false as well,
link

Of Mr Blair's claim that 270 tons had been purchased in the 1980s, he said: "It's not true. The Iraqis asked, but there was never any transactions."

He added that the request was not a secret. It was "officially made and officially turned down". He pointed out that Niger's uranium production was subject to scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Britain had maintained that the "purchase" of the uranium in the 1980s made it likely that Iraq went back for more.

 

[Corn]

Edit: also, why did the white house admit that the claim should not have been included in the SOTU? If there's this "other" intelligence (which, BTW we don't learn about until after Joseph Wilson blew the whistle) that we have from the British, why did the admin admit they were wrong only to change their story afterwards.

The Bush administration hasn't "changed their story" that I know of. They conceded that this intelligence was weak and probably shouldn't have been used. If you can provide some sort of link to the contrary I would appreciate it.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Corn

Edit: also, why did the white house admit that the claim should not have been included in the SOTU? If there's this "other" intelligence (which, BTW we don't learn about until after Joseph Wilson blew the whistle) that we have from the British, why did the admin admit they were wrong only to change their story afterwords.

The Bush administration hasn't "changed their story" that I know of. They conceded that this intelligence was weak and probably shouldn't have been used. If you can provide some sort of link to the contrary I would appreciate it.

Here's a nice article that sums up how the white house has handled this story. The whole article is good, but in reference to the changing of the story part, there's this:

Only the White House's explanations shifted often contradicting themselves in the process.

There was the "no big deal" approach. Four days into the controversy, as Bush was dogged with questions while visiting Africa, Powell said there was no intention to deceive and called the outcry "overwrought and overblown and overdrawn." His defense was a bit backhanded the president's statement, he said, had been determined to be "not totally outrageous."

With that tack unsuccessful, the next day was blame the CIA day.

First Rice, then Bush pointed fingers at the CIA for not removing the claim while vetting the speech. CIA Director George Tenet, back in Washington, completed the well-scripted mea culpa by accepting full responsibility and absolving Bush.

But Democrats still weren't letting it go.

Rice appeared on three Sunday talk shows to offer a new explanation: Bush's remark was technically accurate because he correctly described what the British government had reported.

And who knows, Fleischer emphasized the next day, the British could be right. "We don't know if it's true," he said, "but nobody but nobody can say it is wrong."

A recap of the timeline of the article:
First, Condi Rice says that claim should not have been in SOTU, but we didn't know the intelligence was bad at the time of the SOTU
Joseph Wilson story breaks which contradicts Rice's explaination-->
Next day White house admits claim should not be in SOTU, intelligence was bad -->
While Bush was in Africa, Powell states that this issue is "overblown" -->
Admin then blames CIA, saying they cleared the speech -->
Now, the admin is claiming that the statement is true, because of the British intelligence

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corn
But London has stood by the allegation, insisting that the intelligence was not MI6's own and was based on information received from a foreign intelligence service which they could not share with the American CIA.

"The intelligence on which we based this was not the so-called forged documents that have been put to the IAEA, and the IAEA have accepted that they got no such forged documents from British intelligence," Blair said.

It would appear that some disagree.......

I just think it's a terrible crime that Bush and Blair have to be dragged through all this mud just to protect some intelligence that can't be shared with the CIA. It's a crying shame. There's probably some agent in Niger that's crucial to the security of the British Empire. It does my heart good to see Corn offer this stuff, though. There are many more myths than urban ones. There are the ones that defy credulity at least among the sane.

 

[BOBDN]

Does credibility and the truth no longer matter?

No, not since selection 2000 or the Bush administration's lies about Iraq to start the invasion.

 

[jahawkin]

I'd just like to update the sequence of events here, because there's now yet another admin. official taking the fall for this.

The controversial passage citing a British intelligence report "should have been taken out of the State of the Union," Hadley said. He said he was taking responsibility on behalf of the White House staff just as Tenet had done for the CIA.

"There were a number of people who could have raised a hand" to have the passage removed from the draft of Bush's Jan. 28 address, Hadley said. "And no one raised a hand."

A recap of the timeline Bush's SOTU claim:
First, Condi Rice says that claim should not have been in SOTU, but we didn't know the intelligence was bad at the time of the SOTU -->
Joseph Wilson story breaks which contradicts Rice's explaination-->
Next day White house admits claim should not be in SOTU, intelligence was bad -->
While Bush was in Africa, Powell states that this issue is "overblown" -->
Admin then blames CIA, saying they cleared the speech, Tenet issues his mea culpa -->
Now, the admin (and certain people in this forum) is claiming that the statement is true, because of the British intelligence -->
But wait, even citing it to British Intelligence should have never happened, Condi's #1 man takes the fall.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
I'd just like to update the sequence of events here, because there's now yet another admin. official taking the fall for this.

The controversial passage citing a British intelligence report "should have been taken out of the State of the Union," Hadley said. He said he was taking responsibility on behalf of the White House staff just as Tenet had done for the CIA.

"There were a number of people who could have raised a hand" to have the passage removed from the draft of Bush's Jan. 28 address, Hadley said. "And no one raised a hand."

A recap of the timeline Bush's SOTU claim:
First, Condi Rice says that claim should not have been in SOTU, but we didn't know the intelligence was bad at the time of the SOTU -->
Joseph Wilson story breaks which contradicts Rice's explaination-->
Next day White house admits claim should not be in SOTU, intelligence was bad -->
While Bush was in Africa, Powell states that this issue is "overblown" -->
Admin then blames CIA, saying they cleared the speech, Tenet issues his mea culpa -->
Now, the admin (and certain people in this forum) is claiming that the statement is true, because of the British intelligence -->
But wait, even citing it to British Intelligence should have never happened, Condi's #1 man takes the fall.

Nice timeline there. So, bottom-line: The Bush Admin MO is to fess up when they're forced to fess up. So this still begs the question - what else is there? I mean, is a lie of omission the same thing as a lie or not? Let the argument over semantics commence...

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Nice timeline there. So, bottom-line: The Bush Admin MO is to fess up when they're forced to fess up. So this still begs the question - what else is there? I mean, is a lie of omission the same thing as a lie or not? Let the argument over semantics commence...

The admin is trying to stop this story with this guys admission, the same way they tried with Tenet's mea culpa. I don't think its going to work. First off, this guy is saying that he should have taken the claim out of the SOTU speech, but the question of who put the claim into the speech is as of yet unanswered. Plus, according to Hadley's statement reported here, the SOTU claim was based on the same intelligence as the claim in the October speech that got omitted.

The references to the uranium purchase, removed before Bush made an October speech, were forgotten when the January speech was written, he said.

But wait! I thought the SOTU claim was based on different information. Looks like the admin officials can't keep their story straight.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Nice timeline there. So, bottom-line: The Bush Admin MO is to fess up when they're forced to fess up. So this still begs the question - what else is there? I mean, is a lie of omission the same thing as a lie or not? Let the argument over semantics commence...

The admin is trying to stop this story with this guys admission, the same way they tried with Tenet's mea culpa. I don't think its going to work. First off, this guy is saying that he should have taken the claim out of the SOTU speech, but the question of who put the claim into the speech is as of yet unanswered. Plus, according to Hadley's statement reported here, the SOTU claim was based on the same intelligence as the claim in the October speech that got omitted.

The references to the uranium purchase, removed before Bush made an October speech, were forgotten when the January speech was written, he said.

But wait! I thought the SOTU claim was based on different information. Looks like the admin officials can't keep their story straight.

"Story" being the operative word.

 

[Moonbeam]

There are some new wrinkles to this I heard on the radio. Somebody else is taking credit for the screw up besides the CIA and I heard something about his confession makes a liar out of Rice. But I just heard some stuff. I was busy at the time.

 

[SebastianK]

CAD: I see to polarized sides.

Misquote = YES and No.

Show me the transcripts of both [Bush and Dem's TVmercial]

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SebastianK
CAD: I see to polarized sides.

Misquote = YES and No.

Show me the transcripts of both [Bush and Dem's TVmercial]

DNC ad

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

You be the judge - rhetoric, misquote, out of context? Or "truth"

/me posted only for the benifit of more info

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

CkG - At least those dirty, lying, sonsobitches democrats used a Fox News clip of the SotU address. You should be happy about that. Plus, we all know that Fox News is "fair and balanced." So what's your excuse now?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There are some new wrinkles to this I heard on the radio. Somebody else is taking credit for the screw up besides the CIA and I heard something about his confession makes a liar out of Rice. But I just heard some stuff. I was busy at the time.

Probably this, from CNN: White House official apologizes for role in State of Union speech flap