Then watch the interview before you try and tell me Im wrong.How could I accuse him of lying if I don't even know what he said?
Blix said they didnt find any and it wasnt confirmed. But my point is Bush didnt ask them to make sure it was confirmed, he just went on TV and said it. They either have the WMDs and the mobiles laboratories, or they dont. It shoudnt take too long to confirm, but as usual Bush didnt hesitate to rush to state this uncomfirmed intelligence as if were.Hey, the CIA said that mobiles laboritories were found. If you've got a problem with that ,take it up with them.
You suggested maybe they had been fired or reprimanded, presumably without anyone being made aware about it, so I asked you what makes you think that. Is it just pure speculation? What dont you understand about the question?Why would some be fired or reprimanded? Strange that you would ask me that. Weren't you just complaining about the possibility that no one has been held accountable?
[emphasis above, mine] Wow. Just look at what you just wrote. I thought they had a duty to make sure they were truthfull and accurate as far as they can be, but according to you they can say whatever they believe to be true, no matter how unconfirmed the intelligence is, and present it to the public as if it was a confirmed certianity for the purpose of selling them on an invasion of Iraq? The public assume, or expect their governmen who has access to classified intelligence, to be honest. They dont expect a load of spin you cant trust. If Bush says they know Saddam or Iran or whoever else has done this or that, they think well he's the president and all the other spokespeople in the administration are saying the same thing they must know whats going on and their the best people to know whats going on. I can trust that this is accurate and that they wouldnt say this without checking their facts. But you cant believe them now, you have to mistrust them and now you're defending their misleading spindoctor-style statements because you claim they have a right to say it if it can sell the idea of war! Oh, my!Again, you're making a big deal out of nothing. They both were within their rights to inform the public of what they knew or believed in order to sell them on a potential invasion of Iraq.
No, the fact is if they didnt claim they didnt say what we have them on record as saying, they would have to defend the reasons why they said it at the time, thats just a fact.Speculative!The reason their memory happen to conviently "fail" is becuase they'd have had to address and defend their previous statements.
First of all this is about her claiming that no one could have imagined using airplanes as a weapons."I don't see that as backpeddling. I'm sorry but I just don't.I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try and use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile" -Condoleezza Rice
"If Condi Rice had been doing her job and holding those daily meetings the way Sandy Berger did, if she had a hands-on attitude to being national security adviser when she had information that there was a threat against the United States ... [the information] would have been shaken out in the summer of 2001,"
- Richard Clarke, President Bush's former counterterrorism chief on Larry King
Secondly, you fail to quote from the relevant part of her testimony. this is backpedelling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N62ZRjhIGX8
(and before someone discards the entire clip above because of the Ashcroft warning, yes I am aware that apparently that warning was about something else. )
I already told you they had lots of intelligence from many different sources about planes being used as weapons. They had the August 6th PDB who not only said Bin Laden was gunning for Washington and in New York and that there had been suspicious activity consistent with preperations for hijackings, but two years before 911 NORAD conducted exercises simulating hijacked airliners used as weapons. They even had a third scenario where one of the targets was the Pentagon, but was not run due to it being deemed "unrealistic". It also appears Norad was running drills on 911 involving hijacked airliners. But according to you the Bush administrations statements are still true, no one not even in the prior government even imagined flying airplanes into buildings. Even though they had all this information and more still that I havent detailed here they still claimed complete and total ignorence to all of it.Like what? They said that they couldn't imagine it. So what did George Bush and Ari Fleischer do that was more than just imagining planes being used to fly into buildings?
They knew Bin Laden was determined to attack the US, they knew a specific place he wanted to attack, they knew what forms the attack might take and they knew the attack was imminent. How can they act like they didnt know anything, and worse, that never even imagined it?
So the intelligence that the Bush administration jumped upon without questioning it or confirming it before they gushed it all over the international media regarding WMDs as if it were a sure certianty, the intelligence you're still defending even after its been shown to be unsupported and unreasonable, you're saying they were justified in ignoreing all these reports about Bin Laden launching an imminent massive attack that Bin Laden wanted to attack in Washington and that they have evidence of plans to use hijackings and were presently surveilling federal buildings in New York. Yet they cared so little and noticed so little of their intelligence that they couldnt even remember? And why was the NORAD responce such a failure? All that information and they still failed miserably to do anything about it but not only that when they defended themselves they state they had no idea about any planes and no warnings at all! Spin-doctoring is dishonest.if I was given 250 possible scenarios of terror attacks, that would have been one that I wouldn't have paid much heed or probably even remembered seeing it.
No, all you did was palm me off to some website copy and pasting a link for me and ignore my responce to it. If you dont understand the Downing Street Memo enough for yourself then you should read it and research it a little better so you can talk about it in in your own words.Nope! Already dealt with the memo. There's nothing in it that demonstrates that misleading and deceptive statements were made to justify a war.
Upvote
0