From Face the Nation today: [EDIT] here's the link, in pdf: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_111305.pdf -- SCHIEFFER: President Bush accused his critics of rewriting history last week. Sen. McCAIN: Yeah. SCHIEFFER: And in--he said in doing so, the criticisms they were making of his war policy was endangering our troops in Iraq. Do you believe it is unpatriotic to criticize the Iraq policy? Sen. McCAIN: No, I think it's a very legitimate aspect of American life to criticize and to disagree and to debate. But I want to say I think it's a lie to say that the president lied to the American people. I sat on the Robb-Silverman Commission. I saw many, many analysts that came before that committee. I asked every one of them--I said, `Did--were you ever pressured politically or any other way to change your analysis of the situation as you saw?' Every one of them said no.
are you admitting bush was wrong? isn't that practically hating america and freedom? how dare you accuse of our commander in cheif of being wrong during a time of war, benedict.
I don't think Bush placed any undue pressure on the intelligence community (no more than any other president). However, I do believe he was presented a wide variety of intelligence and he chose to only focus on intelligence which fit his worldview. While that is not lying, that is also not a good way to govern a country either.
*Caution* Entering the spin zone. Gameplan: 1). Use twisted logic and goading to bait debaters. Include a healthy dose of the word "liberal". 2). When multiple posters arrive and start posting evidence and logical posts, execute program *turtle shell*. Hide until next news article comes up. 3). Repeat.
1. he certainly was your boy during the campaign 2. McCain's only wrong in your eyes when he supports Bush 3. there are 62M tools in america today.
i think you may have a misunderstanding of how intelligence is presented to the president. he doesn't see everything, then "cherry pick" what he wants to use. he's delivered a consensus culled from a variety of sources. there may be dissenting views, but typically one intepretation is presented as the most likely. there was an overwhelming consenus, going back 12 years, that Saddam possessed WMD. to not act in on that consensus, post 9/11, would have been the height of irresponsibility.
McCain was never my "boy." I respect him more than a lot of Republicans sure, but I also prefer the flu to cancer. I disagree with a great deal more of McCain's positions than I agree with. And if 62 million is the number of people that voted for Bush, don't flatter yourself. I didn't call you a tool because of how you voted, what your party is or whom you support. I called you a tool because you've developed some bizarre fixation with me and you've become the most ridiculous and jerky poster on this board.
I don't give a **** about what McCain has to say on the war. I have long lost respect for McCain when he assaulted John Kerry's antiwar stance during the Vietnam era while giving Bush's AWOL a free pass. By doing so before last year's RNC to show his loyalty to Bush, McCain essentially became a despicable swiftboater.
CONFIRMED. I just called John McCain. Here is the transcript; thadeus: Sen. McCain, it has been alleged by a well-respected and non-partisan member of the ClutchBBS that you believe Batman Jones is lying. Can you confirm this? John McCain: Yes, I can confirm. Batman Jones may be terrorist sympathizer, and will definitely say anything in order to make the Bush Administration look accountable for its actions. I am somewhat embarrassed by his admiration for me. thadeus: In light of recent debates on the ClutchBBS, where many members have voiced their respect for you regardless of the party they support, would you ever consider running for president as an independent? McCain:No. I am a member of the Republican party, and though the party has problems I do not see any reason to abandon my conservative philosophy. thadeus: Thank you for your time Senator. Is there anything you'd like to say to the members of ClutchBBS, in closing? McCain: Thank you thadeus for allowing me this forum to voice my concerns and set the record straight. I would just like to say one more thing; that basso guy sure is a douchebag.
I was under the impression that Bush formulated his Iraq strategy based on the advice of his Neo Con advisers. But I'm happy to be proven wrong if it means I get to learn something new. So I throw this question to the board: Was there a consensus on Iraq's possession of WMD and terrorist links? I know Bush was wrong on certain specific points like the alunimum tube incident. But overall, is it fair to say that Bush's assessment was no different from the general consensus?
GWB may be the most political president ever. His Admin has a reputation for squashing any dissent. "You are either with us or against us". GWB first developed his political agenda and then asked agencies/departments for support. GWB may very well have never heard a single bad word about his Iraq plans from the people who directly reported to him. His direct reports feared not towing the 'company line'. This is in the end his fault.
I think that there was a consensus (both in Congress and in around the world) that Saddam had some WMD. The world's consensus was that Saddam had very little WMD left after the UN weapons inspection regimes and that Saddam posed no immediate threat. This differs from Bush's assessment. Congress's consensus opinion is a tougher nut to crack. The Iraq War vote happened at the height of the midterm elections (fall of 2002), which was no accident on GWB's part. GWB at that time was immensely popular. Very few Democrats wanted to vote against a very popular President, who would certainly look at getting immediate political payback in the 2002 elections. The bottomline was GWB was going into Iraq with or without Congressional approval. Given these caveats, Congress especially the Democrats appear to have agreed with GWB's assessment. Some Democrats bravely stood against the President based on the facts at hand. Senator Byrd comes to mind. Read Byrd's speech - We Stand Passively Mute .
Can we get a moderator to change basso's user text from "Contributing Member" to "Atomic Powered Strawman Machine"? Pretty please?
Thanks for the reply No Worries. I enjoyed Byrd's speech. It was a good read. Basso, I'm interested in whether you agree with No Worries's assessment.
i have trouble taking the former grand dragon seriously, one of the most pompous and pretentious senators in my lifetime, so forgive me if i don't address his speech. in fact, i do not. the with or agin' us arguement was directed towards regimes that might be harboring terrorists, or otherwise obstructing the the WOT. it's a sentiment i happen to agree with, in this limited sense. unfortunately, democrats have extrapolated from the admin's narrow intent a (false) desire to crush all dissenting voices. while such rhetoric may serve to rally the moonbat base, it's ultimately divisive, and works against the war effort. as to the consensus of congress, or the rest of the world (which, IMHO is ultimately irrelevant), i've posted speech after speech from democratic memebers of congress that post-date the w/drawal of inspectors in 1998, and predate the election of george bush. The Clintons, Teddy Kennedy, the list goes on and on. everyone felt he had WMD. moreover, regime change was official US policy since 1998, hardly the product of a neocon cabal. it was only when W dared to put some teeth in that resolution that members of congress, and their fellow travelers on the far left, began to find their consciences of convenience, doubly ironic given the very real benefits to the people of iraq, the middle east, and if we're successful, the palestinians and israelis. imagine if all the energy that has been expended in tearing down GWB and denigrating the war had instead been spent on winning it and showing a united face to the world and the terrorists who would destroy western society if they could. what might have been accomplished? yes, credit would have accrued to Bush (deservedly so) and he would have been re-elected. but that happened anyway. i have zero patientence for those who say it's bush's repsonsibility to unite the country. it is, rather, our responsibility as citizens to support our country at time of war. Bush provided the necessary framework for a noble undertaking to transform the middle east. history will judge harshly those who failed to seize the moment and instead indulged themselves in the worst kind of petulant partisanship. ...and beside, it's in the democrats self-interest to help Bush win. Look at the '92 election. Bushes don't do so well at the polls in the wake of successful wars...
Is McCarthy a personal hero of yours? It wasn't the with or against us stuff that caused war opponents to believe that Bush was trying to crush all dissent. It was when they were arresting people for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts, Rumsfeld was saying that anyone who was against the war was helping the enemy, and things like that are designed specifically to crush dissent that caused war opponents to believe that the govt. and its supporters were trying to crush dissent. It is the personal attacks on any of the plethera of former Bush employees who have all come out and attacked this administrations policies and practices that leads one to believe they are trying to silence dissent and debate. Furthermore radio talkshow hosts, you, and others on this very board are constantly accusing people of supporting Saddam, and terrorists while providing less than zero evidence to back up such claims. Evidence is presented to show that it isn't true, but you ignore it and continue to try mischaracterize with a different opinion about his war by saying they don't the U.S. to succeed. Our country is far worse off today, than it was before the war in Iraq. We are in a bigger debt, the people believe that corruption abounds in the halls of govt., our position of moral leadership has been lost as Cheney fights hard to make sure our govt. is allowed to torture folks who haven't even been proven guilty of anything, and our freedom is reduced via the patriot act. The energy combatting this war in IRaq hasn't amounted to much. Bush has gotten just about everything he has asked for. So it hasn't detracted a lot. But imagine all that energy going to wiping out Al Qaeda and rebuilding Afghanistan as a democracy to help transform the middle east. All your noble ideals about building a democracy should been focussed on Afghanistan, and not Iraq. That was the place to do it.
