1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Gore accuses Bush of treason

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by basso, Feb 9, 2004.

  1. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,400
    Likes Received:
    9,319
    The reason of course, is there's no eveidence whatsoever that Bush or anyone else, including clinton, al gore's boss, knew the intelligence was faulty. As far as the timing of the commissions report, i think it's far more important to find out what, if anything, is wrong with out intelligence system and try and find some way of correcting it. placing it's report after the election should help sheild the commission that it's conclusions will be somehow politically motivated. of course, the democrats will try to argue that this somehow "proves" bush has something to hide, instead of arguing substance and policy differences.

    there are real differences between Bush and Kerry and how they would treat the war on terro (i'm not sure kerry even acknowledges there is one, or rather should be one), taxes, education, etc. why not discuss them instead? i hear people in here constantly suggesting republicans are trying to avoid substantive policy discussions and are instead bent on character attacks and smear campaigns. shouldn't you hold the democratic party to the same standard?
     
  2. MacBeth

    MacBeth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,761
    Likes Received:
    2

    AAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!!

    * banging head against the wall*



    * experiencing strange sense of relief*



    * banging some more*



    * neighbours are complaining*
     
  3. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,795
    Likes Received:
    41,232
    What could be more substantive than discussing one of the most important policy decisions of this Administration? Why wouldn't the Democratic Party make this an issue? If there wasn't so much ambiguity about the reasons we invaded Iraq then it wouldn't come up. You don't here the candidates running on a platform critical of the Afghan War. Why? Because it was clearly justified. If the Iraqi War was as clear cut, they would confine themselves to other issues.
     
  4. MacBeth

    MacBeth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    With apologies/thanks to NW:


    Pre-War Intelligence

    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 REPEATEDLY 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.

    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."

    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."

    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."
     
  5. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,400
    Likes Received:
    9,319
    be nice to have a source...and a larger font size.
     
  6. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,400
    Likes Received:
    9,319
    ahhh, the theilmann stuff again. don't you think if this were the case Tenet would have mentioned something about it in his CYA speech last week?
     
  7. MacBeth

    MacBeth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,761
    Likes Received:
    2

    Overall source is in the Meet the Press thread..along with the semi-quote of noted Dem shill Pat Buchanan saying that the administration would be wise to abandon the whole premise that the pre-war case for invasion ( WMD/intel, etc.) is still supportable.

    Specific sources are within the quote.
     
  8. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,400
    Likes Received:
    9,319
    in anycase, the very fact the admin spent so much time evaluating the intelligence belies the arguement that the invasion was preordained. if they were going to do it anyway, why go through the charade?
     
  9. MacBeth

    MacBeth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,761
    Likes Received:
    2

    A) Huh? You're saying that, on that basis, it's not true? Do you have anything other than that and a fond wish to support that stance?

    B) Are you ignoring all the other stuff here on that basis? The NIE report? The DIA report? The CIA memos? Etc. etc.
     
  10. MacBeth

    MacBeth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,761
    Likes Received:
    2

    WHAT!!?!?!???!?!?


    Are you....remotely...serious?
     
  11. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,810
    Likes Received:
    20,466
    Unless they analyzed the intel to try and justify a preordained invasion.

    Sam Fisher posted proof that it was discussed priot to 9/11.

    Lawrence Eagleberger who was pro invasion admittled that a number of officials that he knew of personally were hoping that there would be no diplomatic resolution and actually wanted war with Iraq. That is hugely damning to say that someone hopes for a failure of peaceful negotiations so that wat will be the outcome.

    Mind you this is coming from a lifelong Republican, who was a member of past Republican administrations and who is in favor of the war.

    I think it at least is evidence that leans toward a contingent of the President's staff planning ahead of time a war with Iraq, and it appears that the President listened to that group.
     
  12. MacBeth

    MacBeth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    Not to mention the numerous pre-war complaints/resignations over the selctive gathering/use of intel as determied by the WH.

    Or the selective use of evidence quite apparent to anyone who was looking, like quoting (and releasing exerpts) extensively from Saddam Hussein's son-in-law turned intel source about the extent of past Iraqi WMD programs, and leaving out the bit where he says that they had all been pretty much destroyed in 1991

    Or the fact that they set up a brand spanking new intel department whose purpose was to find intel of WMDs and 9-11 connections with Iraq, because the admin said the current, usual intel dept's ( CIA, State, etc.) were too soft on Saddam.

    etc. etc.
     
  13. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,400
    Likes Received:
    9,319
    you're using the arguement that bush "manipulated" intelligence to get the answer he wanted to "prove" that he knew WMD never existed. if this were the case, where are the democrats screaming for impeachment? i just checked CNN, and their headline is "Stewart Attorney Tests Memory of Key Witness" so i'm guessing that the newshounds just aren't as informed as you?
     
  14. MacBeth

    MacBeth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    A) Who ever said enboldened phrase was true? I am saying that the intel was saying, at best, we aren't sure about WMD, but no threat either way, and they said it was saying Sure about WMD, imminent/immediate/grave/nucular threat to the US.

    B) The rest of your argument is another obvious side-step, so I'll skip it. If you don't want to address the facts head on, I understand.
     
  15. MacBeth

    MacBeth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,761
    Likes Received:
    2

    This was meant to be in bold.
     
  16. Batman Jones

    Batman Jones Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 1999
    Messages:
    15,937
    Likes Received:
    5,491
    I haven't read the thread, but this is apparently the Republican strategy and it's weaker than hell.

    The left raises concerns about anything at all and, instead of answering the charges, the right comes back with the equivalent of "your mean." They have no answer for the various, deeply troubling accusations so instead they focus on the tone of the accuser. Pathetic. There are serious allegations that Bush was determined to go to war on Iraq from the beginning, that he manipulated intelligence and misled the American people to go to war, that he is keeping relevant information in the 9/11 report from the American people and that someone in the White House outed an undercover agent, threatening our national security, out of spite -- all that before the damage he's done to the economy, the deficit, health care, education and the enviornment -- and all they can say back is 'why are you so angry?' Every time they dodge these questions, the American people get angrier. The first Bush tried 'don't worry, be happy.' It didn't work out so well for him. And he had a lot less to defend than his kid does.
     
  17. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,810
    Likes Received:
    20,466
    This is the case and the democrats have not called for impeachment but have been using this as a campaign issue throughout the primary season. They have called for numerous investigations into the matter in congress etc.

    Those are have been taken directly as a result of Bush et al. ignoring evidence that was contrary to what they wanted to hear. I've posted a chronology of reports including from the State department, and the U.S. Air Force that directly contradicted the stuff coming from the Whitehouse. Rimrocker posted a list of contradictions, now No Worries posts this. There were also contradictions from the IAEA, almost every single U.S. intel agency etc.

    I will say I don't know why the press doesn't bring this stuff up when ivestigation 'what went wrong' with the intel. All anyone has to do is look at all of the intel given and it paints the picture that this administration used what would make WMD seem relevant, and disregarded the rest. Actually they even went beyond that, but that's a whole other argument.
     
  18. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,864
    Likes Received:
    41,391
    Be careful what you wish for.

     
  19. gifford1967

    gifford1967 Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    8,306
    Likes Received:
    4,653

    Are you serious? The evaluation is otherwise known as cherrypicking. The reason they went through the charade is to convince the U.S. public that an invasion was justified. At some point the blinders have to come off.
     
  20. thadeus

    thadeus Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Messages:
    8,313
    Likes Received:
    726
    I would just like to point out that moveon.org RULES!

    Yes indeed.
     

Share This Page