House Panel Seeks to Force Rice to Testify on Iraq Claims

rox, i think you may be having a problem with the loaded words being used. For example, Bush 'lied' to the world. Well did he purposely "lie" or was he just giving faulty information, which later came out to be false ?

am i right?

 

go ahead, make my day. and please "long since discredited?" by whom? in fact, "the british government continues to stand by the claim."

bring it the **** on.

 

ha ha ha, armchair bravado does in fact make my day. Thx bassmaster for being such a loyal internet ideological soldier.

 

Again, your opinion.

BTW Rox I love how you insinuate your opinion as fact. Bush is good at that too.

carry on

[edit] jesus Blade are you going to have to dig up three year old threads that you've post numerous times with facts that debunk the Butler report? How many times have you had to post that stuff? Didn't you pretty much pwn basso several times on this very subject?

 

I don't think it was lying so much as only accepting those reports and opinions that support what you already believed (confirmation bias).

It happens all the time on here, too. Everyone on here, at some point, subconsciously or consciously puts more stock into a certain piece of information because it backs up their opinion on a subject. The opposite is true also, with all of us at some point dismissing a certain piece of evidence because it doesn't support our view.

Now I understand the consequences of this were much worse in the case for war than they are in discussions on a BBS but I'm not entirely sure it would be classified as lying, in my opinion. Intellectually dishonest? Maybe. Lying? Probably not.

 

How can you be intellectually dishonest and not be lying?

Anyway

It's funny; this whole episode wouldn't have had to happen if Condi would have just testified under oath a few years ago during the republican controlled congress when we went though all of this the first time.

 

I love facts...:

1. The Butler report affirmed British intelligence on the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger as "credible".

2. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

3. former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”,

4. Senate Report: When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting.

5. The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:

6. Wilson's trip, rather than discrediting the Iraq-Niger link, actually bolstered the views of some analysts who suspected Saddam was seeking uranium because it confirmed a previously uncorroborated report about a meeting between Nigerien and Iraqi officials in 1999.

7. Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush's 16 words weren't based on the fake documents.

Ladies and gentlemen,...
To me it is quite logical and clear that President Bush made statements based on separate and credible information..not the fake documents...

It is quite clear the separate information was long before the fake documents entered the picture...We know that there was credible information...Information deemed credible by an unbiased Butler report...We know the Butler report would find fault in pre-war intelligence,...but Not this...

and that is important because it establishes that the 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium...The information that the Iraqis sought uranium was deemed credible...

ladies and gentlemen, My opponent, mc mark would have you believe I stand here defending Bush without regard to facts and reason, when all I have done is present facts and reason...
I am no Bush glorifier...I think Bush messed up with political appointments, Katrina, and how he often comes across...make no mistake!...

Now we know that the information that the Iraqis sought uranium was deemed credible...We have confirmation of that 1999 visit...

What does this all mean?...It means the truth was told...

Finally,...I want to add reasoned opinion with fact here so excuse me...I believe Iraq clearly sought WMD and since they supported terroristic actions as demonstrated in the past, I believe the danger was immediate. We did the right thing in toppling this threat before it could build up...

 

Nice post

I would suggest you do a little background on the Butler report, who actually wrote it and under what circumstances.

It might change your mind about the "bipartisan" aspect about it.

Look we've been over all of this for three years. Condi has never really come clean about anything she knows about this war and the lead up to it. I think we own it to history to publicly know, under oath, what she knew about all of this.

don't you?

 

Thanks for the compliment. I'm all about information being under oath when necessary, but you are right, it has been 3 long years,...and you would think by now politicians on the left would succumb to what is clear and evident...I understand that the House committee voted to authorize a subpoena of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as it presses an inquiry into the claims, long since discredited, that Iraq sought uranium from Niger...(the latter is the wording with the initial post from the left-leaning biased NY Times) The thing is the information that the Iraqis sought uranium was deemed credible by the Butler report...This is clear and evident! Furthermore, the trip by Wilson inadvertantly collaberated the 1999 meeting which serves as a basis of credible intelligence implication...

 

Intellectually dishonest as in only accepting opinions that validate your viewpoint. I've seen everyone on here do it. I don't think they're lying about what they believe they just don't think any other viewpoint could possibly be correct so they don't listen to the facts from that side.

There is a difference between intellectual dishonesty and lying though you may not want to see it.

 

Either way its not good..

 

Even if that is the case, and there is quite a bit of skepticism about the Butler report, the problem is defending the whole run-up to the war which in the end this is about.

The Butler report doesn't really help your case.

 

well there's nothing to worry about. we all know how well Bush Administration lackeys do when called to testify before Congress:

 

Well as y'all know I was never fooled by the false intelligence.

I guess that is due to my intelligence.

Nope. Just the liberal/ left wing press as a whole was not fooled and reported the truth as usual.

 

good points. But people like to use the phrase "he lied to go to war" b/c it makes for more effective rhetoric.

well of course. but i think its still important to try to determine which was the case.

 

Or maybe, just maybe it might be the truth.

 

What was Condi's biggest fib on the Sunday shows this weekend? Nothing to do with "slam dunk."

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PXX36eb6uxs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PXX36eb6uxs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

 

Why? So we can watch you slip and fall on your face flinging mud? Again?



D&D. A Room Full of Idiots.