Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Ken wrote ...

You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it.

Without getting into the particulars of the debate starring Mr. Cottrell, et
al, I'd like to know just what the hell is wrong with "revisionist history?"

I don't know what your connection to Oregon State is, but if you're around
the campus, go ask someone (ideally a tenured faculty member) in the history
department what "revisionist history" is.

You'll likely find that history gets "revised" because of a few things, but
first and foremost is the revelation of new information.

To be against revising history to reflect the totality of the fact base for
the subject in question is either ignorant, stupid, moronic, or some
combination of all three.

Some groups may be happy with the stories as told in the "first draft," but
that first telling rarely reflects the totality of the situation. History
itself is "argument without end" (1) and to halt that argument because
something new may not fit with a power group's established paradigm is
intellectually abhorrent.

Dan
(1) Pieter Geyl

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Gene Cottrell wrote:
Well, I'm just pointing out that all those idiots that had the same
information as GW came to the same conclusion. ...
That right there is precisely why you're wrong. Shrub and
his neocon rat-*******s manipulated, hid, obfuscated, and
flat out lied about the information and passed along only
what was twisted to support a regime change in Iraq.

You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.

Well, of course, he *did* have them, emphasis on the past
tense.

Don't try to twist words. The eve of the invasion is in
the past, hence the use of "had WMD." The world's
intelligence communities thought he had WMD on the
eve of the invasion. Even Clinton thought he had them
on the eve of the invasion. The democrats, who had
been receiving intelligence information from well before
Bush came to office, thought he had them.
- Ken

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:33:19 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Hard to believe you'd try to say that the #1 issue, by far,
in the upcoming election is something no one really gives
a **** about. Seems to me if Iraq is the #1 issue, by far,
most of the American electorate does indeed give a ****
about it.
If you really think Iraq will the number #1 issue to the majority of
folks when they're actually dimpling chads, you need about 5 more years
study toward that 4-year PoliSci degree. And if you think people are
completely honest and forthright with pollsters, you need 6 more
years...
The war may not be issue #1 with the "trust fund baby" crowd
you hang with but out in the heartland where the military is
seen as a bootstrap

You mean in the land of red-state morons?

Yep, exactly. Poignant picture on the front page of today's
Times and an article on the non-stop, booming military funeral
business at Arlington National. People care, they may be morons
but they care about their dead soldiers. And even red-state
morons can figure out that $4 billion a week is a lot of money
to pay for our soldiers to have a dangerous ringside seat to
an Islamic civil war.

And I suspect that I knew more people killed, or know more people
who had friends and family killed or injured, than "most" friends of
your friends...and that goes back to Gulf War 1.

Hang out with the National Guard down to the local watering
hole quite often do you ?

FWIW, my losing friends in Gulf Wars I & II began in Gulf War I with
David Herr, a friend since high school, and since I'm certain it hasn't
ended, I can't speak to that.

LOL !! You're so full of **** you're almost endearing.

And you don't even begin to have slightest idea of what you speak.

Don't really care if this helps or not,
R

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

" wrote in
ups.com:


Scott Seidman wrote:
" wrote in
oups.com:

You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.
- Ken



Our own CIA, though, didn't, at least not before the State of the
Union. When they vetted the speech, they made Bush say something
along the lines of "the Brits think that Iraq was trying to buy
uranium from...", because the CIA didn't believe it.

The CIA didn't believe that piece of intelligence (and they were
right not to).
- Ken



So, you don't think it was wrong for the pres to state to the American
people that the British believe this, although it was extremely clear
that the CIA did not? If we didn't believe this, don't you think he
should have added "but we don't believe this" after he said it? Couldn't
you call this "cherry-picking" if you were wont to do so?

He said this because he wanted to scare us into going to war. It's a lie
of omission, and a very clear one at that. Is this a revisionist
opinion? One wonders just what other lies were put forth. It's high
time for this long delayed investigation to happen.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Scott Seidman wrote:
So, you don't think it was wrong for the pres to state to the American
people that the British believe this, although it was extremely clear
that the CIA did not?

What's the definition of the word "wrong"? Just kidding. Itty bitty
Clinton joke.

If we didn't believe this, don't you think he
should have added "but we don't believe this" after he said it?

Not really. Why say something if you didn't want to say it.

Couldn't
you call this "cherry-picking" if you were wont to do so?

Of course it is. Surprised ya with that answer didn't I.
If you're trying to build a case for doing something you
don't look for things that undermine your case. It
shouldn't surprise anyone that he was putting forth
only information which would strengthen the course
of action that he wanted.


He said this because he wanted to scare us into going to war.

I would have said "justify going to war", but yes basically.
He was trying to make a case for going to war. There were
lots of reasons to remove SH from power. This wasn't the
main reason...and he should have left it out.
- Ken

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Gene Cottrell wrote:
Well, I'm just pointing out that all those idiots that had the same
information as GW came to the same conclusion. ...
That right there is precisely why you're wrong. Shrub and
his neocon rat-*******s manipulated, hid, obfuscated, and
flat out lied about the information and passed along only
what was twisted to support a regime change in Iraq.
You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.
Well, of course, he *did* have them, emphasis on the past
tense.

Don't try to twist words. The eve of the invasion is in
the past, hence the use of "had WMD." The world's
intelligence communities thought he had WMD on the
eve of the invasion.

Only because our intelligence community lied through their
teeth at the behest of their neocon masters in the Bush
administration and many of them subsequently resigned in
disgust.

You conveniently clipped the list of people NOT under
the control of the "neocon masters" who believed it.
Also clipped was the fact that Clinton believed it
as did plenty of democrats with intelligence information
from before Bush came into office.

You can paint Bush as the big bad guy, but people
believed it well before he came to office.
- Ken

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.
Well, of course, he *did* have them, emphasis on the past
tense.
Don't try to twist words. The eve of the invasion is in
the past, hence the use of "had WMD." The world's
intelligence communities thought he had WMD on the
eve of the invasion.
Only because our intelligence community lied through their
teeth at the behest of their neocon masters in the Bush
administration and many of them subsequently resigned in
disgust.

You conveniently clipped the list of people NOT under
the control of the "neocon masters" who believed it.

And how many of them believed it because they were spoon-fed
misinformation by US intelligence ?

Ah ah, you're trying to redefine your statement again...
what's with you liberals and your definitions. ;-)

You said "[US Intelligence] with neocon masters in the
Bush administration". The British and Russians might be
influenced, but they're not dummies they would have noticed a
significant change in intelligence information between 2000 and
2001. I also assume that all the statements by Clinton era
officials were influenced by the following administration?
That's pretty talented.
- Ken