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

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.
- Ken

" 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. There's an investigation that needs to be done.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

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

" 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

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

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. But the sanctions worked, the UN inspections worked,
and it is now clear that what everyone thought they knew on
the eve of the invasion was fabrication, obfuscation and
outright lies perpetrated by a US intelligence system under
the thumb of Shrub and his neocon cronies. You should know
enough to have read the Downing Street memo before posting
nonsense in this forum.

--
Ken Fortenberry

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

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. Don't try to ignore facts. You conveniently clipped
my admonition to read the Downing Street memo.

--
Ken Fortenberry

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

wrote:
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.

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

--
Ken Fortenberry