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

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