Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lies of the Kerry mid-night speech - THIS IS GETTING GOOD!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by jjacobs43
    It's very simple. Intelligence can be wrong.
    If you truly believed that then we would be on the same footing. Nothing about WMD, except the stuff that was fact confirmed by people on the ground, wasn't accompanied by "intel shows". I would rather hear about the belief, with the intel qualifier, and have it turn out to be false, than to be surprised.
    Originally posted by jjacobs43
    There are references backing up what I'm saying throughout the document.
    And there are references that do not. My point was, in politics people tend to see what they want to see, just as it is with the rest of life. The fact that this may or may not be true, only confirms it is intel. It doesn't prove any lie.
    Originally posted by jjacobs43
    sell the war to us.
    They truly weren't selling the war to America, the vote here was going to be the same either way. The Repubs and Dems had all used this same type of evidence for years, they weren't going to go back on it.

    "In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.

    Sincerely,

    Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski.

    Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum." December 5, 2001
    http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/...n-10-9-98.html
    There are many, many more exmples.
    Originally posted by jjacobs43
    If your case is so strong against Saddam then why can't you use stronger evidence?
    Saddam was an ally of France and Russia. They were protecting their investment. I bet if they were America Saddam would have been called a puppet, but they aren't so it's investment. In hindsight, IMHO, they were doing everything they could to shame F & R into doing the right thing.
    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
    I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

    Comment


    • #77
      All of that you are reading on sites like the National Review is an attempt to paint Joseph Wilson as a loser and an opportunist. Whichever one sticks to him the best. It's the same technique that is applied to everybody who says the wrong thing against the Bush administration.
      what about the Washington Post?

      what about Slate, not exactly a conservative website.

      what about the article by Christopher Hitchens?

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Confed999
        If you truly believed that then we would be on the same footing. Nothing about WMD, except the stuff that was fact confirmed by people on the ground, wasn't accompanied by "intel shows". I would rather hear about the belief, with the intel qualifier, and have it turn out to be false, than to be surprised.
        Hearing about it and invading a country because of it are two entirely different things.

        Originally posted by Confed999
        And there are references that do not. My point was, in politics people tend to see what they want to see, just as it is with the rest of life. The fact that this may or may not be true, only confirms it is intel. It doesn't prove any lie.
        I don't know what 'references' that you are refering to that go against what I've said. It leaves open the possibility to the fact that it being mentioned in the State of the Union speach was unintentional but that's it. I personally, seriously doubt it was a mistake.

        Originally posted by Confed999
        They truly weren't selling the war to America, the vote here was going to be the same either way. The Repubs and Dems had all used this same type of evidence for years, they weren't going to go back on it.
        It wasn't just about getting the votes. They were trying to sell the war to the people of America.

        I've spent my time reading through as much as that document as I stand looking at. You can say that I'm just seeing what I want to see but I don't think so. I think it's quite clear that the uranium claim was doubtful. I think it's quite clear that the Whitehouse was asked to remove the claim. And it's quite clear that Bush said it in his speach anyway. Intentional or not, we were misled.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by mtnbiker
          what about the Washington Post?
          http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020426Utwater.html

          Notice the reference to Susan Schmidt herself.


          Originally posted by mtnbiker
          what about Slate, not exactly a conservative website.
          what about the article by Christopher Hitchens?[/QUOTE]

          Christopher Hitchens will say anything in favor of this war. I didn't even know who the guy was until his face was all over tv bashing Michael Moore's movie. If he was a liberal writer I missed all that - all he seems to do now is foam at the mouth about the war. And, in my opinion, he comes across as a real asshole in doing so.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by jjacobs43
            Hearing about it and invading a country because of it are two entirely different things.
            The invasion was technically because Saddam broke the cease-fire. I doubt the war started because of one or two lines in a speach, especially since the vote to go to war would have been the same either way.
            Originally posted by jjacobs43
            I don't know what 'references' that you are refering to that go against what I've said.
            UK intel says it's true, that goes directly against what you said. Tennet cited "names and dates" as his reasons, but he didn't really know what names and dates were on them. Sorry, that makes it all questionable to me.
            Originally posted by jjacobs43
            doubt
            Hey, if you're starting to doubt, then you're on the right track.
            Originally posted by jjacobs43
            They were trying to sell the war to the people of America.
            You don't get to vote on it. Your representitives voted on it, and they were allready sold. They were sold long before GWB entered the White House, they were just waiting for the call. They voted "yes" to go to war, on the basis that Saddam had broken the cease-fire.
            Originally posted by jjacobs43
            You can say that I'm just seeing what I want to see but I don't think so.
            There are plenty of reasons to believe the intel is true, and plenty to believe it's false. If you see that, then you are seeing it clearly.
            Originally posted by jjacobs43
            we were misled.
            Sorry, it had the "intel" qualifier. He told you it may not be true when he said that.
            Originally posted by jjacobs43
            http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020426Utwater.html

            Notice the reference to Susan Schmidt herself.


            Christopher Hitchens will say anything in favor of this war. I didn't even know who the guy was until his face was all over tv bashing Michael Moore's movie. If he was a liberal writer I missed all that - all he seems to do now is foam at the mouth about the war. And, in my opinion, he comes across as a real asshole in doing so.
            Again, we see what we want to see. Because these two cast a shadow of doubt over Tenet's, and your, belief the intel was false they're a** holes, but Tenet himself is correct because he said what you believe. I say the whole thing is questionable, but since I was told it was "intel" I allready knew that. Also if you blame GWB for faulty intel, you must be mad at Kerry too, and furious with Clinton.
            No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
            I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
            even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
            He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Confed999
              The invasion was technically because Saddam broke the cease-fire. I doubt the war started because of one or two lines in a speach, especially since the vote to go to war would have been the same either way.

              UK intel says it's true, that goes directly against what you said. Tennet cited "names and dates" as his reasons, but he didn't really know what names and dates were on them. Sorry, that makes it all questionable to me.

              Hey, if you're starting to doubt, then you're on the right track.

              You don't get to vote on it. Your representitives voted on it, and they were allready sold. They were sold long before GWB entered the White House, they were just waiting for the call. They voted "yes" to go to war, on the basis that Saddam had broken the cease-fire.

              There are plenty of reasons to believe the intel is true, and plenty to believe it's false. If you see that, then you are seeing it clearly.

              Sorry, it had the "intel" qualifier. He told you it may not be true when he said that.

              Again, we see what we want to see. Because these two cast a shadow of doubt over Tenet's, and your, belief the intel was false they're a** holes, but Tenet himself is correct because he said what you believe. I say the whole thing is questionable, but since I was told it was "intel" I allready knew that. Also if you blame GWB for faulty intel, you must be mad at Kerry too, and furious with Clinton.
              The beginning of this thread starts off with claims that Kerry is a liar and that he didn't earn 3 purple hearts blah blah blah when clearly the military records confirm his accounts of the war. You have no problem playing right along with that. But then I point out some lies of Bush that has much more substance (especially since it involves the 21st century) you take this holier than thou stance of "you're just seeing what you want to see". You take a few lines out of each of my sentences and try to zing me with it. It doesn't make Bush any more honest.

              I'm done looking into this. I'm not going to defend every little detail of this when the big picture is quite clear. There are NO weapons - case closed!!! If everybody in this group wants to believe every little detail they hear about Kerry and dismiss any criticism of Bush then so be it. I'll let everybody get back to the fun of brainless Kerry bashing.

              Comment


              • #82
                Does Kerry even have a chance anymore? I think Bush will winn by at leasy 60%

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by jjacobs43
                  You have no problem playing right along with that. But then I point out some lies of Bush that has much more substance (especially since it involves the 21st century) you take this holier than thou stance of "you're just seeing what you want to see".
                  Ummmm, I included myself in the "see what you want to see", when I said "everyone does it". I believe you're taking all of this personally, and it isn't personal... Also, you may wish to read the posts here again, before you accuse me of "playing right along", for I only made 2 posts that cast Kerry in a bad light, one calling him a might as well be socialist, and from where I sit he might as well be, but that's only an insult if you don't like socialism. The other citing his admission of committing atrocities, which I used as an example of how people forgive things in politics, something I would like to see investigated, just as much as I would like to see the "Bush lied" investigated. I do my best to be as fair as possable, but I do not convict without evidence. Oh, one other thing, I would have equally supported the decision to go to war with Iraq, if Bush 1 or Clinton or Gore, had decided to do it.
                  Originally posted by jjacobs43
                  I'll let everybody get back to the fun of brainless Kerry bashing.
                  From someone who does an awful lot of Bush bashing, calling someone brainless for doing the same seems silly. Sad thing is, I actually liked arguing with you...
                  No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                  I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                  even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                  He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Going back through my posts I noticed this, something I did not see before.
                    Originally posted by Ray
                    Yet, I will go with whatever you say since you are in the USA and have your ears to the ground and not get impressed by the media. Further, you are VERY balanced and while you are a patriotic American, you are not fuzzy with misplaced emotions.
                    Ray, thank you so much for all of your kind words. I truly appreciate that you noticed, nearly as much as I appreciate your friendship.
                    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                    I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X