Interesting Poll

[Gunny]

Why would anyone believe the whitehouse.gov site about something the whitehouse lied about?

I'd like to see the evidence that Bush lied. I see he still wants to keep the pressure on Iran, and still believes Iran to be a threat to the US/US interests.

That's an opinion, agree with it or not, not a lie.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

hey, if you think it's okay for your president to lie to you to try to make you afraid of WWIII, s;okay with me.

or do you want him to get into another war? spend what's left of our money, destroy our military except for the paramilitary troops that are being trained in this country? or maybe you want WWIII in the mid-east so you can be raptured up?

I think you're referring to Mahmoud wanting WWIII and his version of the rapture, the 12 shebobs, hemoms, or whatever they call themselves.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Then I feel sorry for your inability to reason.

Nice ad hominem there.

 

[Annie]

Nice ad hominem there.

Jillian and I get along quite fine, thanks. She's no problem coming after me at times, either. We play quite like 3rd grade best friends.

 

[jillian]

Jillian and I get along quite fine, thanks. She's no problem coming after me at times, either. We play quite like 3rd grade best friends.

Yep...she likes to pull my curls sometimes.

 

[jillian]

I think you're referring to Mahmoud wanting WWIII and his version of the rapture, the 12 shebobs, hemoms, or whatever they call themselves.

No. I meant what I said. I generally do.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Just 18% Believe Iran has Stopped Nuclear Weapons Development Program

I would fall into that 18% category. Here's an article from another non-believer, as well as one from John Bolton on the reliability of the findings of this report.

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.foreign,pubID.27187/pub_detail.asp
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.27201/pub_detail.asp

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No. I meant what I said. I generally do.

I can't recall Bush trying or saying anything about pushing the rapture. However, I do recall Mahmoud pushing for his version.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

What is that 12th imamam thing anyway? I know Texas AM has the 12th man in the stands.

 

[maineman]

alpha:

I thought you admitted yesterday that Bush knew in August or September

wtf?

 

[Alpha1]

alpha:

I thought you admitted yesterday that Bush knew in August or September

wtf?

Q Steve, let me follow on this point. If we now estimate with high confidence that it was shut down as of 2003, that it was halted, in October of this year, in 2007, the President is speaking about the Iranian threat, in terms of World War III. Why wouldn't you conclude that this President is hyping the threat?

MR. HADLEY: Because he was describing the threat as the intelligence community itself had been describing the threat both publicly and in their briefings to him. The President, as I think if you look at the testimony that was given by Don Kerr and Mike Hayden today, they basically said that the intelligence community finally came to the judgments that they came to on this issue Tuesday of last week. The President was briefed on Wednesday. So this is challenging information. The intelligence community had to decide what they thought about it. They were sufficiently uncertain about it that they delayed the publication of the NIE until they could come to the bottom of it, reach their conclusions, present it to the President, as they did on Wednesday, and then at that point, obviously, we wanted to get it out quickly.

So thats how Mr. Hadley explains it...The NIE conclusions weren't finalized until Tuesday of last week....now, what Bush was told in Aug. or Sept. we can only speculate about.... it could be spin, as I'm sure you will believe it is, or it could be that Bush wasn't told what the final conclusion might be back in those months....either way I don't think his WWIII was out of line....he was talking about only a possibility....

IMO...Iran having nukes could be a catalyst to a far reaching war IF they were stupid enough to use them, I believe that was the point Bush was trying to make.......personally I don't think they are that stupid, but their insane rhetoric is something for the world to consider...

so...alot of spin? some spin? no spin? who knows....but then some spin is expected from all politicians...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No. I meant what I said. I generally do.

You though can not back up your claim Bush LIED. I notice you won't even address it. Your OPINION does not a fact make. Again as a Lawyer you know this I assume.

Remind us again which of the last few presidents has been PROVEN to be a liar? And then tell us whether or not you voted FOR him and SUPPORT his positions, lies and all.

 

[Meemer]

Why call it lie?
I prefer to call it obfuscate, spin, deny, be non-curious about major information.
Why the hang up on the word lie?

I don't know why so many like links. I watch the news; I listen to the news; I read the news. I do know some things, much the same as most who post here, but links seem to be the be all and the end all.
An article in the NY Times (12/6) is entitled "Details in Military Notes Led to Shift on Iran, US Says." The US is the American intelligence agencies (all sixteen of them who unanimously agreed, regardless of the nefarious scheme now being proposed by Newt from said agencies to discredit Bush).
Perhaps one or two of you would flesh out these ¶s from the article and explain why Cheney knew two weeks ago (that would be one week before Bush knew).

The American officials who described the highly classified operation, which led to one of the biggest reversals in the history of American nuclear intelligence, declined to describe how the notes were obtained.

But they said that the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies had organized a “red team” to determine if the new information might have been part of an elaborate disinformation campaign mounted by Iran to derail the effort to impose sanctions against it.

In the end, American intelligence officials rejected that theory, though they were challenged to defend that conclusion in a meeting two weeks ago in the White House situation room, in which the notes and deliberations were described to the most senior members of President Bush’s national security team, including Vice President Dick Cheney.

The American officials who described the highly classified operation, which led to one of the biggest reversals in the history of American nuclear intelligence, declined to describe how the notes were obtained.

But they said that the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies had organized a “red team” to determine if the new information might have been part of an elaborate disinformation campaign mounted by Iran to derail the effort to impose sanctions against it.

In the end, American intelligence officials rejected that theory, though they were challenged to defend that conclusion in a meeting two weeks ago in the White House situation room, in which the notes and deliberations were described to the most senior members of President Bush’s national security team, including Vice President Dick Cheney.

 

[Gunny]

Why call it lie?
I prefer to call it obfuscate, spin, deny, be non-curious about major information.
Why the hang up on the word lie?

I don't know why so many like links. I watch the news; I listen to the news; I read the news. I do know some things, much the same as most who post here, but links seem to be the be all and the end all.
An article in the NY Times (12/6) is entitled "Details in Military Notes Led to Shift on Iran, US Says." The US is the American intelligence agencies (all sixteen of them who unanimously agreed, regardless of the nefarious scheme now being proposed by Newt from said agencies to discredit Bush).
Perhaps one or two of you would flesh out these ¶s from the article and explain why Cheney knew two weeks ago (that would be one week before Bush knew).

I really don't see where who knew what when is relevant at all except for the spinmeisters. Has Bush changed his stance/beliefs on Iran? Not that I've seen. He's saying the same things now he was saying the day before the NIE's opinion was released.

 

[Annie]

Why call it lie?
I prefer to call it obfuscate, spin, deny, be non-curious about major information.
Why the hang up on the word lie?

I don't know why so many like links. I watch the news; I listen to the news; I read the news. I do know some things, much the same as most who post here, but links seem to be the be all and the end all.
An article in the NY Times (12/6) is entitled "Details in Military Notes Led to Shift on Iran, US Says." The US is the American intelligence agencies (all sixteen of them who unanimously agreed, regardless of the nefarious scheme now being proposed by Newt from said agencies to discredit Bush).
Perhaps one or two of you would flesh out these ¶s from the article and explain why Cheney knew two weeks ago (that would be one week before Bush knew).

The reason for 'links' is the same reason one needs to cite sources on school papers, copy write and attribution:

Here's the link that you left missing. Oh, your should read the rules:

Copyright Guidelines:
Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. Never post an article in its entirety. When posting copyrighted material, please use small sections or link to the article. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, regardless of how you originally came across the material.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/world/middleeast/06intel.html?pagewanted=print

 

[Gunny]

The reason for 'links' is the same reason one needs to cite sources on school papers, copy write and attribution:

Here's the link that you left missing. Oh, your should read the rules:



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/world/middleeast/06intel.html?pagewanted=print

I think meemer's problem in that regard is not enough posts to post a link.

I also see the point being made, as well as I see yours. Yes, it's nice to have a source document to back up your argument. All too often there ARE people who make a lot of baseless accusations/comments.

At the same time ... I much prefer to argue the merit of a point rather than play a game of battling links. Happy mediums work rather well, IMO.

 

[Annie]

I think meemer's problem in that regard is not enough posts to post a link.

I also see the point being made, as well as I see yours. Yes, it's nice to have a source document to back up your argument. All too often there ARE people who make a lot of baseless accusations/comments.

At the same time ... I much prefer to argue the merit of a point rather than play a game of battling links. Happy mediums work rather well, IMO.

I don't disagree, just with his saying that 'links weren't important.'

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Just 18% Believe Iran has Stopped Nuclear Weapons Development Program
Friday, December 07, 2007

http://tinyurl.com/33yz8k

I wonder if the mushrooms polled came from the

41% of Americans (who) answered 'Yes' to the question "Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/06/number-of-ameri.html

For sure they were from among the moral majority that put a known numskull and professional failure in as Presidrunk - for no better reason than he was an affluent Jesus Freak whose father was a Presidunce.

 

[Meemer]

Bush's problem is that he's trying so desperately to save himself.
He broadly hinted at WW III.
He knew about the sixteen unanimous intel agencies' agreement on Iran and nuclear weapon development BEFORE meeting with ME delegates at Annapolis. I'd like to know whom he pressured with false information at that meeting; put in a way that some of you might prefer...what did he say and to whom did he say what we now know is FALSE? For those with more delicate ears, what we now know is misleading?
I don't call it a lie. I call it the same thing he said about Iraq. "I go with what I had." (When he knows damned well he had nothing.)
That's why his credibility and the credibility of this country are gone. It's gone amongst our perceived enemies and it's gone amongst our used-to-be allies.

 

[midcan5]

Let's put on out 'rational choice' hat and think about this for a minute. Did Iraq have WMDs as advertised by the war spin ministers, No. Why, because there were many blockades of material, knowledge, and it was not in Saddam's interest (RC). He lost the Gulf War badly and his conflict with Iran was a disaster as well. Did Saddam want to lose power, again we have on our RC hat. No. He was actually controlled and the wiser descison would have been to leave him alone so long as he did not engage in mass murder.

So move over to Iran, does anyone in their right mind want to be blown to kingdom come over WMDs, nuclear this time, surely not, Israel would smoke them. So I think the 18% have it right.

As far Bush/Cheney, they lost credibility long ago, debating that seems senseless at this point.