Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
I almost didn’t even want to post on this, since the conversations with people supporting the invasion usually reveal the complete unwillingness to acknowledge any evidence that puts our government in a bad light, but what the heck, here’s another one – which I’m sure will be categorically ignored by most of the American public.
I heard a right-wing guy on the radio today resorting to a Clinton-like discussion of what the phrase “facts being fixed around the policy” really meant, as if it could mean anything but what it obviously does.
I should get a couple kids to recite this post and comments just like on the Daily Show.
“I have admitted that they may have had some evidence (obviously false), but that does not constitute “evidence that leaves no doubtâ€?.
Your entire deal is hinged on that and there is doubt that bush and his admin. did not know it was false at the time presented.
No it isn’t, because they said “evidence that leaves no doubt”. Evidence that leaves no doubt by definition cannot be false, so therefore they lied.
What’s more, they were referring to evidence that had already been proven false before this speech (Niger uranium) and/or had been called into question (all the rest), so therefore it was not “evidence that leaves no doubt.”
that isnt proof that isn’t just a question of poor symantics on their part.
your argument is way thin, now I must not write here any longer, and I will read what you say and meet if you ever want to
Nope; not poor semantics – it was a carefully crafted message to convince the American people that Iraq was a threat. As I’ve said before, the president does not give a prepared, nationally televised speech off the top of his head; there is a whole staff of people who plan every single word he says (reads) in excruciating detail.
The argument is not thin; but as I’ve said before, I think it’s evident that you have already decided not to believe anything that would call the justification for the war into question, so it’s obvious that this conversation is pointless.
[...] Have to look at this, including DZ. Since he doesn’t believe Bush ever lied, now he can see it for himself in the form of an awesome action figure. [...]
http://www.moveon.org/false/video/
But Dan, you forget that Dave does not recognize any evidence submitted by a “liberal” source such as moveon.org (or any other source that doesn’t promote his predetermined opinion, for that matter).
Even though this video consists of direct quotes from administration officials, in their own words, it will be ignored and/or dismissed as some sort of tricky left-wing video editing.
Dan you are so late to this party. My last comment was 6 24 05.
better late than never.
“you forget that Dave does not recognize any evidence submitted by a “liberalâ€? source such as moveon.org (or any other source that doesn’t promote his predetermined opinion, for that matter).”
Pretty cheap shot coming from someone who called Hannity and Limbaugh freaks. I guess you look closely at their info. without dismissing it as from ” freaks “.
I pinged this post from my own site so it’s new.
Just go here.
oops. here
I can call them freaks, but I don’t automatically dismiss whatever they say just because they said it; I will listen and evaluate it in light of other evidence, etc. If someone quotes something they say which I don’t agree with, I will explain why I disagree with it, not just write it off because it comes from a biased source.
I’m referring to the numerous occasions on which I’ve referenced factual information in a discussion, and you automatically dismiss it if it comes from any so-called “liberal” paper, etc., which leads me to believe that the only sources you will listen to are those that already agree with your position.
In fact, even in this thread, where I was carefully to use only sources that you’ve already acknowledged as ones you respect (namely the administration themselves) you still won’t acknowledge that they lied, so my suspicion that your mind is closed on this issue is confirmed.
Not trying to take cheap shots, just commenting on our discussions so far.
In response to this statement about me and why this type of media has lost credibility with me -
“or dismissed as some sort of tricky left-wing video editing ” – JB
Yes I am skeptical of the ” left ” media. I have always listened and thought, ok they have a bent to frame stories around, that’s fine.
Moore did exactly what you are saying I am accusing them for:—
–
FULLY ADMITTED TO BY MOORE ON LAUER’s SHOW. One of the congressman moore asked if he had his son in Irag. In the ” film ” by mm the man is saying ” no, his son isn’t in Irag ” , BUT they real tape shows that the guy said yes!
It was either Tim Johnson or Duncan Hunter, I believe.
There were so many other direct lies just in this alone and no network news source stated it so and condemned it as fiction. BUT you had tons of naive young people soaking it as truth.
I’m talking about the conversations we’ve had; and you’ll find that I never mentioned a quote or excerpt from any of Moore’s movies as a reference to my points.