Your argument assumes that the President knew what his own intelligence service didn't know, e.g. that Iraq did not in fact have WMD stockpiles. I would like someone, anyone, please to explain to me how the President was lying when he relied on bad intelligence.

Follow my logic here. If the President was lying when he said Iraq had WMD, Dan Rather was lying when he said he had memos from Colonel Killian about Bush's National Guard service.

I would even give Dan a leg up in the lying department because he knew the source of the memos was a bitter enemy of the President, so he should have been wary of the source from the beginning. Bush, on the other hand, trusted the same source that every President trusts, the CIA.

>Yea bush doesnt do it.
>
>There are weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq that are an IMMEDIATE danger.
>
>Back when the war started i was all for bush, yea he has weapons blah
>blah. I was wrong i assumed saddam still had weapons and he apparently
>didn't anymore.
>
>Though i would have figured bush would have planted some by now
>instead of admitting he lied (Ie faulty intel).
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
>Subject: Re: CBS in new 'fake' ache
>To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Bush doesn't do it.
>
>Drudge runs a gossip site. Doesn't pretend to be a
>news authority, just goes around grabbing interesting
>headlines before the majors run with them. I think ABC
>claimed he's only right 39% of the time.
>
>Moore is just trying to get rib of Bush at all cost.
>If you think he came out unscathed then you're not
>paying attention.
>
>-sm
>
>
>
>--- Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]

Reply via email to