Really arguing this is pointless. Bush is going to be gone soon and the Democrats are going to lose their battle cry of BUSH LIED!!!!! Then they are going to have to sell the American public on their ideas of how to run the country, which are non-existent and even Howard Dean states that they don't have any details.
-----Original Message----- From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 11:51 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: [politics] just look at the headlines What Mr. Cheney, Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld left out was that the administration had access to far more extensive intelligence than Congress did. They also left unaddressed the question of how the administration had used that intelligence, which was full of caveats, subtleties and contradictions. Many Democrats now say that they believe they were misled by the administration in the way it presented the prewar intelligence, and that the White House distorted the conclusions. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/politics/17cheney.html?oref=login requires login: nytimes password: fakenames On 11/16/05, Kevin Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "So it was silly when Bush asserted last week that critics who complain of > being misled by distorted administration intelligence on Iraq were > rewriting > history." > > This is what pisses me off. Everyone in the Senate who voted to authorize > this war had access to same intelligence the President had. I don't blame > him for saying that. It only takes our friend Google to unearth any number > of comments from those Democrats now condemning Bush about how dangerous > Saddam was and how he needed to be dealt with. How he had and was > producing > WMD's. How military action was the best way to handle it. Seriously, when > these guys say how wrong it was, I just laugh as I read their past > statements about Iraq. It's a joke and anyone with half a brain should be > able to see that. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 11:24 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: [politics] just look at the headlines > > [image: OPINION] > > Thursday, November 17, 2005 > > President Bush excels at creating fiction > > By MARIANNE MEANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > SYNDICATED COLUMNIST > > WASHINGTON -- A large part of every president's portfolio is the freedom > to > rewrite history. The White House does it all the time to dress up policy > decisions and make the president look wiser. > > I heard President Johnson expound at length that he alone championed > development of the space program when in truth it was a collaborative > effort > in Congress. His mentor, Georgia Sen. Richard Russell, snorted: "Lyndon, I > knew you wanted to be president just so you could rewrite history." > > Johnson, who later would be driven from office by the Vietnam War > "credibility gap," made no response. > > President Bush is more adept than most of his predecessors. Nowadays such > muddying of the facts is so common it is called spin. During the 2004 > campaign, most of the president's statements on Iraq were a whole lot of > meringue and not much pie. > > So it was silly when Bush asserted last week that critics who complain of > being misled by distorted administration intelligence on Iraq were > rewriting > history. > > Bush contends Congress had "the same" intelligence he had, and that when > he > held office President Clinton had the same data, too. Yet Congress had > only > some of the same intelligence, and only that provided by the > administration. > > The president did not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as his > Daily Brief. Congress only got summaries that did not include the > skepticism > expressed about some of the information. And it was all classified and not > cleared for public release. > > Intelligence agencies around the world did believe Saddam Hussein had > weapons of mass destruction and Democratic lawmakers were as alarmed about > the threat as Republicans. But the degree of the threat, in particular the > risk of that nuclear "mushroom cloud" administration officials kept > describing, was very much in dispute. > > Before the 9/11-induced hysteria over WMD, Clinton indeed saw the basic > presidential warnings. But his conclusion was very different. He felt > inspections and economic pressures were containing Saddam's ambitions, > which > turned out to be true. > > Clinton bombed some Iraqi trouble spots, but would not consider sending in > ground troops. > > Bush also said official investigations had proved there was "no evidence > of > political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments." > > Not so fast, please. > > The Senate probe was confined to searching for direct evidence of > pressure, > discounting the constant but low-visibility nagging of Vice President Dick > Cheney and others to get reports rewritten the way they wanted. It stopped > before examining how the information was used, or abused. > > Frustrated Democratic senators recently forced the Senate into a rare > closed-door session to pressure GOP Intelligence Committee chairman Pat > Roberts to launch another probe, to compare what administration officials > said with what was known. > > There is a long list of discrepancies between what we now know and the > justifications offered by Bush and company for a war they had already > decided to wage. This is finally seeping out to the voters, who are > responding by calling Bush's bluff -- he's down to a record-low 37 percent > approval. > > His attempt to fight back by smearing critics as unpatriotic is in itself > unpatriotic. We still have free speech. The push for war came from him, > not > Congress. His critics were hoodwinked but they didn't give the invasion > orders. > > To further debase his counterattack, he threw in another pitch for a > constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the flag. This is an > embarrassing attempt to hold on to right-wing conservatives, whom the > polls > say are the only supporters he has left. > > Wrapping himself in the flag is an offensive, crude gimmick that signals > political desperation. If Congress is fooled by that meaningless > distraction, its members are dumber than we think. And we think they are > pretty dumb. > > Bush complained that Democrats who voted -- on the basis of his assurances > -- to authorize the use of force in Iraq are now "speaking politics." > Something he never does, of course. He called the critics "irresponsible." > > Bush is so busy rewriting the story of how the United States blundered > into > a war we cannot win he's up to at least three volumes of fiction, with > more > to come. But Bush is not Winston Churchill, who was candid about his > interest in preserving his own reputation. > > How can anyone believe Bush? His spokeswoman, Nicole Wallace, called > Senate > Minority Leader Harry Reid "a liar" for saying that the administration had > no strategy for victory in Iraq. Pretty strong stuff. The trouble is, on > the > subject of Iraq we know the biggest liar occupies the White House. > http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/248557_means17.html > > -- > The most common elements are hydrogen and stupidity - Harlan Ellison > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:182565 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
