Lest Anyone Forget So Close To Election Time...

[Kodiak]

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002


"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

[DavidJames]

I think the best way to interrupt your quotes it to recognize and give credit to Kerry and Edwards for modifying their opinions when better information became available. Stubbornly and dogmatically sticking to an opinion (as Bush has) based on flawed data are not attributes of a person I want running the country.

[Eleatic Stranger]

So you want us to remember that when the President lied to those men they believed him?

OK, got it.

[DaChew]

[quote]Originally posted by Kodiak
[b]"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002


That's odd. Having missed the vast majority of the intelligence briefings on this subject, I would have thought that if Kerry was an honest man he'd have declined to state a specific position.

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger
So you want us to remember that when the President lied to those men they believed him?

OK, got it.

They had access to the same information the President did, and reached the same conclusions independently.

[HarryKeogh]

Quote:

Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger
So you want us to remember that when the President lied to those men they believed him?

OK, got it.

me too

[Kodiak]

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidJames
I think the best way to interrupt your quotes it to recognize and give credit to Kerry and Edwards for modifying their opinions when better information became available. Stubbornly and dogmatically sticking to an opinion (as Bush has) based on flawed data are not attributes I want running the country.

Your "modifying their opinions" equals my "flip-flop" and "revisionist history".

Your "Stubbornly and dogmatically" equals my "Resolve and determination".

Bush has acknowledged that the intel he had at the time turned out to be inaccurrate.

Seems to me you have a double standard when it comes to Kerry/Edwards...

[Kodiak]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
They had access to the same information the President did, and reached the same conclusions independently.

Exactly.

You wouldn't know that today though if one just listened to Kerry's and Edwards' campaign speeches nowadays.

Thus this thread.

[wollery]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
They had access to the same information the President did, and reached the same conclusions independently.

No, they had access to the same reports as all the other senators (and congressmen, I assume). They did not, however have direct access to the heads of the intelligence services or the raw data from which the reports were compiled, as Bush undoubtedly had. And we have since learned that these were far less positive than the official reports.

[merphie]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak
Exactly.

You wouldn't know that today though if one just listened to Kerry's and Edwards' campaign speeches nowadays.

Thus this thread.

Be careful you will get the die hard Kerry fanatics in here saying how you can't read the thread correctly and don't understand English.

[merphie]

Quote:

Originally posted by wollery
No, they had access to the same reports as all the other senators (and congressmen, I assume). They did not, however have direct access to the heads of the intelligence services or the raw data from which the reports were compiled, as Bush undoubtedly had. And we have since learned that these were far less positive than the official reports.

Wow! You mean Congress is a puppet of who ever the current administration is?

I guess I will have to stop writing my congressmen and just convince the president of my opinion so he can skew the facts however he wants and mislead everyone in Congress!

Why do we have a legislative branch again?

[Kodiak]

Quote:

Originally posted by wollery
No, they had access to the same reports as all the other senators (and congressmen, I assume). They did not, however have direct access to the heads of the intelligence services or the raw data from which the reports were compiled, as Bush undoubtedly had. And we have since learned that these were far less positive than the official reports.

You may simply be ignorant of how the U.S. Federal government and its bureaucracy is composed, but Bush WAS NOT privy to any "raw data". The intelligence heads and NSA chiefs are given finalized threat assessments, status reports, and evidence conclusion summaries, which they pass on to the President at regular national security meetings.

For Bush to get the support he needed from Congress, do you really for one second think that he provided anything less than absolutely all the evidence that existed at that time?

[zenith-nadir]

Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance - December 16, 1998

Quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Ironic...don't ya think?

[gnome]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak
For Bush to get the support he needed from Congress, do you really for one second think that he provided anything less than absolutely all the evidence that existed at that time?

Yes as a matter of fact I do. I think he was extremely picky about what info Congress received, and counted on public opinion to push them into going along with him.

[merphie]

Quote:

Originally posted by gnome
Yes as a matter of fact I do. I think he was extremely picky about what info Congress received, and counted on public opinion to push them into going along with him.

I guess you have never heard of the "Senate Intelligence Committee".

Bush doesn't have special permissions when it comes to the departments. It's called Checks and Balances.

The Kerry position that he was mislead is just a political spin to make himself look good.

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak
For Bush to get the support he needed from Congress, do you really for one second think that he provided anything less than absolutely all the evidence that existed at that time?

Like he did with the Medicare budget?

[Kodiak]

Quote:

Originally posted by gnome
Yes as a matter of fact I do. I think he was extremely picky about what info Congress received, and counted on public opinion to push them into going along with him.

merphie has already addressed this, but if you have evidence to support your position that intel was withheld from Congress, please present it.

[Kodiak]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Like he did with the Medicare budget?

Nice fallacy.

You're changing the subject and failed to answer the question.

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak
Nice fallacy.

You're changing the subject and failed to answer the question.

I'm not interested in the question; I was just pointing out that sometimes Bush doesn't give all the information to Congress. Which makes sense--they should know to get their own research done.

Edit to add:
http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/rel...004312815.html

[Brown]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak
For Bush to get the support he needed from Congress, do you really for one second think that he provided anything less than absolutely all the evidence that existed at that time?

Yes. I think it's pretty clear that Bush pretty much told what he wanted people to believe, and he ignored the advice of some of his staffers that some of the information was technically and factually incorrect. He spoke as an advocate.

According to John Dean, a lawyer for Nixon and a key figure who helped expose the Watergate scandal, Bush deliberately misled the Congress, which is (according to Dean) an impeachable offense.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak
Your "modifying their opinions" equals my "flip-flop" and "revisionist history".


So then, you're anti-science and pro-faith.

Science requires that one revises their understanding when new evidence comes about. That makes Kerry and Edwards at least potentially good scientists.

It makes Bush, who wont' revise his mistakes, a "faith based" president.

What you're saying, then, is simple. You want people to stick with their mistakes rather than acknowledge them and adapt to the reality of the situation.

I think that's a very dangerous attitude, both for a person and a country.


Your "Stubbornly and dogmatically" equals my "Resolve and determination".


Holding to a position in the face of mountains of contrary evidence is a "resolve to not admit a mistake" and "determination to not admit a mistake".

That's a characteristic of dictators, isnt' it?


Bush has acknowledged that the intel he had at the time turned out to be inaccurrate.


So why won't he admit that his actions were a mistake, based on the mistaken intel? It would be a credit to him.


Seems to me you have a double standard when it comes to Kerry/Edwards...

Oh, stuff and nonsense. That's not bear excrement, that's bull excrement, Kodiak. Kerry and Edwards, acting in a reasonable fashion, adjusted their opinion as evidence came forward. Bush has remained in denial, and as far as is evident from actions, remains set on a mistaken course that was established by mistaken evidence.

On top of that, he's given us another huge Repugnican deficit, started another round of stagflation that is now showing up quite clearly, and refusing to deal with that, while making his deficit, and the resulting stagflation, even worse.

That's what his stubbornness and failure to acknowledge his own mistakes is doing, Kodiak, it's hurting everyone except the ultra-rich. He's trying to turn the USA into Brazil, and in more than one way.

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown
According to John Dean, a lawyer for Nixon and a key figure who helped expose the Watergate scandal, Bush deliberately misled the Congress, which is (according to Dean) an impeachable offense.

I don't think he did mislead them deliberately. I see Bush as making up his mind first, then seizing on any evidence that seems to support his position and ignoring the rest. His own wife remarked once that he doesn't "overthink things"....I think he's just one of those people who doesn't gather evidence and weigh it, analyze it, and then draw conclusions.

But I'm sure he thought he was right.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
But I'm sure he thought he was right.

Does thinking he was right justify his action?

[merphie]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I'm not interested in the question; I was just pointing out that sometimes Bush doesn't give all the information to Congress. Which makes sense--they should know to get their own research done.

Edit to add:
http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/rel...004312815.html

You're talking apples and oranges. Budget is not the same as intelligence.

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj
Does thinking he was right justify his action?

No, but it means he's guilty of negligence and gullibility and sloppy thinking, which are different things than deliberate deception.

Heck, I'd prefer it if he had merely lied, because at least then it means he knew what was really going on.

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by merphie
You're talking apples and oranges. Budget is not the same as intelligence.

Never said it was. Just pointing out similarity between:

Situation A: President doesn't give the correct information to Congress.

Situation B: President doesn't give the correct information to Congress.

And: apples and oranges are both fruit.

[merphie]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj
So then, you're anti-science and pro-faith.

Science requires that one revises their understanding when new evidence comes about. That makes Kerry and Edwards at least potentially good scientists.

It makes Bush, who wont' revise his mistakes, a "faith based" president.

You mean Clinton's Faith based ideas? Don't kid yourself.

Kerry believes in God too. Bush isn't in denile. He stands by his decision. Kerry changes his mind and claims someone lied to him. That makes them politicians who won't stand behind any desicion.

Quote:

What you're saying, then, is simple. You want people to stick with their mistakes rather than acknowledge them and adapt to the reality of the situation.

I think that's a very dangerous attitude, both for a person and a country.

I want a president to stand behind the desicion they make and not blame someone other than theirself for the mistake.

Quote:

Holding to a position in the face of mountains of contrary evidence is a "resolve to not admit a mistake" and "determination to not admit a mistake".

That's a characteristic of dictators, isnt' it?

Where's your evidence?

Quote:

So why won't he admit that his actions were a mistake, based on the mistaken intel? It would be a credit to him.

Because he doesn't believe they were. Iraq is something Clinton wouldn't do and Bush would. Even Kerry said he probably would have gone to war by now.

Quote:

Oh, stuff and nonsense. That's not bear excrement, that's bull excrement, Kodiak. Kerry and Edwards, acting in a reasonable fashion, adjusted their opinion as evidence came forward. Bush has remained in denial, and as far as is evident from actions, remains set on a mistaken course that was established by mistaken evidence.

Where's the denile come in?

Quote:

On top of that, he's given us another huge Repugnican deficit, started another round of stagflation that is now showing up quite clearly, and refusing to deal with that, while making his deficit, and the resulting stagflation, even worse.

Check your histories. This country stays in debt and it isn't always a bad thing. Bush didn't cause the Economy problems.

Quote:

That's what his stubbornness and failure to acknowledge his own mistakes is doing, Kodiak, it's hurting everyone except the ultra-rich. He's trying to turn the USA into Brazil, and in more than one way.

You're Repeating again. Read statements above.

Don't forget torture at Guantanamo, Afghanistan and (of course) Iraq. Winning hearts and minds everywhere.

[merphie]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Never said it was. Just pointing out similarity between:

Situation A: President doesn't give the correct information to Congress.

Situation B: President doesn't give the correct information to Congress.

And: apples and oranges are both fruit.

Guilt by association is not fact. You also quote an article with an assumption. Nothing is proven in that article.

You are missing the picture. Prove congress didn't have access to all the information.

Apples and oranges are both fruit but they don't look, feel, smell or taste the same.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by merphie
You mean Clinton's

denile.

Clinton

denile

Obviously you're really grasping if you have to raise the Clinton spectre in order to argue back.

And it's denial. De Nile is a river in Egypt.

It's simple to me, Bush won't admit to mistakes, allows more mistakes to happen, war crimes, torture, etc, abrogates parts of the constitution, etc, and justifies that by referring back to the original mistake as fact.

I have absolutely no sympathy for Saddamn, mind you, as far as I'm concerned he's a candidate for reactor shielding.

What bothers me is that Bush has isolated the USA, damaged our reputation, economy, and ability to rebuild ourselves, and set up a situation where we are perilously close to having the entire world united against us, and you're still arguing that he's good.

He's a failure. A miserable, disastrous, huge, utter failure, Kodiak, and he should resign, not run for office.

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by merphie
Guilt by association is not fact. You also quote an article with an assumption. Nothing is proven in that article.

You are missing the picture. Prove congress didn't have access to all the information.

Apples and oranges are both fruit but they don't look, feel, smell or taste the same.

It wasn't an article, it was Daschle's speech on the matter. Verbatim. Which, since he is a member of Congress, can be considered someone in Congress is claiming he didn't hear all the information. Is witness testimony not evidence? He might be mistaken or lying, but his statement is still evidence and may be evaluated.

As for apples and oranges, to follow your analogy to its logical conclusion, any comparison between any two things is completely invalid because by being two things there must, necessarily be differences. I guess you will never compare anything to anything again, then?

[Kodiak]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
No, but it means he's guilty of negligence and gullibility and sloppy thinking, which are different things than deliberate deception.

Heck, I'd prefer it if he had merely lied, because at least then it means he knew what was really going on.

Whether "deliberate deception" or "negligence, gullibility, and sloppy thinking"...

If its true for President Bush and the GOP, then its true for Clinton, the Senate, the House of Representatives, Blair, the British Parliament, the U.N., Jacques Chirac, and Inspector Scott Ritter, among others.


Lest anyone incorrectly thinks that only Kerry and Edwards were in complete agreement with President Bush:




"[W]e 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 Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998


"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others


"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998


"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002


"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002


"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002


"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003


"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998


"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002


"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002


"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002


"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998


"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002


"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002


"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

[merphie]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj
Obviously you're really grasping if you have to raise the Clinton spectre in order to argue back.

And it's denial. De Nile is a river in Egypt.

Check your facts. Bush just repackaged a Clinton Idea.

Quote:

It's simple to me, Bush won't admit to mistakes, allows more mistakes to happen, war crimes, torture, etc, abrogates parts of the constitution, etc, and justifies that by referring back to the original mistake as fact.

You're wrong on all accounts.

Quote:

I have absolutely no sympathy for Saddamn, mind you, as far as I'm concerned he's a candidate for reactor shielding.

No argument there.

Quote:

What bothers me is that Bush has isolated the USA, damaged our reputation, economy, and ability to rebuild ourselves, and set up a situation where we are perilously close to having the entire world united against us, and you're still arguing that he's good.

Isolation interesting idea. Britian and Italy are with us. Saudia Arabia and Kuwait obivously are and not to mention the other allies. (Don't know them by heart)

Quote:

He's a failure. A miserable, disastrous, huge, utter failure, Kodiak, and he should resign, not run for office.

Your opinion based on faulty logic.

[Brown]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I don't think he did mislead them deliberately. I see Bush as making up his mind first, then seizing on any evidence that seems to support his position and ignoring the rest.

This may be correct, and it is consistent with what I said about his speaking as an advocate. An advocate is interested in achieving a result, and will present a case so as to try to convince others that such a result should be realized. An advocate does not--and cannot be expected to--present a complete or balanced presentation.

Bush had intelligence, which turned out to be wrong, that Iraq was preparing to strike the US. Bush also had intelligence, which turned out to be correct, that Iraq did not have the capability for such a strike. The White House essentially ignored the latter type of intelligence when setting policy.

[Kodiak]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj
...Bush has isolated the USA, damaged our reputation, economy, and ability to rebuild ourselves, and set up a situation where we are perilously close to having the entire world united against us, and you're still arguing that he's good.

"THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!"

Isolated from who?

How has our reputation changed? and with who is it now damaged?

How is our economy damaged?

How is our ability to rebuild damaged?

Evidence, please, of this so-called "perilous closeness" that the world is uniting against us... (I especially LOVED this doozy... )

[merphie]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
It wasn't an article, it was Daschle's speech on the matter. Verbatim. Which, since he is a member of Congress, can be considered someone in Congress is claiming he didn't hear all the information. Is witness testimony not evidence? He might be mistaken or lying, but his statement is still evidence and may be evaluated.

As for apples and oranges, to follow your analogy to its logical conclusion, any comparison between any two things is completely invalid because by being two things there must, necessarily be differences. I guess you will never compare anything to anything again, then?

So? What does that prove? Dashle reads the newspaper? If I watched CBS for a while I might have thought the memos were authentic.

Mistaken? That's the same as lying on this board.

Compare all you want. You used a rumor to show some association. Show me the proof!

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown
Bush had intelligence, which turned out to be wrong, that Iraq was preparing to strike the US. Bush also had intelligence, which turned out to be correct, that Iraq did not have the capability for such a strike. The White House essentially ignored the latter type of intelligence when setting policy.

Which then raises the question: what do you do when you get conflicting evidence? You have to take time to weigh it....but in some situations, you might not have time. If Bush had been right, and Saddam really did have lots of nukes and chemical warheads and was about to fire them at Israel or something....

It would really suck to be responsible for that kind of decision if you chose wrong.

[merphie]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown
Bush had intelligence, which turned out to be wrong, that Iraq was preparing to strike the US. Bush also had intelligence, which turned out to be correct, that Iraq did not have the capability for such a strike. The White House essentially ignored the latter type of intelligence when setting policy.

Powell's UN speech on talked about the threat he was.

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by merphie
You used a rumor to show some association. Show me the proof!

Since I do not possess a video tape of Bush cackling madly to himself while explaining his plans to deliberately underestimate the cost of the Medicare changes, I guess I do not have proof. Even if I did have such a video, those things are possible to fake.

Therefore, there is no proof. So we must assume that Bush is always completely truthful.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak
Evidence, please, of this so-called "perilous closeness" that the world is uniting against us... (I especially LOVED this doozy... )

It's the standard understanding everywhere but in the USA.

(I work in international standards committees and international professional societies a lot. I hear the hostility every time I got to a meeting. It's getting worse and worse.)

Your claim otherwise is an extraordinary claim, stop trying to shift the burden.

Geeze, louise.