Hey, Sparky.
I’m an Ex-Press Corps guy from DC.
‘Senior Administration Official’ translates to ‘Cabinet or Deputy Cabinet Level’ or below. That’s senior.
Friends, nobody is persuading anybody here. The same thing is going on in Great Debates. The view that the President is the very incarnation of truth, justice and the American way, or that he is the leader of a pack of pirates and scoundrels who would stoup to doing anything in order to establish a word wide oil patch run from Huston, has been cast in bronze. None of the partisans would change their mind if the Lord God Almighty came down in glory and presented stone tablets saying that these are questions on which reasonable minds can differ. This has become a pissing match and has value only as entertainment.
I strongly disagree. Before the war, there were indeed folks supportive of Bush and his position, supported the war. I’ve seen at least two who’ve done major steps back from that, and at least one other who’s holding out for a Thanksgiving reprieve.
Anyone got a good recipe for crow stuffed turkey ?
I’m thinking it should be a good “IRon CHef” thread, myself.
You’ve lost your fucking mind.
Yes but all we get now are the predictible no-Cite, blame the liberal media or pull some wild-ass explanation out your backside Bush Apologista’s doing their obligitory post and runs.
Although they can be useful from an “unintentional humor” standpoint.
You want unintentional humour?
Check out this post by december in another thread about the administration’s ex post facto change of reasons for invading Iraq.
While falling over himself to apologize for Bush et al’s deceptions, december opined that Iraq was obligated to prove that it didn’t pose a threat to other nations because “That’s what US Security Council Resolution#1441 said.”
As i pointed out in that thread, december’s apologias have now reached the level of freudian farce.
The amazing thing is that the administration’s apologists, for example, David Brooks of The Weekly Standard , are putting up trial balloons to the effect that the President may have been wrong about the little things, like Iraq almost having nuclear weapons, having tactical quantities of biological and chemical agents, or having a connection to OBL, but that the Administration was right about the big thing of the propriety of invading Iraq, and that there is all sorts of secret information that when released will show that it was a good thing to invade Iraq, WMDs or no WMDs. This is perilously close to the justification of means by pointing to a laudable end. In this regard see our friend December’s comment (above) that the President has a duty to lie to use information he knew or should have known was false in order to advance what the President sees as a laudable policy. This of course reduces the President to a mere pitchman without moral principles or obligation beyond achiving an end.
Good Lord, people, even George Will sees that this is a bankrupt argument.
Does anybody else have a sinking feeling that the only laudable goal we are dealing with here is the establishment of Anglo-American control of Iraqi oil fields and that the “no blood for oil “people were right from the beginning? How can we think that we did all this , placed the prestige and power of the United States on the line, offended our long time allies, placed our young soldiers, air crews, sailors and Marines in harms way, for any reason other than access to a bigger oil reserve?
Only one shoe dropped today.
Condoleeza Rice’s statement that the CIA actually signed off on the President’s speech leaves a gaping chasm between two asserted facts:
- The CIA was uncomfortable with the uranium evidence before the speech.
1a) Something–or someone–made the CIA change its opinion.
- The CIA signed off on the speech.
What’s in between those two facts looks like it could be manipulation of a national security agency. That’s the same high crime for which Nixon was accused before he resigned.
I believe the next step in this process is an attempted suicide on the part of someone associated with the President. What’s Bud McFarlane doing these days?
In light of the White House spin attempts to blame the CIA for the whole “Niger uranium” bullstuff, I dug up this little gem of a quote:
Easier to preach than to do, ainnit, George?
The Democratic National Committee is running an ad that includes a carefully truncated version of Bush’s quote. Bush cited a British report, which turned out to be incorrect. His statement was the literal truth. The Democratic ad omitted Bush’s citation of the source, thus making his true statement appear to be an incorrect one. They couldn’t get away that here on Great Debates!
Bush believed what he said at the time he said it. OTOH the DNC intentionally distorted his quote in order to mislead viewers. Their mistake was worse than Bush’s, because it was deliberate.
A lot of panelists on this thread claim to be so very concerned about absolute integrity. No doubt they will vote against the dissembling Democrats. 
Well, don’t forget Shrub’s re-election, the appointment of 2 maybe 3 Scalia clones to SCOTUS, more tax cuts for the wealthy. For Cheney, Rove & Co. the ends definitely justify the means.
Godwin’s Law approaching from starboard, Cap’n.
december, does the name Hitler ring a bell? He, too, made the strongest possible arguments (at least in his mind) for a policy he believed was in the interests of his people.
And just to make sure you and your inability to comprehend common sense don’t use this against me: I’m not comparing GWB to Hitler. I’m saying that your definition of what a leader’s job is, allows for a leader like Hitler.
I’d say you need to revise your definitions there.
Do you have psychic powers, b]december**?
Hitler’s problem wasn’t how he promoted his policies. His problem was the policies.
Bush opponents need to make the case that the war with Iraq was bad policy, if they can. If the war with Iraq was good policy, voters won’t blame him for selling it.
That’s it. I’m officially giving up hope that anyone will be able to reason with december. It won’t be possible to beat some sense of reality into him, even by using a 2x4.
:mad:
I have Fox News Channel, which reported that George Tenet just made a statement saying that the CIA had approved Bush’s claim, although Tenet also says the CIA ought not to have done so. Tenet thus confirms Condi Rice’s earlier statement that Bush’s claim had been vetted by the security agencies.
How do you know this?
I think that there was a great deal wrong with the way that Hitler promoted his policies. Please stop and think about what you are saying.
Regarding Bush selling the war, voters wouldn’t blame him for using deception to convince them that America should wage war on another country? As long as it was “good policy”? How do you define “good policy”?