Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
I thought the speech was quite effective, I still believe what he said in it, and - do you really want Bush to do a SOTU as long as Clinton used to do them? Bush can't speechify nearly as well as Clinton.
|
You think it was "effective" and I am troubled by the fact that Tenet said the President shouldn't have been saying those things. Whether or not the part about British intel was literally true, the CIA disagreed with the message conveyed.
Quote:
|
I have disabused myself of the idea of ever trying to read all the posts I missed, so I don't know where you all went. I do know that Wilson was pretty much - well, completely - discredited, and shown to have affirmatively lied about several things for partisan motives. You disagree. You're right in that we should probably just accept that state of disagreement.
|
The list I've seen is three things, and is hardly conclusive. But as I said weeks ago, Wilson's credibility isn't important because nothing turns on it. He set things in motion, but he's not relevant.
Quote:
|
Here's where I get such a huge disconnect that I really have to struggle NOT to impute dishonorable motives to the accusations: what I just described was my exact set of beliefs as to why we should go to Iraq, before we went there. I saw and heard all of the same evidence that you did - and so it baffles me how you can say, now, that "we never considered all of that, and it's just after-the-fact justification." I know I'm one of those best-read Minnesotans and all, but I formed those beliefs hearing the same speeches you heard. So, I remain puzzled.
|
I am puzzled that you could have been thinking at the time that there was substantial doubt about whether we'd find WMD. As you said a few posts ago, "everyone" (?) thought they were there.
And you and I didn't have the evidence that Bush did. Hell, Kerry didn't have the evidence Bush did.
I'm going to bed.
