LawTalkers
Forums
User Name
Remember Me?
Password
Register
FAQ
Calendar
Go to Page...
» Site Navigation
»
Homepage
»
Forums
»
Forum
>
User CP
>
FAQ
»
Online Users: 3,657
0 members and 3,657 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 12,534, 02-14-2026 at 03:04 PM.
»
Search Forums
»
Advanced Search
Thread
:
Making Baby Jesus Cry
View Single Post
08-18-2005, 10:22 PM
#
2176
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,150
For the Record
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Here is where we disagree, then. I don't see a whole lot of virtue when political leaders mislead people to do something that they think is wise policy but which they know the people oppose.
And it's not at all clear to me that the GOP had much chance of winning in 1940.
I have heard it before, e.g. from Penske, and I didn't say it was wrong. I just said that I'm not convinced that FDR was misleading people, and I'd want to see more of what he said before I reached that conclusion.
That's too bad. Is there a principled reason why you think this is OK, or are you just used to presidents who will not live up to your principles?
I think I have been pretty clear about this. I don't think Bush knew that there were no WMD and decided to mislead people. But I also am convinced that his senior advisors presented him a picture in shades of grey. They extrapolated from what we'd known in the past, they gave him their best guess about intel, etc. Some of the expressions of ambiguity have made it into the public record -- e.g.,
this
-- and yet Bush and his advisors shared none of these doubts with the public. Thus, Tommy Franks tells him that they've been looking for WMD for years and have never found them, and Bush turns around and says that we know Hussein has WMD. I think we can agree that if he'd said the same thing under oath, he'd have a problem.
There is no doubt that during the run-up to the war, the intelligence agencies were being pressured to produce information and conclusions favorable to path Bush was inclined to reach -- i.e., to help him make the case for war. Did this happen because Bush was trying to snow people? I don't think so. But the administration was trying to sell its policy, and an accurate picture of the ambiguity of the intel would not have been helpful, so this was not shared with the public. Instead, you have an administration that was pushing the envelope at every turn -- e.g., including statements about uranium from Niger in presidential speeches when our own intelligence officials said they shouldn't be in there. The administration was picking and choosing what intel to use, and representing it as fact.
Don't your fingers ever get tired?
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Hank Chinaski
Powered by
vBadvanced
CMPS v3.0.1
All times are GMT -4. The time now is
01:45 PM
.
-- LawTalk Forums vBulletin 3 Style
-- vBulletin 2 Default
-- Ravio_Blue
-- Ravio_Orange
Contact Us
-
Lawtalkers
-
Top
Powered by:
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By:
URLJet.com