|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Aug 8, 2008 9:02:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Aug 8, 2008 9:24:09 GMT -5
Short of impeachment, what are you proposing Congress do? We keep getting stuck in this Congressional subpoena v. Executive privilege nonsense. I just don't know how it can be resolved unless Congress starts wielding its ultimate oversight weapon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2008 9:26:21 GMT -5
No matter what any Republican does, it'll never be worse than lying about getting it on with an intern. Don't forget that.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 8, 2008 9:33:57 GMT -5
A book claims Bush ordered a forgery. Therefore, it must be true.
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Aug 8, 2008 9:49:56 GMT -5
A book claims Bush ordered a forgery. Therefore, it must be true. You say it as if this author is some crack-pot with a background of practicing "gutter journalism" when, in fact, he is a Pulitzer Prize winner. Like it or not, this administration has ZERO credibility, so stuff like this sticks, and it should be investigated. |
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Aug 8, 2008 9:57:43 GMT -5
Suskind
Woodward
Clarke
McClellan
Any of those names ring a bell, ed?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 8, 2008 10:02:48 GMT -5
I believe Suskind's primary source at the CIA is denying these allegations.
Apparently, Suskind has a transcript that he will release, so I guess we'll see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Aug 8, 2008 10:42:54 GMT -5
That will be interesting to see. Any idea when he's plannin to release, Boz?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 8, 2008 11:25:42 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure I heard that when he was on Morning Joe, but sorry, I can't remember when he said it would happen.
I tried to goodle it, but I couldn't find the video from the show.
I wouldn't worry though. If he does release that, I'm pretty sure we'll all hear about it.
EDIT: Rob Richer & John McGuire are the sources in question and they're in the AP denying what Suskind claimed they said. But I still can't find where Suskind said he was going to release the transcript. I'm pretty sure I heard that correctly though, because Suskind said he has never done that before in his career.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 8, 2008 13:03:48 GMT -5
Suskind Woodward Clarke McClellan Any of those names ring a bell, ed? Did any of these gentlemen say Bush ordered a forgery? Please provide links or quotes. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 8, 2008 15:17:16 GMT -5
I'm still trying to get over the fact that someone reads the Jack Cafferty blog.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 8, 2008 15:24:13 GMT -5
This was discussed on our board a couple of days ago. It doesn't look like there is anything to it. Obviously I don't have any inside information, but I'm not buying it until I know for sure.
On a general note, how come if someone criticizes a liberal then he is just slinging mud, but if someone criticizes a conservative, then they are just asking the tough questions? Man, I hate this mess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2008 15:44:35 GMT -5
Obviously I don't have any inside information, but I'm not buying it until I know for sure. Good philosophy, hifi - too bad the same standard wasn't applied to questions like "Does Iraq have ties to Al Qaeda?" and "Does Iraq have WMD?" On a general note, how come if someone criticizes a liberal then he is just slinging mud, but if someone criticizes a conservative, then they are just asking the tough questions? The Bush White House has just reminded us that criticizing conservatives is "gutter journalism". |
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Aug 8, 2008 16:02:46 GMT -5
This was discussed on our board a couple of days ago. It doesn't look like there is anything to it. Obviously I don't have any inside information, but I'm not buying it until I know for sure. On a general note, how come if someone criticizes a liberal then he is just slinging mud, but if someone criticizes a conservative, then they are just asking the tough questions? Man, I hate this mess. Hey, I say criticize liberals and conservatives equally. Hold everyone to the same standard. Question/challenge/criticize in proportion to the significance of the issue and/or the severity of the incident. Rule #1: Take a hard look at things that involve people dying. Rule #2: Take a hard look at things that involve people being raped, maimed, displaced, forced into slavery, or otherwise violated. Rule #3: Take a hard look at things that involve economic fraud(Helloooooooo Ken Lay ... can you hear me down there?) Rule #4: Take a hard look at apparent violations of the Constitution and international treaties to which we are party. Now tell me hifi, considering that one ideology (i.e. neoconservatism) has ostensibly been in power this decade, who we should focus on? Trust me, I'll be just as willing to call out an Obama administration if it pulls this kind of garbage, and there were plenty of things to call Pres. Clinton out for (though I generally think he was 1,000,000 times better than BushII). Ed, those other guys wrote books exposing the Bush admin's .... "indiscretions" from the inside. I'll post links later; it's quittin' time. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 8, 2008 16:09:54 GMT -5
My point is once again there is a double standard and it probably still comes down to the liberal prominence in the media. Not to dredge up old news, but the Swift Boat Veterans were a perfect example. These guys had at least as much credibility as other people/groups etc... Yet they were treated like ignorant yahoos with an agenda instead of the legitimately critical vocal group that they were. Someone comes up with some criticism of Obama -- his long standing relationship with Wright for example -- and they are treated like some biased right winger with an agenda, rather than a concerned party with a legitimate interest in investigating a unusual relationship at the least. Someone comes out with some claim of indiscretion of someone on the right -- in this case Bush -- and people immediately flock to the message as if it was gospel. That is my point. Not that this particular story is true or false, just that there is a difference in how the sides are presented and treated.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 8, 2008 16:22:41 GMT -5
C2C, I realize this was not the main thrust of your post, but I do want to make a comment about the whole economic fraud issue.
People can talk about Ken Lay being a "buddy" of Bush all they want, but most of the really egregious corporate fraud incidents took place throughout the 1990s. The crackdowns and additional legislation (like SOX -- which may be necessary but is a big pain in the ass, I might add) came pretty early in Bush's first term.
But if you ask anyone today how Enron or Worldcom got away with what they did, I'd bet a majority of people would say it's because of the Bush administration.
As for the others, I agree that those are all things that warrant serious investigation. I think we probably disagree as to the culpability of the current adminstration about various things that fall under those categories, but it doesn't make them any less serious as issues.
I will say that I find Suskind's allegations fairly tough to swallow. The question is, can they be proven or disproven? Time will tell.
(even if they are disproven, I imagine there are a lot of people who will continue to believe him anyway - a hole this administration has dug for itself).
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 8, 2008 18:08:09 GMT -5
(even if they are disproven, I imagine there are a lot of people who will continue to believe him anyway - a hole this administration has dug for itself). The flip side is that if the specific accusation of Bush directly ordering the forging of evidence is disproven, some people will assume that nothing untoward at all happened in the White House's campaign to sell the war. It's sort of like the whole flushing the Koran down the toilet accusations. There was an investigation, and it revealed that there were a lot of abuses at Gitmo, including desecrations of the Koran, although the specific accusation of flushing the Koran down the toilet was unproven. Fox News Headline: Soldiers didn't flush Koran down the toilet. Based on other pieces of evidence that have come out about the evidence surrounding the Iraq war, it's very clear that, at the very least, some people who should have known better ignored facts and skewed evidence for political reasons. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 8, 2008 18:29:05 GMT -5
"Based on other pieces of evidence that have come out about the evidence surrounding the Iraq war, it's very clear that, at the very least, some people who should have known better ignored facts and skewed evidence for political reasons."
It's the last part of this quote that has always bothered me, that people (meaning Bush) skewed evidence for political reasons. Since the CIA and the intelligence agencies in England, France, Germany, etc. and the UN all thought Saddam had WMDs, isn't it reasonable to assume that Bush also thought it to be true? Did he get some evidence saying there were not WMDs? Probably so. But the preponderance of evidence was just the opposite and, to use a phrase from other threads, there was a strong consensus that Saddam had WMDs.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 8, 2008 23:26:47 GMT -5
From what I recall, the French, Germans, UN, and a lot of the British were saying that the WMD evidence was inconclusive at best.
The things I've read said that the intelligence coming in was mostly accurate, but it was selectively used in order to serve a political ends. Was there some intelligence that said Saddam had WMD? Certainly. Saddam himself may have thought he had WMD - his scientists may have been too scared to tell him the truth. But people who have been around intelligence long enough should know that the least reliable source is a report from a maniacal dictator's desk. It's like how Napoleon never trusted the French newspapers and read the British papers instead, since he knew the French papers were too scared to print the truth if he didn't want to hear it.
The point is that it's too much of a stretch to say that the intelligence folks just messed up. The mistakes much more numerous and severe than you'd ever get from a group of people that smart. There had to be some degree of intent somewhere in the ladder, and the only reasonable reason somebody would have altered the intelligence was for political reasons.
Remember, anybody with half a brain knew early in 2002 that we were going to attack Iraq. It was pretty clear even before the war started that the intelligence was being used to justify the decision to go to war, not to influence it.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 9, 2008 12:38:29 GMT -5
Don't you recall the "slam dunk" quote from Tenet? Or does it just not fit into your view of the runup to the war? Also, your recall of the views of the other nations is not correct. All were saying Saddam had WMDs, as was, I might add, Bill Clinton, and almost everyone else in this country. What was being debated pre-war was not whether there were WMDs but rather did their existence necessitate war. Too many people dislike Bush so much they are willing to assign to him every ulterior motive possible and choose to ignore the possibility he was acting out of what he thought was the best interests of the country; and, he was acting based on the best intelligence information provided to him.
|
|
