Number-crunching pollster sees decisive Obama win

#76
#76
emainvol said:
you have people in your party who blame some of the biggest disasters in the world on gays, Jews, etc.
Click to expand...

the main difference here is that we will disavow our wackos, your side gives them their own TV shows on MSNBC.
 
#79
#79
emainvol said:
does that question even need to be answered? Perhaps misled was a better choice of words?
Click to expand...

I think that let their beliefs interfere with the facts and what facts they chose to trust...which is hard not to do. There were members in the Bush presidency that gained more and more clout post-9/11....and their viewpoints on Iraq were very clear. The fact that they chose to believe the intelligence they they ended up choosing isn't that much of a surprise. We've been back and forth through these issues....in the end - I've tried to keep from calling them lies...
 
#80
#80
MontereyVol said:
Really???
Click to expand...

yeah. Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Matthews ring any bells?

I know you'll probably bring up Hannity, but one of the biggest differences between Hannity and Olbermann is that Hannity willingly engages with people who don't agree with him. Plus he's more than balanced by that obnoxious twit, Colmes.
 
#82
#82
jcwvolfan said:
ok who misled and how? please also state how you define a lie and/or to mislead.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


Yellowcake, WMD, etc. I don't think the burden of proof is on me, this is all pretty much accepted now. If you would like to prove to me that the Bush administration did not mislead the country I would be more than happy to listen.
 
#83
#83
emainvol said:
Yellowcake, WMD, etc. I don't think the burden of proof is on me, this is all pretty much accepted now. If you would like to prove to me that the Bush administration did not mislead the country I would be more than happy to listen.
Click to expand...

I think that Bush allowed himself to be misled...
 
#85
#85
emainvol said:
It doesn't make him any less culpable.
Click to expand...

then the same must be said for any Dem that sated that SH was a danger and had WMD and/or voted for the resolution. Just curious, were we justified in invading Afghanistan?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#89
#89
emainvol said:
Yellowcake, WMD, etc. I don't think the burden of proof is on me, this is all pretty much accepted now. If you would like to prove to me that the Bush administration did not mislead the country I would be more than happy to listen.
Click to expand...

First it would have to be proven that he did mislead or lie which hasn't been shown either way at this point. The burden of proof falls on you emain, not the other way around.

For the record I think some in his staff used info they knew could possibly be flawed but chose to use it to make the case anyway. Did Bush know, I'm not sure.
 
#90
#90
BigPapaVol said:
I wouldn't blame Clinton at all for that first one. However, that first one and its ties to Bin Laden should have absolutely helped us preclude the second one.

Instead, we went down a route of systematically removing intelligence capabilities and replacing them with technology, which proved a disaster.

It's reasonably well documented that the Clinton admin had multiple opportunities to essentially end Bin Laden and Co. However, we chose to sit idly by and watch him set up shop in more than one nation with sympathetic governments in place.
Click to expand...

I'm no Clinton fan so I won't disagree with your assessment, but to be fair, Clinton did try to kill bid Laden at least once -- and failed. I don't think he sat by any more "idly" than Bush did (pre 9/11).

Looking back, all the warning signs were all there, and yet we still failed to stop the attack -- just like we'll fail again at some point. It's the very nature of these type of attacks that they're very difficult to prevent. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try though.

To me, the biggest test for our nation is not in how we prevent these attacks, but in how we react once they inevitably occur.
 
#92
#92
jcwvolfan said:
then the same must be said for any Dem that sated that SH was a danger and had WMD and/or voted for the resolution. Just curious, were we justified in invading Afghanistan?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree with the argument that those who were made privy to the complete intelligence and then tried to sell their constituents on the idea that SH was aggressively pursuing uranium enrichment at that time should be held accountable. I would really like to know how many knew that the state department and department of energy intelligence disagreed with the analyst from the CIA....I would really like to know that one....
 
#93
#93
KB5252 said:
First it would have to be proven that he did mislead or lie which hasn't been shown either way at this point. The burden of proof falls on you emain, not the other way around.

For the record I think some in his staff used info they knew could possibly be flawed but chose to use it to make the case anyway. Did Bush know, I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

I honestly believe he didn't want to know.
 
#94
#94
KB5252 said:
First it would have to be proven that he did mislead or lie which hasn't been shown either way at this point. The burden of proof falls on you emain, not the other way around.

For the record I think some in his staff used info they knew could possibly be flawed but chose to use it to make the case anyway. Did Bush know, I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

Whether he intentionally did it is the question. The fact is that there were no WMDs found and Saddam was not getting "yellowcake" from Africa. Using the information WAS misleading. I don't think that is debatable.

The issue that arises is that he either

a) knowingly used false info and intelligence to make his case
b) didn't know enough about the information and used it anyway
c) didn't care.

All three present major problems.
 
#96
#96
jcwvolfan said:
then the same must be said for any Dem that sated that SH was a danger and had WMD and/or voted for the resolution. Just curious, were we justified in invading Afghanistan?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


We were justified in invading Afghanistan.

I don't care much for any democrat that allowed themselves to be misled. Hell, I was very skeptical from the beginning and I have no power.
 
#97
#97
MG1968 said:
yeah. Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Matthews ring any bells?

I know you'll probably bring up Hannity, but one of the biggest differences between Hannity and Olbermann is that Hannity willingly engages with people who don't agree with him. Plus he's more than balanced by that obnoxious twit, Colmes.
Click to expand...

Is Hannity the only one you can come up with?
 
#98
#98
emainvol said:
Whether he intentionally did it is the question. The fact is that there were no WMDs found and Saddam was not getting "yellowcake" from Africa. Using the information WAS misleading. I don't think that is debatable.

The issue that arises is that he either

a) knowingly used false info and intelligence to make his case
b) didn't know enough about the information and used it anyway
c) didn't care.

All three present major problems.
Click to expand...

Joe Wilson's oral report to the CIA directly contradicts any public claims he made.

U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

it was an old stockpile, to be sure, but the claim that Hussein had no yellowcake and therefore no nuclear program isn't true.
 
#99
#99
emainvol said:
Whether he intentionally did it is the question. The fact is that there were no WMDs found and Saddam was not getting "yellowcake" from Africa. Using the information WAS misleading. I don't think that is debatable.

The issue that arises is that he either

a) knowingly used false info and intelligence to make his case
b) didn't know enough about the information and used it anyway
c) didn't care.

All three present major problems.
Click to expand...

Or d) The info was bad and he knew nothing about it. It kind of ties in with option b) but it implies that he is at fault for using the bad info. My point is intelligence is used by those making decisions at any level and any leader has to trust in the competence of the intelligence he is given unless he or she has good reason to doubt it. If he did then I would agree he is at fault.

I think if it was known to be questionable in some sense then it was kept from him on some level.
 
#100
#100
MG1968 said:
Joe Wilson's oral report to the CIA directly contradicts any public claims he made.

U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

it was an old stockpile, to be sure, but the claim that Hussein had no yellowcake and therefore no nuclear program isn't true.
Click to expand...

Weren't those leftovers from their program that existed before the first gulf war? The question was always whether they had an on-going nuclear program. We know they were doing it at one time...that's old news.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top