Where's the followup question?

[2pac Shakur]

"I said it today and I said it at the last speech I gave ... I made the right decision. Knowing what I know today, I would have still made that decision," Bush said.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178741,00.html

So, let's say we went back in time. We haven't invaded Iraq. Bush knows Saddam doesn't have WMDs. Bush has said he would still invade.
How would you sell that to the American public?

(We already know the answer - with the Rendon group).

[Tim><]

And here it is: What follow up question?

[Y2Mozz]

"How would you sell the war to the American public?"

Answer: Rattle off some stuff about him financing suicide bombers, say some stuff about harboring AQ, etc. (it doesn't HAVE to be true, of course ;) ) and say he hates jews as much as kong

[2pac Shakur]

And here it is: What follow up question?

How would you sell that to the American public?

`

[Tim><]

Well there it is. Glad we wrapped that up.

[2pac Shakur]

Bush keeps saying that knowing what he knows now, he'd still make the same decision.
That's very telling.
Because, you see, Bush did know what he knows now. That's why he hired the Rendon Group. He did know Saddam didn't have nukes, yet he decided to lie about it, because he believed he was making the right decision.

[Listerine]

I disagree. His administration knew. He himself did not know.

That's what I think.

[Mayor Quimby]

Bush keeps saying that knowing what he knows now, he'd still make the same decision.
That's very telling.
Because, you see, Bush did know what he knows now. That's why he hired the Rendon Group. He did know Saddam didn't have nukes, yet he decided to lie about it, because he believed he was making the right decision.
I love that you talk about these things like you actually know stuff. :lol:

[fallout]

Bush keeps saying that knowing what he knows now, he'd still make the same decision.
That's very telling.
Because, you see, Bush did know what he knows now. That's why he hired the Rendon Group. He did know Saddam didn't have nukes, yet he decided to lie about it, because he believed he was making the right decision.


Kerry said the same thing.

[2pac Shakur]

Kerry said the same thing.

Kerry said Bush went in knowing there were no WMDs?

[2pac Shakur]

I love that you talk about these things like you actually know stuff. :lol:

I like when Bush does it.

[Riscalculator]

"I know that he knew that we knew when we knew. Before we knew, we didn't know, but he may not have known what we knew then. When we knew, we weren't sure what others knew about what we knew, but we certainly know he knew we knew. Thus, .... "

This thread is getting as ridiculous as a bunch of grade school kids arguing over their favorite sports teams without knowing the stats or W-L records.

The Left is repeatedly stating that Bush knew things at a past time that he says/ implies he didn't know then. So, where is the proof?

The right argues that Bush didn't know those things then, but how do they know without some proof?

This argument is ridiculous since no one has offered any proof. The blame lies mainly on the accusers for starting this debate without any proof of their claim. The 'innocent until proven guilty' assumption still applies in the US, right? The defenders are partly to blame for continuing to listen to the unsubstantiated claims by the accusers, and by replying to continue this empty debate.

[2pac Shakur]

"I know that he knew that we knew when we knew. Before we knew, we didn't know, but he may not have known what we knew then. When we knew, we weren't sure what others knew about what we knew, but we certainly know he knew we knew. Thus, .... "

This thread is getting as ridiculous as a bunch of grade school kids arguing over their favorite sports teams without knowing the stats or W-L records.

The Left is repeatedly stating that Bush knew things at a past time that he says/ implies he didn't know then. So, where is the proof?

The right argues that Bush didn't know those things then, but how do they know without some proof?

This argument is ridiculous since no one has offered any proof. The blame lies mainly on the accusers for starting this debate without any proof of their claim. The 'innocent until proven guilty' assumption still applies in the US, right? The defenders are partly to blame for continuing to listen to the unsubstantiated claims by the accusers, and by replying to continue this empty debate.

Maybe the GOP should encourage Robertson to continue his work. Or are they hiding something?
There's PLENTY of proof Bush's administration knew there were no WMDs when making the case for war.
Start with the contract for the Rendon group.

[Moe Szyslak]

Kerry said the same thing.
So?

[fallout]

So?


Kerry said knowing what I know now I would have voted the same way... blah blah blah...etc...

[Moe Szyslak]

Kerry said knowing what I know now I would have voted the same way... blah blah blah...etc...
So?

[Titania]

So?
Duh, Moe...because Kerry is an idiot too, it's OK that W is.

[Moe Szyslak]

Bush is still a bigger idiot because he made the same decision after 6 months of inspections turned up nothing. This has been pointed out to fallout many times, yet he still thinks he has a relevant point when he brings up Kerry.

[fallout]

So?


"So, let's say we went back in time. We haven't invaded Iraq. Bush knows Saddam doesn't have WMDs. Bush has said he would still invade.
How would you sell that to the American public?"

He should change "bush" to "America".

[fallout]

Bush is still a bigger idiot because he made the same decision after 6 months of inspections turned up nothing. This has been pointed out to fallout many times, yet he still thinks he has a relevant point when he brings up Kerry.


The funny thing is that Kerry STILL TODAY supports the invasion. After years fo being there!

You dem team players are extra funny this year.

[2pac Shakur]

"So, let's say we went back in time. We haven't invaded Iraq. Bush knows Saddam doesn't have WMDs. Bush has said he would still invade.
How would you sell that to the American public?"

He should change "bush" to "America".

"So, let's say we went back in time. We haven't invaded Iraq. America knows Saddam doesn't have WMDs. America has said he would still invade.
How would you sell that to the American public?"


That doesn't make any sense.

[fallout]

That doesn't make any sense.


Change "he" to America too.

[Moe Szyslak]

The funny thing is that Kerry STILL TODAY supports the invasion. After years fo being there!

You dem team players are extra funny this year.
Does he support the invasion AND the decision to invade? Those are two different things.

Either way, I really don't care. It is Kerry. I would rather have him as President, but it isn't because of his stance on Iraq.

[2pac Shakur]

Change "he" to America too.

Same response.

[fallout]

Same response.


Now change "we' to America.

[2pac Shakur]

"So, let's say America went back in time. America haven't invaded Iraq. America knows Saddam doesn't have WMDs. America has said America would still invade.
How would you sell that to the American public?"

Even less sense.

[Moe Szyslak]

Change "he" to America too.
I would if I thought you had a point. I would probably be disappointed once I completed the instructions. Ill just let you do the work for me. Thanks.

[Moe Szyslak]

Even less sense.
I agree.

[Riscalculator]

Proof that Bush lied?

Proof, anyone?

Anyone?

{ crickets chirping }

[Runge Kutta]

Does no one else find it disturbing that our president admitted that he would attack another country for no reason and have no regrets?

[Riscalculator]

Does no one else find it disturbing that our president admitted that he would attack another country for no reason and have no regrets?

Which Prez did that?

UN Resolution #1441 was the reason for invading Iraq, as a continuation of the Gulf War.

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was the reason for the first Gulf War in 1991.

Is it Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Germany? Oh, yeah; Germany never did anything to the US, but we attacked and invaded them. Is Germany and WWII the situation to which you are referring? If so, FDR owes us an explanation!

[Phaedrus]

Here is a link to resolution 1441: From the UN website (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement)

Amoung other things it points out that in resolution 687 that the burden of proof that Saddam's WMD's were destroyed would be on him. It was KNOWN that he had them. He used them, just ask the Kurds. He made every attempt to thwart the inspectors and kicked them out in 1998 (personally, this is when we should have invaded). This is like police going to a house with a meth lab with a warrant, then part way through the search the drug dealer (who happens to be on probation as well) saying, "I want you to leave now." and the cops actually leaving! Iraq is a country the size of California, much of it desert. Is it any surprise that when the next shift of cops came back to the house, the meth was gone? But gee, you sure do have a lot of Sudafed boxes lying around.

Also there have been links to AQ. It is debatable whether Iraq was involved with 9/11 (although there is evidence to support this as well, such as one of his lieutenants being present at a planning session), but even though Saddam didn't care for Osama (Saddam is a secularist), he saw the enemy of his enemy as his friend.

So in my opinion he is right. Whether WMD's have been found or not, going in was the right thing to do. He HAD WMD's and had shown that he would use them, and he had AQ ties.

[Runge Kutta]

Which Prez did that?

UN Resolution #1441 was the reason for invading Iraq, as a continuation of the Gulf War.




You cannot cite UN resolutions when the attack was carried forward despite the UN's objections. That's like a US citizen (in Texas) carrying out the death penalty on a suspected murderer and saying that it was justified under Texas law.

[2pac Shakur]

Does no one else find it disturbing that our president admitted that he would attack another country for no reason and have no regrets?

It's even more disturbing that he has already done just that.

[2pac Shakur]

Here is a link to resolution 1441: From the UN website (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement)

Amoung other things it points out that in resolution 687 that the burden of proof that Saddam's WMD's were destroyed would be on him. It was KNOWN that he had them. He used them, just ask the Kurds.

That was a long time ago. Nobody cared back then, so why should it suddenly be important today?


He made every attempt to thwart the inspectors and kicked them out in 1998 (personally, this is when we should have invaded). This is like police going to a house with a meth lab with a warrant, then part way through the search the drug dealer (who happens to be on probation as well) saying, "I want you to leave now." and the cops actually leaving!

Nice story.
Except we kicked the inspectors out - not Iraq. I keep having to correct people on this.


Iraq is a country the size of California, much of it desert. Is it any surprise that when the next shift of cops came back to the house, the meth was gone? But gee, you sure do have a lot of Sudafed boxes lying around.


There were no WMDs.
They weren't shipped to Syria. They had been destroyed. Just like Saddam told us they were. Turns out he was being more honest than Bush.

Also there have been links to AQ. It is debatable whether Iraq was involved with 9/11 (although there is evidence to support this as well, such as one of his lieutenants being present at a planning session), but even though Saddam didn't care for Osama (Saddam is a secularist), he saw the enemy of his enemy as his friend.

Nope. No links to AQ.
We are the enemy of Iran, Saddam went to war with Iran. I guess he saw us has his friend.



So in my opinion he is right. Whether WMD's have been found or not, going in was the right thing to do. He HAD WMD's and had shown that he would use them, and he had AQ ties.


It was the wrong thing to do, but Bush's friends, and Cheney's old company sure will make a LOT of money. Coincidentally.

[Phaedrus]

That was a long time ago. Nobody cared back then, so why should it suddenly be important today?

We should have cared sooner. Maybe we thought no one would be crazy enough to use it on us. But when it was demonstrated that people were willing to commit large scale murder, it bumped things up the priority list.

Nice story.
Except we kicked the inspectors out - not Iraq. I keep having to correct people on this.

I would like to see the evidence on this. If you have read resolution 1441, you will see that the expulsion of the investigators is one of the first things on the list. And the UN is no friend of the Bush administration(or the US for that matter). As people love to point out, alot of people around the world don't like America, and every little country has the same vote in the Gen Assem as we do. The only thing that saves us is our veto on the Security Council(which doesn't shape policy that much...just keeps things from happening to us)

There were no WMDs.
They weren't shipped to Syria. They had been destroyed. Just like Saddam told us they were. Turns out he was being more honest than Bush.

Once again see resolution 1441, which if I recall correctly was passed unanimously
Nope. No links to AQ.
"There were connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree on that."
"What we have found is, were there contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes, some of them were shadowy - but they were there."
"The staff report (of the 9/11 Commission) indicates that there was considerable interaction between Bin Laden and Iraq ... it was clear that they're fellow travelers."
"It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world .... He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel .... We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future."

I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

We are the enemy of Iran, Saddam went to war with Iran. I guess he saw us has his friend.

Actually, he used us as a friend during the 80's. I wouldn't be surprised if we supplied him with WMDs in the 80s to fight Iran

It was the wrong thing to do, but Bush's friends, and Cheney's old company sure will make a LOT of money. Coincidentally.

Let me just check for consistancy.

What was the motivation for Clinton getting involved in Bosnia? Or bombing the aspirin factory?

What was Reagan's motivation in Iran/Contra?

What was JFK's motivation for Vietnam?

Did FDR know about Pearl Harbor in advance? If so, what was his motivation?

If FDR,JFK, and Clinton were noble, and Bush and Reagan were evil, then you are blatently biased. If all were evil, then you are at least consistantly cynical.

Regardless of motivations, I still think some of these were the right thing to do, and some weren't, on both sides. Which is more important, motivation or outcome?

[2pac Shakur]

We should have cared sooner. Maybe we thought no one would be crazy enough to use it on us. But when it was demonstrated that people were willing to commit large scale murder, it bumped things up the priority list.


So we supported his using those chemical weapons way back when.
Then, after he destroyed said weapons, we decided to do something about it.
Yup, makes perfect sense to me.
I think that next stop oughta be China. I'm still ticked off about Tianamen.


I would like to see the evidence on this. If you have read resolution 1441, you will see that the expulsion of the investigators is one of the first things on the list. And the UN is no friend of the Bush administration(or the US for that matter). As people love to point out, alot of people around the world don't like America, and every little country has the same vote in the Gen Assem as we do. The only thing that saves us is our veto on the Security Council(which doesn't shape policy that much...just keeps things from happening to us)


RITTER: That's right. Then why did the United States pick up the phone in December 1998 and order the inspectors out -- let's remember Saddam Hussein didn't kick the inspectors out. The U.S. ordered the inspectors out 48 hours before they initiated Operation Desert Fox -- military action that didn't have the support of the U.N. Security Council and which used information gathered by the inspectors, to target Iraq.


http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/17/saddam.ritter.cnna/


Let me just check for consistancy.

What was the motivation for Clinton getting involved in Bosnia? Or bombing the the aspirin factory?

What was Reagan's motivation in Iran/Contra?

What was JFK's motivation for Vietnam?

Did FDR know about Pearl Harbor in advance? If so, what was his motivation?

If FDR,JFK, and Clinton were noble, and Bush and Reagan were evil, then you are blatently biased. If all were evil, then you are at least consistantly cynical.

Regardless of motivations, I still think some of these were the right thing to do, and some weren't, on both sides. Which is more important, motivation or outcome?


Those examples are reasons Americans should be upset with what Bush did in Iraq. Letting a President decide what is best for America, without letting them in on it, is not how a democracy works. It is also a very scary idea when you think about a nimrod like W having his finger on the button thinking he has the right to decide what is in the best interest of the rest of the world.




Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.



NBC, MSNBC and news services
Updated: 8:11 p.m. ET Jan. 8, 2004

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell reversed a year of administration policy, acknowledging Thursday that he had seen no “smoking gun [or] concrete evidence” of ties between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/3909150/

[Phaedrus]

So we supported his using those chemical weapons way back when.
Then, after he destroyed said weapons, we decided to do something about it.
Yup, makes perfect sense to me.
I think that next stop oughta be China. I'm still ticked off about Tianamen.

We still had not established that they were destroyed. This makes is totally different from Tianamen, not to mention Tianamen did not put us at risk.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/m...m.ritter.cnna/

Couple issues here. 1st they were pulled out in December because on August 5 of that same year Iraq ceased all cooperation with the inspectors...thus leading to the military operation named Operation Desert Fox. Although it was half-a**ed, three days of bombing and then nothing...except that it might have distracted a few people from Monica's testimony going on at the same time. Why did the inspectors not go back except that Iraq still refused to cooperate.

2nd from Ritters own mouth, 90-95% of stock was accounted for. The problem with WMDs is that even 5% can do a lot of damage.

3rd, Ritter says that Iraq continually lied and obstructed, but that they caught every lie. Isn't this a little presumptuous? Someone is continually lying to you, and you think that you couldn't have missed a single lie?

Those examples are reasons Americans should be upset with what Bush did in Iraq
I am guessing this is a vote for consistantly cynical?

Letting a President decide what is best for America, without letting them in on it, is not how a democracy works. It is also a very scary idea when you think about a nimrod like W having his finger on the button thinking he has the right to decide what is in the best interest of the rest of the world.

If you've read the Constitution and the Federalist papers, you would know that we are not a democracy. In fact, the framers of the Constitution made every effort to prevent us from becomming one, as democracy is rule of the mob. The U.S. is a democratic republic. This means that we choose leader that we trust(ideally) to represent our interests. Like it or not, Bush was chosen twice, no matter how many times they tried to recount FL, even independently after the decision was made. Especially in matters of security, not all information can be taken to the people, as that may put sources at risk, or dry up sources that need to be maintained.

Also is nimrod supposed to be a reference to intelligence? Why does everyone who dislikes Bush try to paint him as stupid? His IQ testing in military records for officer candidacy show him to be in the 95th percentile (not as high as me :wink: but 2 points higher than Kerry on the same tests who was supposed to be the more intellectual candidate).

As far as the AQ link goes, I'll have to do more research later, it is getting late. But faulty intelligence <> conspiracy. Our intelligence agencies were stripped in the 90's

Just out of curiousity. In the late 1930's would you have supported Chamberlain or Churchhill?

[Runge Kutta]

We still had not established that they were destroyed. This makes is totally different from Tianamen, not to mention Tianamen did not put us at risk.

Seriously, how exactly were we at risk?


If you've read the Constitution and the Federalist papers, you would know that we are not a democracy. In fact, the framers of the Constitution made every effort to prevent us from becomming one, as democracy is rule of the mob. The U.S. is a democratic republic. This means that we choose leader that we trust(ideally) to represent our interests. Like it or not, Bush was chosen twice, no matter how many times they tried to recount FL, even independently after the decision was made. Especially in matters of security, not all information can be taken to the people, as that may put sources at risk, or dry up sources that need to be maintained.

Some level of accountability needs to be maintained. That is, the administration in the White House cannot be immune from public scrutiny.


Why does everyone who dislikes Bush try to paint him as stupid? His IQ testing in military records for officer candidacy show him to be in the 95th percentile.

Seriously, what does the IQ test actually measure?

[Phaedrus]

Seriously, how exactly were we at risk?

The debate about AQ links is still open, but regardless of what we know(or think we know) now, we need to look at what we knew(or thought we knew) at the time. And at the time there was evidence(faulty or not) that he had AQ ties. He had motive, he hates the entire Bush family, and tried to kill Bush Sr. All he would have to do is supply AQ with a small amount of bio or chem weapons, to be snuck into this country.

Some level of accountability needs to be maintained. That is, the administration in the White House cannot be immune from public scrutiny.

There is congressional oversight when it comes to security matters. People on the committee see the same intelligence that the president does. And in the end, there is always election day (both for the president and the members of the oversight committee). Once again, not everything can be public for the sake of protecting and maintaining sources.

Seriously, what does the IQ test actually measure?

An intelligence quotient or IQ is a score derived from a set of standardized tests developed to measure a person's cognitive abilities ("intelligence") in relation to their age group. An IQ test does not measure intelligence the way a ruler measures height (absolutely), but rather the way a race measures speed (relatively). For people living in the prevailing conditions of the developed world, IQ is highly heritable, and by adulthood the influence of family environment on IQ is undetectable. IQ test scores are correlated with measures of brain structure and function, as well as performance on simple tasks that anyone can complete within a few seconds. IQ is strongly correlated with academic success, but can also predict important life outcomes such as job performance, socioeconomic advancement, and "social pathologies". Recent work has demonstrated links between IQ and health, longevity, and functional literacy.

I use IQ because it is the only objective measure I have access to, as opposed to, "I disagree with you, so you must be a poopoo head."

[2pac Shakur]

We still had not established that they were destroyed. This makes is totally different from Tianamen, not to mention Tianamen did not put us at risk.

As mentioned already - Iraq put us at risk how?




Couple issues here. 1st they were pulled out in December because on August 5 of that same year Iraq ceased all cooperation with the inspectors...thus leading to the military operation named Operation Desert Fox. Although it was half-a**ed, three days of bombing and then nothing...except that it might have distracted a few people from Monica's testimony going on at the same time. Why did the inspectors not go back except that Iraq still refused to cooperate.

2nd from Ritters own mouth, 90-95% of stock was accounted for. The problem with WMDs is that even 5% can do a lot of damage.

3rd, Ritter says that Iraq continually lied and obstructed, but that they caught every lie. Isn't this a little presumptuous? Someone is continually lying to you, and you think that you couldn't have missed a single lie?

That's all nice and good, but we agree that the USA removed the inspectors, right? That was your original point, which was proven wrong, and now you are trying to change the subject. We kicked the inspectors out, so quit repeating the false claim that Saddam kicked them out.


I am guessing this is a vote for consistantly cynical?

Correct.



If you've read the Constitution and the Federalist papers, you would know that we are not a democracy. In fact, the framers of the Constitution made every effort to prevent us from becomming one, as democracy is rule of the mob. The U.S. is a democratic republic. This means that we choose leader that we trust(ideally) to represent our interests. Like it or not, Bush was chosen twice, no matter how many times they tried to recount FL, even independently after the decision was made. Especially in matters of security, not all information can be taken to the people, as that may put sources at risk, or dry up sources that need to be maintained.

You mean the Constitution that grudgingly accepted national defense?
Where in national defense does it call for pre-emptive invasions?
If you learned about the constitution, you'd realize the founding forefathers didn't even want a standing army, much less a President above the law, pre-emptively going into another sovereign nation. And the Congress signing over the war powers act - that went against the Constitution from the get-go. SO, this whole "war" (which we haven't declared) is unconstitutional. The fact is, we can't let one man, even if he is a President from your party, going off and doing as he pleases. That's not how our system (whatever you wanna call it) works.

Also is nimrod supposed to be a reference to intelligence? Why does everyone who dislikes Bush try to paint him as stupid? His IQ testing in military records for officer candidacy show him to be in the 95th percentile (not as high as me :wink: but 2 points higher than Kerry on the same tests who was supposed to be the more intellectual candidate).

Ever listened to any time he's spoken unscripted?
Just randomly google "Bush text Question Answer" and read some of his exchanges. You won't need to ask that question again.

As far as the AQ link goes, I'll have to do more research later, it is getting late. But faulty intelligence <> conspiracy. Our intelligence agencies were stripped in the 90's


Isn't that the same intelligence Bush kept claiming was "darned good intelligence"? There was plenty of good intelligence coming in. Bush just chose to ignore it.

Just out of curiousity. In the late 1930's would you have supported Chamberlain or Churchhill?

Not sure.
I don't know a whole hell of a lot about either of them. :oops:

[2pac Shakur]

The debate about AQ links is still open, but regardless of what we know(or think we know) now, we need to look at what we knew(or thought we knew) at the time. And at the time there was evidence(faulty or not) that he had AQ ties. He had motive, he hates the entire Bush family, and tried to kill Bush Sr. All he would have to do is supply AQ with a small amount of bio or chem weapons, to be snuck into this country.

No it's not.
There is no link.
And that story about trying to kill Bush's daddy is bogus. Do some research.



There is congressional oversight when it comes to security matters. People on the committee see the same intelligence that the president does. And in the end, there is always election day (both for the president and the members of the oversight committee). Once again, not everything can be public for the sake of protecting and maintaining sources.

They did not see the same intelligence, no matter how many times Rove tells Bush to say that they did.





I use IQ because it is the only objective measure I have access to, as opposed to, "I disagree with you, so you must be a poopoo head."

Bush is dumb.

[Phaedrus]

NBC, MSNBC and news services
Updated: 8:11 p.m. ET Jan. 8, 2004

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell reversed a year of administration policy, acknowledging Thursday that he had seen no “smoking gun [or] concrete evidence” of ties between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/3909150/

If you just look at the next words out of he mouth you also see that Powell says:

“I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed”

[2pac Shakur]

If you just look at the next words out of he mouth you also see that Powell says:

“I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed,” he said

He also believed WMDs exist.

As a very *smart guy once said:
"Fool me, um fool is um fooling, uh, fool me once shame on um shame on who is it shame on? oh yea, shame on you fool me um fooling fooler, um can't get fooled again!

* I know the guy is smart, because I keep hearing he scored in the 95th percentile in the military.

[Phaedrus]

As a very *smart guy once said:
"Fool me, um fool is um fooling, uh, fool me once shame on um shame on who is it shame on? oh yea, shame on you fool me um fooling fooler, um can't get fooled again!

Misspeaking/tongue-tied <> lack of intelligence. I am sure if there was a microphone shoved in your face 24/7 we could record some real whoopers.

* I know the guy is smart, because I keep hearing he scored in the 95th percentile in the military.

Let's clarify. Not 95% of those in the military, but 95% of the general population, since this is how IQ is measured. Your IQ is basically relative on a normal curve with \mu=100 and \sigma=15. And as I said, I use IQ because it is the only OBJECTIVE measure available to me.

[2pac Shakur]

Misspeaking/tongue-tied <> lack of intelligence. I am sure if there was a microphone shoved in your face 24/7 we could record some real whoopers.

Not as many as we get from Bush.



Let's clarify. Not 95% of those in the military, but 95% of the general population, since this is how IQ is measured. Your IQ is basically relative on a normal curve with \mu=100 and \sigma=15. And as I said, I use IQ because it is the only OBJECTIVE measure available to me.

I use empirical evidence.
You go ahead and stick to some test you think he might have done well on at some point maybe.

[Phaedrus]

They did not see the same intelligence, no matter how many times Rove tells Bush to say that they did.

If you mean by this that they do not receive carbon copies of the same reports then you are correct. The POTUS receives summary reports for the sake of time. If you mean that they do not have access to the same information then you are wrong.

From the FAQ of the Intelligence Committee:
The Committee’s Jurisdiction is over the 1) the Intelligence community and the Director of Central Intelligence 2) Intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and other agencies of the Department of Defense, and the Departments of State, Justice, and Treasury. 3) The organization, or reorganization, of any department or agency to the extent that it relates to a function or activity involving intelligence or intelligence-related activities. 4) Direct and indirect authorizations for the CIA and director of Central Intelligence, the DIA, and NSA, and all other agencies and subdivisions of DOD, the Department of State, and the FBI, including all activities of the intelligence division.

[Phaedrus]

Not as many as we get from Bush.

I use empirical evidence.
You go ahead and stick to some test you think he might have done well on at some point maybe.

I by no means consider IQ to be a perfect measure of intelligence, but I would imagine that it has a smaller margin of error than your empirical evidence of a man you have never met, based on sound bites meant to entertain selected by journalists that by and large are hostile to the man.

He also believed WMDs exist.[in reference to Powell earlier]

We still do not know that they diddn't exist. Your own source lists 5-10% unaccounted for, and not finding <> not existing.

[2pac Shakur]

LONDON (AFP) – Tony Blair's admission that Britain would have backed the Iraq war even if he knew it did not have weapons of mass destruction sparked outrage Sunday and calls for his prosecution for war crimes.

The former British prime minister, who backed the US-led invasion in 2003, told the BBC he would "still have thought it right to remove" Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein because of the threat he posed to the region.

Lawyers representing the deposed Iraqi leadership said they would seek to prosecute Blair following his remarks, while one newspaper commentator said it was a "game-changing admission" for the ongoing official inquiry into the war.

Former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix added: "The war was sold on the WMD, and now you feel, or hear that it was only a question of deployment of arguments, as he said, it sounds a bit like a fig leaf that was held up."

Blair is due to give evidence to the inquiry into the war, led by former civil servant John Chilcot, early next year, and the commentator in the Sunday Telegraph said the investigation's focus must now change.

"Mr Blair's game-changing admission gives them a licence to be tougher and more prosecutorial," he wrote, a call echoed by campaigners at Stop the War Coalition, who urged Chilcot's inquiry to recommend legal action against Blair.

Professor Philippe Sands, a leading international lawyer, said he believed Blair's comments had left him vulnerable to legal proceedings.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091213/wl_mideast_afp/britainiraqpoliticsinquirymilitaryblair

Bush already made this admission.