Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
It is highly probable. but I just dont have the insight into each decision made by a politician to know his underlying motives with such certainty...so I dont make blanket generalizations.
It seems to me Kucinich shares a personal quality or trait with Bush/Cheney... "they say what they mean and mean what they say" and "are unwavering, even in spite of public opinion" (paraphrasing your words). You find it admirable in Bush/Cheney and characterize it as less than noble in Kucinich. Go figure.
ace....do you thiink Bush lied to the American people when he said: On Meet the Press, Feb 04:
President Bush: I went to Congress with the same intelligence — Congress saw the same intelligence I had, and they looked at exactly what I looked at, and they made an informed judgment based upon the information that I had. The same information, by the way, that my predecessor had. And all of us, you know, made this judgment that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/
or in this speech on Veterans Day 05:
That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0051111-1.html
|
No. I think he refers to information made public and available prior to the invasion that Sadaam was in violation of UN resolutions, Sadaam used weapons of mass Destruction, Sadaam was supporting terrorist (at least their families), and that if Sadaam had nuclear weapons it would be a direct threat. I think these were the reasons Congress and people in the prior administration thought he was a threat.
Host,
Here is your second item:
Quote:
December 9, 2001
The Vice President Appears on NBC's Meet the Press
.......RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no.
Since that time, a couple of articles have appeared which I want to get you to react to. The first: The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out..
........RUSSERT: The plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers.
Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?
CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.
Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue...........
|
First - Rusert states that Cheney stated there was no direct connection between Iraq and Al Queda regarding 9/11. Cheney refers to the intellegence released by the Czech saying the report was confirmed. Has there been any evidence disputing the Czech intelligence? How did Cheney lie?
Then Cheney says we want to look into the meeting further. Where is the lie?
What was the point of you posting this information, it doesn't seem to support your position and in-fact contradicts your position by an independent source, Russert.
Should we continue, do you want to start over with your best case, or what?