Nancy Pelosi regains my trust...

Yep! I misspoke. I admit when I'm wrong. Looks like I was wrong on who said what. But not in that they lied us into a war. Here is proof, and then it's your turn to admit you are wrong. If you're honest, that is.

Because Bush and Cheney were the source of that lie. Because he was told by Ambassador Wilson, whom Bush tasked with verifying if Nigeria was selling yellowcake to Nigeria, that they weren't.

It is not "spin". It's uncertain and difficult to ascertain. Numbers range from 400 thousand to 2 million. Probably a number in between. But estimates come from serious sources. And, in any case it's a lot of people.

 

You're claiming that Bush and Cheney told the CIA Director to lie about the WMDs in Iraq?

Irrelevant. The CIA Director was obligated to tell the truth to the top administration officials. And given he had no special obligations to Bush or Cheney (remember he was a Clinton appointee) there was no reason for him to lie about WMDs in Iraq.

 

Like 80 % of the Bush Admin, for the role of scapegoat, Georgie T skated off to a lucrative career in war profiteering.

In October 2006, Tenet joined British defense contractor Qinetiq as an independent non-executive director. Chairman John Chisholm noted Tenet's "extraordinary track record and experience in the fields of intelligence and security."[55] He stepped down from the board in October 2007 (his old position was taken by retired U.S. Navy Admiral Edmund Giambastiani)[56] as well as the board of forensic software company Guidance Software in November.[57] He joined Qinetiq's North America board as well as becoming managing director of investment bank Allen & Company. The secretive bank did not announce Tenet's appointment, and it was unknown until it was leaked in February of the following year

 

Yeah. As per the same sources that said that the CIA Director made the "slam dunk" comment. And you gave gate credibility tothat.

Well.. then lock him up! How does that do away with any of the lies Bush and Cheney made?

Who cares what his motivation was? This isn't about the CIA Director. This is about the President and the Vice-President lying.

 

If the CIA Director lies to the president and VP, they can't be blamed for passing on that information. What makes you think President Bush would have any better information than the CIA Director.

 

Of course they can!! Where did you think the buck stops.

In any case, if the CIA Director lies to them because they wanted to be lied to and.... they even planted the lie... then there is no doubt. And the source for my statement is the same as yours. So no cherry picking.

He probably didn't and just made it up. Which is the definition of "lie".

 

You said "probably". Which means you don't actually know.

Claiming the Bush Admin. lied about WMDs in Iraq makes no logical sense.
Explain the following to me:

This would mean that

1) The Bush Administration lied about the presence of WMDs in Iraq.
2) To justify an invasion of Iraq.
3) The invasion would inevitably reveal they lied about WMDs in the first place.

That makes no sense whatsoever. I've brought this point up a dozen times here on this forum and not once has anyone had a serious answer to it.

 

Of course it makes sense. Once we are in, and there is sufficient military success to accomplish whatever goals Cheney and Bush had, the 'lie' does not matter much. We are stuck anyway. Discovery is not a disincentive unless we collectively make it one. I don't see Cheney suffering any consequences, or Bush either. The big 'reveal' after the invasion isn't big enough.to reach them.

 

What I found funny is that right-wingers have been smearing Pelosi for years as a brain-damaged old fart who drools when she talks but she was sharp, focused and mature when confronting the great orange hope in their recent televised meeting.

 

nancys a freakn joke.

her district is covered in human feces and used drug needles.

 

I wasn't there, if that's what you mean. It could have been Cheney. I'm more inclined that it was Cheney, since he had the most to gain. Bottom line: somebody made it up. Among the suspects, the CIA Director was the one who had the least to gain and the most to lose. This should have been investigated, and all responsible identified and appropriately sanctioned.

Of course it doesn't makes sense. That's because it's your logic, and not mine.

To me it's prettty obvious that they didn't know for sure, but just assumed that there were. Because it was more "conveniente" Wishful thinking on their part was all they needed to ignore the actual evidence. They gambled with the life of thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Iraqis.

And they lost.... Scratch that: they won. Everybody else lost.

 

No matter Saddam Hussein's regime needed to be eliminated. and it was established U.S. policy to seek regime change in Iraq.

 

So your defense is that it's OK for the President to lie to the American people, and cause the death of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis because "the end justifies the means".

But it was an idiotic "end". Not only did it cause all those deaths during the war. It also destabilized the area and caused many more dead, even to this day people are dying. So remind me why Saddam needed to be removed? Was it you didn't like his mustache?

 

Any one who uses violence to defy the will of the United States must be eliminated if at all practical. It is only reasonable.

And the Middle East was hardly "stable" when Saddam Hussein was alive wouldn't you agree?

 

So, are you saying that Bush should be "eliminated"???? I would be happy if they had just investigated him and, if applicable, removed him from power.

No. We made it much worse. And we lost thousands of young kids in the process.

 

George W. Bush was president. Thus he was representative of the will of the United States.

And thousands of American service people get killed every year for various reasons. Accidents both day to day and in training. Homicides, suicides. At least in dying to eliminate an enemy of the U.S. (Hussein) they died for a reason.

 

Oh, I see. So, according to your "logic", when Bill Clinton was doing Monica Lewinsky, he was "representative of the will of the United States"

 

The principle does not apply to personal issues.

 

The Bush family's oil interests, and Cheney's ties to Halliburton weren't personal?

 

Neither President Bush nor Vice President Cheney had those interests while in office.

 

They sure did. And they expressed them by invading Iraq. There was no other reason to invade Iraq. Only personal. They did to Iraq exactly the same thing that Clinton did to Monica.

 

Prove it. With a verifiable link to an unbiased site.

 

Except it was U.S. policy as voted on by Congress to seek the elimination of the Iraqi government. A measure that was passed long before Bush and Cheney became President and VP.

 

You want a link to prove that they invaded Iraq????

 

Wrong! The resolution was to "support efforts" to remove Saddam. Not to remove him ourselves! That was Bush and Cheney's personal choice. Pretty much like Clinton's personal choice to do Monica.