Replies

Read my post again. I never said Mr. Blair was right, just that he is sticking by his intel that tells him Saddam was trying to purchase nuke materials.

If he really cared about what clinton wants or thinks, Blair would have sided with Amb. Wilson and others to discredit GWB. Since trying to discredit GWB is clinton's full time job at this point.

Politics is such a tricky thing, sure Blair likes to suck up to the toon, it makes his leftie buddies gleeful. However Blair is smart enough to know which side his scone is buttered on. That would be the side where he sides with the U.S. no matter who's prez because he understands the importance of ridding the world of terrorists.

Sorry I don't buy that crock of horsesh**.. you know that strips and never changin thingy...

Don't be such a nave, sometimes politicians do what's right.

Then there's this little tidbit in the July 11th Washington Post story about the CIA's effort to get the British to strip the reference to the Niger purchase from their official government dossier:

"We consulted about the paper and recommended against using that material," a senior administration official familiar with the intelligence program said. The British government rejected the U.S. suggestion, saying it had separate intelligence unavailable to the United States.

Putting the two stories together it seems reasonable to believe that the CIA was running around warning various people at various times about the "sketchy" nature of the Niger intel, but that there also still existed at least some evidence in September 2002 suggesting that the Niger story wasn't totally bogus. It also seems that there was some general confusion among the various high-level players in the administration as to who had seen which drafts of the speech, when they'd seen them and what they'd approved or thought had been approved.

Based on what we know so far, you can either believe that a mistake was made by allowing a claim based on questionable intelligence into Bush's State of the Union OR you can believe the President of the United States got up in front of the world and knowingly used information that had already been proved to be completely fraudulent to bolster the case for going to war.

In my mind the more plausible answer is that the administration failed to properly coordinate and vet the intelligence used in the speech. A mistake was made. The administration has admitted such. Does the fact that it was the SOTU magnify the mistake? Yes. And does the fact that it was related to the issue of going to war magnify the error even more? Of course.

It is certainly the right of liberals and Democrat presidential candidates to believe there was a vast conspiracy to mislead the American public and to scream "BUSH LIED" at the top of their lungs, but it strikes me as a little overly dramatic (even bordering on hysterical) and may not play quite as well with the public as they hope.

*************************

Hmmmmmmm, a little overly dramatic, sounds like a certain 19 year old journalist.

Betty,

First, Thank you for your well thought out reply. IMHO only, that is what Ms. Crawford was hoping for when she posted this thread.

Second, the only reason I came to this thread, as I try to stay away from he said, she said threads, was I saw someone attacking in the most stupid manner..again..IMHO only.

For here you have someone that clearly is 100% GOP, so much as that her tag line ask for others to send money to her choice. But what does she do, does she politely show other posters why he/she is her choice, no. Does she debate them is a civil manner, no. She attacks someone who "may" see things different then she does. And then wants others to come and "voiced" thier displeasure with this writer. Over a stupid little IMHO only, so-called point. Going so far as to hold her children up as models, to show how "bad" this other poster is. (It reminds me of my 1st grade playground days)

Talk about playing right into the hands of Ms. Clinton and her comments about how the GOP can't debate her over the cost of running the Government, only personal attacks.

If Mom really wants us to send money to Bush, she may want to remember that some of need a reason to Vote for him. Not just that he's not Hillary. Because some of us have read the bills signed into Law, and see where , when it comes down to it, he isn't alot different than what was there before, (and is some cases, he's worse on Constitutional issues) outside the personal behavior issue.