Hillary Clinton lived in the White House for more than two of the four years she referenced in the speech quoted by Bigfoot. Her active participation in the workings of that Administration were widely known, so it can be assumed her information came from highly placed sources reporting to the White House, as well as from information given to the Senate.
Did Hillary Clinton "manipulate" the information she received and then referenced?
If she did, what was her motive?
I try, I really try, to understand the desperation of the Left to believe that the country was, somehow, misled into war. I try, I really try, to see how anyone can honestly cherry-pick information which supports only such a negative (and historically contra-indicated) view. The key word here is "honestly".
I end up thinking that these people know, deep down, that the information they invest so much energy into denying really does exist---but it is, to quote a Lefty idol, an "inconvenient truth" so they deny ir or ignore it and pretend it just isn't there, and obsess on the few points that they can use to support their preferred points of view.
Remember, these are the same people who fervently defend the Moore propaganda as actual documentaries, in the face of the abundant proof that they are full of lies and distortions and created only to slime the administration.
I try to be tolerant. I try to be generous. I know that some on the Left are simply good-hearted naive I'd Like To Give The World A Hug people, who just don't analyze things very far below the surface. But I find myself increasingly intolerant of the radical demogogues who, I believe, know the truth but lie about it because they prefer to advance an agenda which is opposite to that the facts would support.
Look at jpe's comment, that the "this .... (report on supposed manipulation of intelligence) was quashed by the senate GOP...." No reference, nothing to back it up---it sounds suspiciously like one of those throwaway comments used so successfully on Air America, one of those falsehoods which are tossed out there to be snapped up by the gullible to be regurgitated in some argument at a later date.
Disagreement among "experts" is not uncommon. I would bet that you could go to any group of "experts" working on any project and find disagreement among them. How many soldiers are needed in Iraq, what kind of fender to put on the new Ford Focus, whether to buy or sell a certain stock, whether to use real wood or Hardi-Plank cementitious siding, which is the best thruster for the space shuttle, etc. The mere existence of an opposing viewpoint is proof of nothing other than that there is an opposing viewpoint. Trying to use the EXISTENCE of an opposing viewpoint to prove that the prevailing view is wrong is, simply, silly. Convenient as all-get-out for those who don't agree with the prevailing view, but not at all convincing.
And the neorad fanatics who line up to attack the Iraq invasion decision made by the administration also ignore the fact that they simply don't know everything the administration knows. They think that what they have been told is all there is. They remind me of the group of blind men "examining" an elephant. One KNOWS it is like a snake, because he has the proof---the trunk--in his hand. One knows, with equal certainty, that it is like a tree. And so on. Only one who can stand back and see how the parts fit together can see the true elephant, but the guy with the ear will believe with all his heart that he knows the elephant is like a broad leaf, and the guy with the tail has a completely different perspective, and is equally convinced that he is right and the others are wrong.
In spite of all the ridiculous claims made by the Left about the supposed motivations for the invasion of Iraq, the reasons given were, and are, the reasons for going to war. The Left's arguments against going into Iraq are based on an impossibility---that if we had not invaded, Iraq today would be the same as it was in 2003. Sure, if we could have frozen Iraq in exactly the same condition and circumstance it was in at that time, we might be able to live with it today. It would mean turning a blind eye to the rampant torture and slaughter of so many thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, but some would find it easy to ignore that. It would mean knowing that terrorists worldwide were receiving training and funding from Iraq, but we could probably live with that, as we had been living with it for so long.
But the assumption that an Iraq ignored in 2002/03 would be the Iraq the world has to live with in 2006 is simply not realistic. While no one has a crystal ball to let us know how Iraq would have changed without intervention, the signs back then pointed to a much more dangerous Iraq down the road without that intervention. Dangerous to us, that is, and to all of Western civilization.
The funniest thing to come out of the Left for years is the passion for a book and movie titled "An Inconvenient Truth" when inconvenient truths are so resolutely denied by this very group.
"No Saddam-Al Qaeda link"????
Consider this quote:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members."
Senator Hillary Clinton, 10/10/2002, emphasis added
In case anyone thinks that her statement is based on intelligence "manipulated" by Bush, do some basic math. 2002 minus "four years" goes back to 1998, before Bush even had the chance to manipulate or mislead anyone outside of Texas. If there was any change in the intelligence starting around 1/2001, the Senator doesn't mention it here.
Sources:
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
Matt, these kooks are all up in arms because President Bush is out there making some kick-ass speeches about Iraq--the CENTRAL FRONT IN THE WAR ON TERROR!!!
They're also trying to create a stir to divert attention to the 9/11 docu-drama that may or may not air on ABC on Sunday and Monday nights. Also, they're trying to bury their failures in the Plamegate affair, an affair that should have folks looking at one of their own, Chuckie Schlumer.
Get out the vote, GOP--stay home at your peril. These donks will get us all killed...
"Just got off of a conference call on the new intelligence report."
Heh. Funny how the libs on here are constantly attacked for spouting "talking points."
Bush over-stated the threat to get backing for the invasion. This report CLEARLY backs up that theory.
I guess, as Mark has shown, it's time to attack the messanger.
so i guess its ok to make a doc thats full of b.s like mr moore's flim but now abc is bad for making the libs and dems look rightfully bad. pretty pathetic slick willy...
TS,
Have you read the report? Or are you just spewing liberal talking points that it CLEARLY shows that the Bush Administration overstated the threat?
I am so ashamed of Hagel. He started out showing some real promise, but has been suckered by the left's "we can't win" propaganda. If he ever sees the error of his ways he will have a lot to appoligize for.
Have you read the report? Or are you just spewing liberal talking points that it CLEARLY shows that the Bush Administration overstated the threat?
Uh, A-10, you're talking about Shipley here--of course he's parroting talking points. That's all they have. And his hero, Slicky Blue-Dress, enabled 9/11 to occur.
So, now we invaded Iraq because Al-Zarqawi was there? Bwahahaha!!!
The White House needs to stay out in front on this issue--Rockefeller, Levin, et.al., on the left do have the DBM on their side to advance their lies.
The DBM is your biased press, Tom. BTW Tom, I have two words for you--can you guess what they are, asshat?
The additional comments of Roberts,Hatch and Chambliss discuss an amendment requested by Levin,but voted down by the majority,to include additional information from outside the 2002 NIE that pointed out the alternative views from INR and others at the time that the intelligence assessments about the nuclear program for example differed from the NIE.Those alternative views were that Saddam did not possess nuclear weapons or a program to reconstitute them. So Hagel and Snowe weren't quite willing to go wholly to the other side.
However,as Roberts et al further note in bold,the 2002 NIE (prewar assessments of Iraq's nuclear,chemical biological weapons and programs) as well as the report's conclusion about Al Qaeda's connnection's to Iraq were wrong.
There were to be 2 reports: the first on whether intelligence agents were pressured, the second on whether that intelligence was manipulated. (this second was quashed by the senate GOP). For someone that hasn't been a coma for the past few years, then, Rock's comment makes perfect sense.
Idiot.
"DON'T TRUST ROCKEFELLER" AND DON'T TRUST ANY DEMOCRAT FOR THAT MATTER!! THEY ARE UN-TRUSTWORTHY LIARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If we want to remain tough on terrorism then we need to remain conservative in order to accomplish our goal of eradicating terrorism!
... and let's keep democrats (terrorists) out of our secret intelligence programs, bc, they give away our secrets to the TO the terrorists!
You see folks? Democrats work hand in hand with Al qaeda and them other DOMD (demons of mass destruction) ... let's put a STOP to the obstruction by liberal hatemongers.
BTW ... tell Byrd, he needs to GIVE IT UP! He's another liberal who has hindered this country's progress! liberals are GREEDY people. Grubbing for every bit of power they can get their greedy hands on, they are TYRANNIZERS,COMMUNISTS!!!!!
DON'T LET IT HAPPEN PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jeremiah
Hillary Clinton lived in the White House for more than two of the four years she referenced in the speech quoted by Bigfoot. Her active participation in the workings of that Administration were widely known, so it can be assumed her information came from highly placed sources reporting to the White House, as well as from information given to the Senate.
Did Hillary Clinton "manipulate" the information she received and then referenced?
If she did, what was her motive?
I try, I really try, to understand the desperation of the Left to believe that the country was, somehow, misled into war. I try, I really try, to see how anyone can honestly cherry-pick information which supports only such a negative (and historically contra-indicated) view. The key word here is "honestly".
I end up thinking that these people know, deep down, that the information they invest so much energy into denying really does exist---but it is, to quote a Lefty idol, an "inconvenient truth" so they deny ir or ignore it and pretend it just isn't there, and obsess on the few points that they can use to support their preferred points of view.
Remember, these are the same people who fervently defend the Moore propaganda as actual documentaries, in the face of the abundant proof that they are full of lies and distortions and created only to slime the administration.
I try to be tolerant. I try to be generous. I know that some on the Left are simply good-hearted naive I'd Like To Give The World A Hug people, who just don't analyze things very far below the surface. But I find myself increasingly intolerant of the radical demogogues who, I believe, know the truth but lie about it because they prefer to advance an agenda which is opposite to that the facts would support.
Look at jpe's comment, that the "this .... (report on supposed manipulation of intelligence) was quashed by the senate GOP...." No reference, nothing to back it up---it sounds suspiciously like one of those throwaway comments used so successfully on Air America, one of those falsehoods which are tossed out there to be snapped up by the gullible to be regurgitated in some argument at a later date.
Disagreement among "experts" is not uncommon. I would bet that you could go to any group of "experts" working on any project and find disagreement among them. How many soldiers are needed in Iraq, what kind of fender to put on the new Ford Focus, whether to buy or sell a certain stock, whether to use real wood or Hardi-Plank cementitious siding, which is the best thruster for the space shuttle, etc. The mere existence of an opposing viewpoint is proof of nothing other than that there is an opposing viewpoint. Trying to use the EXISTENCE of an opposing viewpoint to prove that the prevailing view is wrong is, simply, silly. Convenient as all-get-out for those who don't agree with the prevailing view, but not at all convincing.
And the neorad fanatics who line up to attack the Iraq invasion decision made by the administration also ignore the fact that they simply don't know everything the administration knows. They think that what they have been told is all there is. They remind me of the group of blind men "examining" an elephant. One KNOWS it is like a snake, because he has the proof---the trunk--in his hand. One knows, with equal certainty, that it is like a tree. And so on. Only one who can stand back and see how the parts fit together can see the true elephant, but the guy with the ear will believe with all his heart that he knows the elephant is like a broad leaf, and the guy with the tail has a completely different perspective, and is equally convinced that he is right and the others are wrong.
In spite of all the ridiculous claims made by the Left about the supposed motivations for the invasion of Iraq, the reasons given were, and are, the reasons for going to war. The Left's arguments against going into Iraq are based on an impossibility---that if we had not invaded, Iraq today would be the same as it was in 2003. Sure, if we could have frozen Iraq in exactly the same condition and circumstance it was in at that time, we might be able to live with it today. It would mean turning a blind eye to the rampant torture and slaughter of so many thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, but some would find it easy to ignore that. It would mean knowing that terrorists worldwide were receiving training and funding from Iraq, but we could probably live with that, as we had been living with it for so long.
But the assumption that an Iraq ignored in 2002/03 would be the Iraq the world has to live with in 2006 is simply not realistic. While no one has a crystal ball to let us know how Iraq would have changed without intervention, the signs back then pointed to a much more dangerous Iraq down the road without that intervention. Dangerous to us, that is, and to all of Western civilization.
The funniest thing to come out of the Left for years is the passion for a book and movie titled "An Inconvenient Truth" when inconvenient truths are so resolutely denied by this very group.
...