How could we have been SO WRONG? - Page 5 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #41 of 46 (permalink) Old 07-14-2005, 06:40 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
azimuth's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: How could we have been SO WRONG?

Quote:
jjl - 7/14/2005 6:59 AM

If these democrats admit they were wrong to toe the phoney-baloney WMD etc. line, they are not hypocritical when they criticise the administration when it does not admit it was wrong. Changing your mind in the light of new evidence is not being hypocritical. Did the demos have the same access to information as the Pres et al.? I think not.
You are exactly right. I'm disappointed that the Bush admin has not done more than get defensive when confronted with the missing WMDs. It is NOT hypocritical to have an enlightenment and change accordingly. Where I see hypocrisy in the Dems and some Repubs is that they point to the President and say he lied to everyone about Saddam's threat and WMDs. He didn't lie and they know it. He was wrong and so were they.

As to info access, I don't know who had how much of what and I doubt you do either.

aborted Shop Forum member

azimuth is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #42 of 46 (permalink) Old 07-14-2005, 06:45 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
RE: How could we have been SO WRONG?

I heard GW say that Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attack -- I heard it with my own ears. Call it what you want -- I'll call it a lie. I'll also call using 9/11 as springboard to attack a non-combatant Iraq a lie. I'll also call paying Iraqi expatriates for false information a lie, and so on and so on. Oh, and I'll call rallying the country to war based on anything less than information that is 100% accurate and reliable worse than a lie -- I'd call it criminal.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #43 of 46 (permalink) Old 07-14-2005, 09:30 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: How could we have been SO WRONG?

Quote:
jjl - 7/14/2005 6:59 AM

If these democrats admit they were wrong to toe the phoney-baloney WMD etc. line, they are not hypocritical when they criticise the administration when it does not admit it was wrong. Changing your mind in the light of new evidence is not being hypocritical. Did the demos have the same access to information as the Pres et al.? I think not.
It varied by committee. The Intelligence committee in the senate is completely bipartisan and they have complete acess to the same info as the Prez. They rarely get involved in partisan argument, for that reason. The Exec Branch, in our system, is not obligated by constitutional law to share any information with Congress. However, it does so by precedent and common sense. Also there are a few court cases, most of qhich are highly equivocal.

(At any rate, the Intelligence Committee is an accomodation by the Legislative Branch to the non-partisan requirements of the bureaucracy in the Exc Branch (only nominally under control of the president at levels below presidential appointment) and the requirements of the Exec appointees. It's "Yes Prime Minister" on hallucinogenic steroidal amphetamines.)

So some trusted members of both political parties have access to everything the president gets. Unfortunately, they are allowed to share very little of what they know. Instead, they offer veiled hints and Mosaic pronouncements, without evidentiary support.

Bot.
Botnst is offline  
post #44 of 46 (permalink) Old 07-15-2005, 02:20 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Storm's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2004
Location: Islamabad, PK
Posts: 4,115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: How could we have been SO WRONG?

Quote:
Joe Bauers - 7/14/2005 3:53 PM

I agree, Storm. I was merely using Pakistan as one example, and yes, if I were a Pakistani, I would definitely feel threatened by the U.S. There are many examples of "threats" to the United States that were more serious than the one posed by Iraq. My point in naming Pakistan was that it was a country that actually had nukes, as opposed to Iraq, which did not. I understand how your weapons program functions as a deterrent against threats around you, and I have no quarrel with it at all.

Joe B.
Good to see I'm dealing with an educated man... Point taken.
Storm is offline  
post #45 of 46 (permalink) Old 07-15-2005, 10:17 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: How could we have been SO WRONG?

Quote:
Botnst - 7/14/2005 11:30 PM

Quote:
jjl - 7/14/2005 6:59 AM

If these democrats admit they were wrong to toe the phoney-baloney WMD etc. line, they are not hypocritical when they criticise the administration when it does not admit it was wrong. Changing your mind in the light of new evidence is not being hypocritical. Did the demos have the same access to information as the Pres et al.? I think not.
It varied by committee. The Intelligence committee in the senate is completely bipartisan and they have complete acess to the same info as the Prez. They rarely get involved in partisan argument, for that reason. The Exec Branch, in our system, is not obligated by constitutional law to share any information with Congress. However, it does so by precedent and common sense. Also there are a few court cases, most of qhich are highly equivocal.

(At any rate, the Intelligence Committee is an accomodation by the Legislative Branch to the non-partisan requirements of the bureaucracy in the Exc Branch (only nominally under control of the president at levels below presidential appointment) and the requirements of the Exec appointees. It's "Yes Prime Minister" on hallucinogenic steroidal amphetamines.)

So some trusted members of both political parties have access to everything the president gets. Unfortunately, they are allowed to share very little of what they know. Instead, they offer veiled hints and Mosaic pronouncements, without evidentiary support.

Bot.
What the exec does not give them is notes and deliberations on how this information was evaluated and what decisions were made based on what information. We were promised an investigation of this by the Senate committee, a promise that since has been quietly dropped. In the end, the Senate has had the same smoke blown up it's ass as the rest of us have, and absent Senate subpeona of these records, this criminal coverup will remain undiscovered. It has been reported by a number of insiders that whenever conflicting intelligence information arrived, the Bushites always chose the one that matched their already-secretly-made decisions, even when they were accompanied by CIA warnings that the information was probably false. Aluminum tubes, yellow cake uranium, crop duster planes supposedly used for chemical weapons, most of the Powell presentation at the UN, all of this was information that was known to be unreliable, and instead it was treated as ironclad fact by a bunch of murderous, conniving bloodthirsty liars.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #46 of 46 (permalink) Old 07-16-2005, 04:42 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: How could we have been SO WRONG?

Quote:
kvining - 7/15/2005 12:17 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 7/14/2005 11:30 PM

Quote:
jjl - 7/14/2005 6:59 AM

If these democrats admit they were wrong to toe the phoney-baloney WMD etc. line, they are not hypocritical when they criticise the administration when it does not admit it was wrong. Changing your mind in the light of new evidence is not being hypocritical. Did the demos have the same access to information as the Pres et al.? I think not.
It varied by committee. The Intelligence committee in the senate is completely bipartisan and they have complete acess to the same info as the Prez. They rarely get involved in partisan argument, for that reason. The Exec Branch, in our system, is not obligated by constitutional law to share any information with Congress. However, it does so by precedent and common sense. Also there are a few court cases, most of qhich are highly equivocal.

(At any rate, the Intelligence Committee is an accomodation by the Legislative Branch to the non-partisan requirements of the bureaucracy in the Exc Branch (only nominally under control of the president at levels below presidential appointment) and the requirements of the Exec appointees. It's "Yes Prime Minister" on hallucinogenic steroidal amphetamines.)

So some trusted members of both political parties have access to everything the president gets. Unfortunately, they are allowed to share very little of what they know. Instead, they offer veiled hints and Mosaic pronouncements, without evidentiary support.

Bot.
What the exec does not give them is notes and deliberations on how this information was evaluated and what decisions were made based on what information. ...
They are given the same intelligence and they can come to whatever conclusion they wish. The adminsitration also sends folks (both political appointees and GS employees) to the Hill to keep the staffers and commitee technically aware and informed.

The adminstration is under no obligation to reveal information about presidential or vice presidential deliberations. Proven in court, no longer contested.

Flip it around the other way and see if it makes sense. Woudl you want any President to have the power to demand private Congressional deliberations? How about Supreme Court deliberations? No, the three branches should be free of interference at that level. Once policy comes out (admin), or bills come (legislative), out, or judgements rendered (Supremes), then it's time to ask questions.

Bot
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome