Re: Bob Graham - senate vote giving Bush authority for Iraq


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:918co11mr3ltb19cm2ltser065jalq4g7j@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:29:43 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:q59ao15jrfegdu6u270lc5otbmq0k73dk0@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:34:55 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>>> <okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>news:36e9o1pmlntrbuht5i9d656gh1lrfvtaal@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 23:59:04 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>>>>> <okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All it took was a trip to the office to read the material. The
>>>>>>decision
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>go to war or not to go to war, is one of the most important, if not
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>most
>>>>>>important decisions these people have to make, because that decision
>>>>>>puts
>>>>>>the people we send to war in harms way, and as we have seen, a whole
>>>>>>lot
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>unforeseen consequences. One would think that they would spend the
>>>>>>time
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>read the material that was available to make sure that their decision
>>>>>>was
>>>>>>the right one...which they did not do, even those on the Intelligence
>>>>>>committee.....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As Graham noted in the article, this information is not
>>>>> accessible to all senators.
>>>>
>>>>Okay, let us say that the information is not accessible to all Senators.
>>>>Let us further say that you are one of the Senators who do not have
>>>>access
>>>>to that information, yet you are being asked to make a decision whether
>>>>to
>>>>give the President approval to go to war. What would you do?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It depends on whether I trust the president of course. Whether the
>>> president was trustworthy is the subject of this thread. Is Graham
>>> lying or not?
>>
>>Well, should "any" Seanator trust any President given their track record
>>when they put us on the path of war? Roosevelt told the people that we
>>were
>>"surprised" by that attack on Pearl Harbor. Was it a fact or was that a
>>lie? Johnson gave us the Gulf of Tonkin incident as an excuse to greatly
>>expand the war in Vietnam, that was a lie was it not? The Clinton
>>Administration (since I no longer remember if Clinton himself made the
>>statement) told us we had to get involved in Yugoslavia because if we did
>>not, that conflict could result in a wider war in Europe. None of those
>>were the truth were they? So, should "trust" be a criteria on whether you
>>decide to support the President in his call for the right to go to war, or
>>should they all be skeptical when abt President wants to be given the
>>authorization to go to war. And once again I ask, why did they give
>>Clinton
>>the go-ahead to go to war with Iraq?
>
>
> Is Graham lying or not?

yes
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>All
>>>>>>>>they had to see was what the world leaders were saying. Once again,
>>>>>>>>what
>>>>>>>>was the world leaders saying. Well, they were saying that they
>>>>>>>>believed
>>>>>>>>that Saddam did have those weapons, because they "forced" a soverign
>>>>>>>>country
>>>>>>>>to accept inspectors. You do not "force" a soveriegn country if you
>>>>>>>>believed they had no weapons, you "force" a soveriegn country to
>>>>>>>>accept
>>>>>>>>inspectors because you believe they do have those weapons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They were saying they thought he would have those weapons
>>>>>>> if they didn't inspect. That's not the same thing as saying he must
>>>>>>> have weapons because we're inspecting for no purpose because
>>>>>>> we know he'll still have them even if we do inspect. Hans Blix
>>>>>>> found nothing, remember, and said that every single lead he got
>>>>>>> from the US about WMD's was wrong. And who was right? Blix,
>>>>>>> of course. And who was removed from his job? Blix, of course.
>>>>
>>>>Huh? "they thought he would have those weapons if they did not
>>>>inspect"?
>>>>I
>>>>do not think that is what you were trying to say, but I could be
>>>>wrong....
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know how you read it, but the inspections were in place to
>>> keep Saddam from developing weapons. Anyway, that's not the
>>> subject of this thread. The subject is Graham's report that the
>>> administration did not present true information to congress. Is
>>> Graham lying or not?
>>
>>Using the definition of those of you who accuse the President of lying,
>>then
>>I would say that he is lying....
>>
>
>
> That's not the question. Graham reports he saw information that
> was unavailable to other congresspeople but which he was
> certainly the administration of. Is Graham lying about THAT, not
> about some sidetrack, or not? It was, is, and will be a simple
> question no matter how much mashed potatoes gets brought in
> and dumped on top of it.

Okay, let us assume that he saw information that others did not see. So, if
he had the information that others did not see, and based on what he saw, he
felt that there was no justication to go to war. Right? Then what was his
obligation? His obligation was to "convince" other Senators that because he
was privey to information that others did not see, that there was not enough
evidence for a need to go to war. Did he do that? If he did, he obviously
did a pretty lousy job because the Senators who was not privey to the
information he had, were not convinced that was a good enough reason not to
go to war, was it?
>
> MY take on it of course, and probably everybody else's take
> except those who are as determined as yourself to defend Bush
> against anything, true or false, no matter what. You don't want
> to say Graham is lying because you pretty much know he isn't,

I know no such thing. And I do not like to accuse someone of lying, unless
I am sure that what they say is a lie. Which is more than I can say about
those who accuse the President of lying, because the simple fact none of you
have proven that he did indeed lie.

> and you don't want to say he's not lying because that would
> mean the administration had deceived congress into voting for
> war. Tough one for you, I admit. I guess you can continue to
> not answer it forever, but you'll never be convincing to anybody
> except those who are equally eager to do the same thing.
>

It means no such thing. He saw the intelligence and arrived at the
conclusion that Saddam was not enough of a threat to go to war. The
President looked at that information and arrived at the conclusion that
Saddam was a threat. It is all a matter of how you interprete the
information you have...


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bob Graham - senate vote giving Bush authority for Iraq
    ... >>>give the President approval to go to war. ... >> It depends on whether I trust the president of course. ... Is Graham lying or not? ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: OT - The most sincere compliment
    ... in a court of law by the President of the United States of America, ... lying about a blow job just does not rise to leading a country into ... war like Bush did. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: OT - The most sincere compliment
    ... in a court of law by the President of the United States of America, and before you started lying yourself by ignoring the FACT that nearly every politician in America believes the same intelligence that the President saw before we attacked Iraq. ... Clinton lied about a blow job...Bush lied about a war. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Bob Graham - senate vote giving Bush authority for Iraq
    ... >>>expand the war in Vietnam, that was a lie was it not? ... >>>should they all be skeptical when abt President wants to be given the ... >> Is Graham lying or not? ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Why We Havent Been to Mars Yet
    ... *from* a President that it had determined was proposing a course ... When the Congress decides to go to war, they put Generals, Admirals, ... In the nuclear age, we entered a 'Cold War' period - where the ... where would the CIA limit itself? ...
    (sci.space.policy)