"You can make all the assumptions you want, come to all the conclusions you want, but don’t call the president a liar unless you have some real evidence. "
I will say this about the evidence at hand:
The evidence *for* the case that he lied is at least as strong, or stronger than the case that Iraq had or has stockpiles of WMD.
and at least as strong or stronger than the case that Iraq was intending to deploy those stockpiles against the US via terrorist ties.
and this says very little about there being decisive evidence that he lied, and this is kind of the point: There was no evidentiary case for WMD stockpiles or terrorist ties. To say there was makes the administration EITHER
- Liars
- Frauds
- Incompetents
- or derilect in their duty by not performing due dilligence.
I don't really see much wiggle room. Either they were wrong by several thousand orders of magnitude, or they lied. Either way, its not something I am tempted to overlook from my CnC
Davin L.
Current Events » in reply to You are stretching really hard to call Bush a liar.
So he was just derilect in his sworn duty?
The whole thread (56 posts)
- Support for Bush is still strong
- it's a long way to elections: predicting in a chaotic situation
- Don & Davin Right For A Change
- Spin City
- Poll Says Most Believe Saddam-9/11 link... Oh! Well! I guess that means its true then?
- re: Poll Says Most Believe Saddam-9/11 link
- You keep making this assertation that most Americans think Sadam was behind 9/11...Please post a link to the poll data.
- You don’t seem to have a problem with Don’s poll. I guess that means its true then?
- Surprise, REB - it's the same poll as your first link!
- Nobody started a war over the beliefs expressed in Dons polls, or is trying to justify one after the fact