Jump to content

Sorry about the sources there Libs......


flaps15

Recommended Posts

C-SPAN Challenges Congress

 

"President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation's editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation's health care system," he wrote. "Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American." -Brian Lamb

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one will watch it anyway. They'll be more concerned about the latest cat fight on Silicone Bimbos of Orange County, or if Vinny Bada Boom is going to nail Carleen Carladucci in the KMart parking lot on Goisee Guidos.

 

Sad but true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would garner a large audience. The camera's rolling would also lead to accountability.

 

I doubt it will happen, though. The bill's too complicated for house members to grasp the full impact, and they don't want to look stupid.

 

It'll be just another couple weeks of bull shit statistics, bull shit claims and bull shit soundbites.

 

Besides, there's no time for debate - this has to pass before Obama's State of the Union or millions will die at the hands of the evil insurance industry.

 

When I talk to my kids about this fiasco, I'm truly embarrassed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it's the right thing to do and the last thing the Democrats in power want, and that in itself reinforces that it's the right thing to do. The media, left, right or Bull Gaytor centre, would check and balance the reporting daily to hold representatives accountable for the 2010 election cycle and beyond. Should have been done from the beginning. Wait, there's an idea. Kill the bill and start from scratch with the above transparency as a guiding force. What a concept! Who's with me?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What an idiotic thread title.

 

A conservative idea would be to continue as Congress has always done and keep the hearings slosed.

 

Your concept is a liberal or even a radical one.

 

As a liberal myself, I like the idea of trying open hearings.

 

 

Were you meaning to express a thought about socialism? Were you accusing the named group of politicians of advocating socialized medicine??

 

 

This title, although verbose. would accurately reflect your thread contents:

 

 

Liberal and radical CNN broadcasters call for open hearings on Congress' joint socialized medicine bill hearings.

 

Will conservative congress members stick with the status quo closed meeting system for this very hotly contested proposal?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What an idiotic thread title.

 

A conservative idea would be to continue as Congress has always done and keep the hearings slosed.

 

Your concept is a liberal or even a radical one.

 

As a liberal myself, I like the idea of trying open hearings.

 

 

Were you meaning to express a thought about socialism? Were you accusing the named group of politicians of advocating socialized medicine??

 

 

This title, although verbose. would accurately reflect your thread contents:

 

 

Liberal and radical CNN broadcasters call for open hearings on Congress' joint socialized medicine bill hearings.

 

Will conservative congress members stick with the status quo closed meeting system for this very hotly contested proposal?

 

My apologies. I'll try to be more original in my thread titles in the future. Unfortunately attacks are always forthcoming when derived from Drudge or FOX News. Thought I'd forewarn folks like you. While I'd love to take credit for the concept it was Mr. Brian Lamb, (if you had read it you'd know that) who proposed the idea (hence my thread title) and before him some guy named Obama with some cheering in the background from most Americans. While I'm not a conservative, never professed to be and had no thoughts of directing this to a socialist venue, it would appear that from your post we agree on the original idea of transparency, except you, (apparently not wearing your respirator again) want to make this a partisan shit fight. Let me know how it all works out for you. I gotta meet some people for dinner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What an idiotic thread title.

 

A conservative idea would be to continue as Congress has always done and keep the hearings slosed.

 

Your concept is a liberal or even a radical one.

 

As a liberal myself, I like the idea of trying open hearings.

 

 

Were you meaning to express a thought about socialism? Were you accusing the named group of politicians of advocating socialized medicine??

 

 

This title, although verbose. would accurately reflect your thread contents:

 

 

Liberal and radical CNN broadcasters call for open hearings on Congress' joint socialized medicine bill hearings.

 

Will conservative congress members stick with the status quo closed meeting system for this very hotly contested proposal?

 

Big difference. Obama made the promise. Is his political capital within his own party so low that he couldn't force the doors open? Not likely.

 

Unless he allows C-SPAN in, Obama is a liar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless he allows C-SPAN in, Obama is a liar.

 

Two things:

 

One, it isn't up to Obama; nor does he have any power to compel Congress to do as you suggest; so your conditional accusation is moot (and arguably foolish). No matter what he says, requests, or insists upon; Congress will do as it pleases to suit itself. If Obama could get what he wanted just by demanding it, we'd have a much better health care bill in the first place.

 

Two, I agree with the idea of opening the conference (and anything else logistically possible) to cameras. I'd like to see it happen; and in fact, I'd like to have seen it much sooner in the process when the real horse trading was going on. I suspect at this stage, its going to be really freaking boring with more procedural BS than actual bombshells.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless he allows C-SPAN in, Obama is a liar.

 

Two things:

 

One, it isn't up to Obama; nor does he have any power to compel Congress to do as you suggest; so your conditional accusation is moot (and arguably foolish). No matter what he says, requests, or insists upon; Congress will do as it pleases to suit itself.

 

Two, I agree with the idea of opening the conference (and anything else logistically possible) to cameras. I'd like to see it happen; and in fact, I'd like to have seen it much sooner in the process when the real horse trading was going on. I suspect at this stage, its going to be really freaking boring with more procedural BS than actual bombshells.

 

I understand that Obama can't force it. You left out a key premise to my statement - "Is his political capital within his own party so low that he couldn't force the doors open?"

 

Obama made the promise. If he didn't lie, then either he didn't have a full grasp of Constitutional separation of powers while he was campaigning, or he was blowing smoke up the electorate's ass by suggesting he did have that power.

 

Now it looks like it won't be in conference anyway, so certainly Obama can exert direct influence make it happen at the forthcoming meetings.

 

Don't hold your breath. I'm looking forward to the WH response to the request.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless he allows C-SPAN in, Obama is a liar.

One, it isn't up to Obama; nor does he have any power to compel Congress to do as you suggest; so your conditional accusation is moot (and arguably foolish). No matter what he says, requests, or insists upon; Congress will do as it pleases to suit itself.

 

I understand that Obama can't force it. You left out a key premise to my statement - "Is his political capital within his own party so low that he couldn't force the doors open?"

 

Then what you should have said was, "If Obama doesn't pressure Congress to let C-SPAN in..." Regardless of his political capital or lack thereof, it's not his call to "allow" it.

Frankly, I doubt we ever get the whole picture about the political wranglings between the POTUS & Congress and who pressured whom to do what and how. All we ever see is what they want us to see; and that's surely not the whole truth, regardless of party.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama has broken so many campaign promises what is one more. The new motto of the democrats "We lied - deal with it"

Since you and your regressive ilk didn't trust or vote for Obamamama, what's it to you how many promises you claim that he broke?

 

Losers = weepers; suck it up and get used to it, you regressive whiners.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama has broken so many campaign promises what is one more. The new motto of the democrats "We lied - deal with it"

Losers = weepers; suck it up and get used to it, you regressive whiners.

 

 

Suck it up = accept the lies.

Get used to it = more lies to come.

Regressive whiners = Citizens that voice an opposing opinion.

 

You sound a lot like one of Mussolini's supporters. Quick question -- Can Obama make the trains run on time?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama has broken so many campaign promises what is one more. The new motto of the democrats "We lied - deal with it"

Losers = weepers; suck it up and get used to it, you regressive whiners.

 

 

Suck it up = accept the lies.

Get used to it = more lies to come.

Regressive whiners = Citizens that voice an opposing opinion.

 

You sound a lot like one of Mussolini's supporters. Quick question -- Can Obama make the trains run on time?

 

He IS the Messiah, so I'm sure he can walk on water.

 

Interesting that one by one the liberal media is throwing their side under the bus over the "transparency" issue.

CBS News is the latest:

 

 

Obama Reneges on Health Care Transparency

 

As a Candidate, President Obama Promised to Put Health Care Reform Negotiations on C-SPAN

 

Link

 

Well, well, well, now what will Robert Gibbs do? Ignore Chip Reid?

 

Will Rhambo snub Katie during sweeps?

 

Stay tuned (no pun intended)....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will this be Obamas "read my lips" moment?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama has broken so many campaign promises what is one more. The new motto of the democrats "We lied - deal with it"

 

Do Republican's share the motto? Or did Rumsfeld just have a memory lapse in regard to where those WMD were?

 

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites
What an idiotic thread title.

 

A conservative idea would be to continue as Congress has always done and keep the hearings slosed.

 

Your concept is a liberal or even a radical one.

 

As a liberal myself, I like the idea of trying open hearings.

 

 

Were you meaning to express a thought about socialism? Were you accusing the named group of politicians of advocating socialized medicine??

 

 

This title, although verbose. would accurately reflect your thread contents:

 

 

Liberal and radical CNN broadcasters call for open hearings on Congress' joint socialized medicine bill hearings.

 

Will conservative congress members stick with the status quo closed meeting system for this very hotly contested proposal?

 

My apologies. I'll try to be more original in my thread titles in the future. Unfortunately attacks are always forthcoming when derived from Drudge or FOX News. Thought I'd forewarn folks like you. While I'd love to take credit for the concept it was Mr. Brian Lamb, (if you had read it you'd know that) who proposed the idea (hence my thread title) and before him some guy named Obama with some cheering in the background from most Americans. While I'm not a conservative, never professed to be and had no thoughts of directing this to a socialist venue, it would appear that from your post we agree on the original idea of transparency, except you, (apparently not wearing your respirator again) want to make this a partisan shit fight. Let me know how it all works out for you. I gotta meet some people for dinner.

 

 

HUH??

 

What the fuck was partisan about my post. Perhaps I was being an ass about correcting your use of Liberal when you really mean socialist.

 

But.

 

I AGREED with you by writing that I ALSO WOULD LOVE TO SEE OPEN HEARINGS!!!!!

 

Please grab a dictionary and try reading my post again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama has broken so many campaign promises what is one more. The new motto of the democrats "We lied - deal with it"

Losers = weepers; suck it up and get used to it, you regressive whiners.

 

 

Suck it up = accept the lies.

Get used to it = more lies to come.

Regressive whiners = Citizens that voice an opposing opinion.

 

You sound a lot like one of Mussolini's supporters. Quick question -- Can Obama make the trains run on time?

 

He IS the Messiah, so I'm sure he can walk on water.

 

Interesting that one by one the liberal media is throwing their side under the bus over the "transparency" issue.

CBS News is the latest:

 

 

Obama Reneges on Health Care Transparency

 

As a Candidate, President Obama Promised to Put Health Care Reform Negotiations on C-SPAN

 

Link

 

Well, well, well, now what will Robert Gibbs do? Ignore Chip Reid?

 

Will Rhambo snub Katie during sweeps?

 

Stay tuned (no pun intended)....

 

This is what I love about those who whine about a biased Liberal Meeeedia. When the media reports both positive AND negative things about the Obama Administration, it's not balance. It's accuracy and anomaly respectively.

 

How many negative reports about Obama will it take to overcome them being "amazing" or reflective of the media "eating their own"?

 

There probably is no number. Because when you have a victim mentality, you are always the victim. Even if you have to bend things a bit to make it look that way. The media is against you and your team, Booby. Poor, poor you.

 

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama has broken so many campaign promises what is one more. The new motto of the democrats "We lied - deal with it"

 

Do Republican's share the motto? Or did Rumsfeld just have a memory lapse in regard to where those WMD were?

 

Ben

 

Rumsfeld was going on information provided to the Admin and Congress by Colin Powell. When it comes to WMD's, Powell was the liar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama has broken so many campaign promises what is one more. The new motto of the democrats "We lied - deal with it"

 

Do Republican's share the motto? Or did Rumsfeld just have a memory lapse in regard to where those WMD were?

 

Ben

 

Rumsfeld was going on information provided to the Admin and Congress by Colin Powell. When it comes to WMD's, Powell was the liar.

 

Sorry. Wrong Republican.

 

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama has broken so many campaign promises what is one more. The new motto of the democrats "We lied - deal with it"

 

Do Republican's share the motto? Or did Rumsfeld just have a memory lapse in regard to where those WMD were?

 

Ben

 

Rumsfeld was going on information provided to the Admin and Congress by Colin Powell. When it comes to WMD's, Powell was the liar.

 

Cite please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama has broken so many campaign promises what is one more. The new motto of the democrats "We lied - deal with it"

Too bad that the people actually keeping track of Obama's promises don't agree with you.

 

My new year resolution: read more, post less.

 

Poltifact for when you don't mind facts getting in the way of a good story

Did you read your own link? Most of he claims about broken promises are TRUE :lol::lol::lol:

 

Here is the one from this thread:

 

"President Obama has broken his pledge to the American people to be transparent throughout (health care reform negotiations)." TRUE

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama has broken so many campaign promises what is one more. The new motto of the democrats "We lied - deal with it"

 

Do Republican's share the motto? Or did Rumsfeld just have a memory lapse in regard to where those WMD were?

 

Ben

 

Rumsfeld was going on information provided to the Admin and Congress by Colin Powell. When it comes to WMD's, Powell was the liar.

 

Cite please.

 

 

I provided all the cites before during the election. I will provide one for you here --

 

"In the February 2003 presentation to the UN Security Council, Mr Powell forcefully made the case for war on the regime of Saddam Hussein, offering "proof" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD)."

 

Link to entire article - here.

 

I don't think anyone would suggest that Powell would make a presentation to the security council based on information provided to him by Dick Cheney. Cheney was only repeating what he heard from Powell.

 

 

Back on topic --- Here's Robert Gibbs dodging a valid question from a member of the WH press corp --

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
So now Cheney got all the bad intell for Powell....

 

Is this out of your ass, or is the a RW blog somewhere

that needs laughing at?

 

No - my comment was suggesting that it's crazy to think Powell got his info from Cheney -- that it was the other way around. Cheney's comments were based on Powell's info.

 

 

Brilliant -- Deserves embedding --

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
So now Cheney got all the bad intell for Powell....

 

Is this out of your ass, or is the a RW blog somewhere

that needs laughing at?

 

No - my comment was suggesting that it's crazy to think Powell got his info from Cheney -- that it was the other way around. Cheney's comments were based on Powell's info.

 

 

Brilliant -- Deserves embedding --

 

 

A typo on my part, it should have been from, not for.

 

You apparently still think Powell was the source

of the bad intell, so again, is this a product of your

ass or is there a RW blog somewhere that needs a laughing at?

Link to post
Share on other sites
So now Cheney got all the bad intell for Powell....

 

Is this out of your ass, or is the a RW blog somewhere

that needs laughing at?

 

No - my comment was suggesting that it's crazy to think Powell got his info from Cheney -- that it was the other way around. Cheney's comments were based on Powell's info.

 

 

Brilliant -- Deserves embedding --

 

 

A typo on my part, it should have been from, not for.

 

You apparently still think Powell was the source

of the bad intell, so again, is this a product of your

ass or is there a RW blog somewhere that needs a laughing at?

 

 

 

It has been proven once again that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

 

Did you take a look at the cite, Mark? Do you think that Powell would have testified before the UN with info he got from Cheney? Do you think Cheney pulled that out of his ass without anything to back it up? It came through intel. Bad intel, but intel none the less. And intel that was convincing enough for Powell, who relied on it, to make a convincing presentation to the UN.

 

If you'd like, I'd be happy to provide you with additional, non-partisan sources.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So now Cheney got all the bad intell for Powell....

 

Is this out of your ass, or is the a RW blog somewhere

that needs laughing at?

 

No - my comment was suggesting that it's crazy to think Powell got his info from Cheney -- that it was the other way around. Cheney's comments were based on Powell's info.

 

 

Brilliant -- Deserves embedding --

 

 

A typo on my part, it should have been from, not for.

 

You apparently still think Powell was the source

of the bad intell, so again, is this a product of your

ass or is there a RW blog somewhere that needs a laughing at?

 

 

 

It has been proven once again that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

 

Did you take a look at the cite, Mark? Do you think that Powell would have testified before the UN with info he got from Cheney? Do you think Cheney pulled that out of his ass without anything to back it up? It came through intel. Bad intel, but intel none the less. And intel that was convincing enough for Powell, who relied on it, to make a convincing presentation to the UN.

 

If you'd like, I'd be happy to provide you with additional, non-partisan sources.

 

You yanked it out of your ass. The article says nothing

of the sort. If you had followed those events in any

way you wouldn't be making an idiot out of yourself

right now.

 

At some level, you have to know you are making

things up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So now Cheney got all the bad intell for Powell....

 

Is this out of your ass, or is the a RW blog somewhere

that needs laughing at?

 

No - my comment was suggesting that it's crazy to think Powell got his info from Cheney -- that it was the other way around. Cheney's comments were based on Powell's info.

 

 

Brilliant -- Deserves embedding --

 

 

A typo on my part, it should have been from, not for.

 

You apparently still think Powell was the source

of the bad intell, so again, is this a product of your

ass or is there a RW blog somewhere that needs a laughing at?

 

 

 

It has been proven once again that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

 

Did you take a look at the cite, Mark? Do you think that Powell would have testified before the UN with info he got from Cheney? Do you think Cheney pulled that out of his ass without anything to back it up? It came through intel. Bad intel, but intel none the less. And intel that was convincing enough for Powell, who relied on it, to make a convincing presentation to the UN.

 

If you'd like, I'd be happy to provide you with additional, non-partisan sources.

 

You yanked it out of your ass. The article says nothing

of the sort. If you had followed those events in any

way you wouldn't be making an idiot out of yourself

right now.

 

At some level, you have to know you are making

things up.

 

Was Collin Powell making things up?

 

I didn't yank it out of my ass, Mark. Here's the cite again. Are you challenging the cite?

 

"In the February 2003 presentation to the UN Security Council, Mr Powell forcefully made the case for war on the regime of Saddam Hussein, offering "proof" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD)."

 

Link to entire article - here.

 

Maybe you'd believe it if it came directly from Collin Powell?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama has broken so many campaign promises what is one more. The new motto of the democrats "We lied - deal with it"

Losers = weepers; suck it up and get used to it, you regressive whiners.

 

 

Suck it up = accept the lies.

Get used to it = more lies to come.

Regressive whiners = Citizens that voice an opposing opinion.

 

You sound a lot like one of Mussolini's supporters. Quick question -- Can Obama make the trains run on time?

 

He IS the Messiah, so I'm sure he can walk on water.

 

Interesting that one by one the liberal media is throwing their side under the bus over the "transparency" issue.

CBS News is the latest:

 

 

Obama Reneges on Health Care Transparency

 

As a Candidate, President Obama Promised to Put Health Care Reform Negotiations on C-SPAN

 

Link

 

Well, well, well, now what will Robert Gibbs do? Ignore Chip Reid?

 

Will Rhambo snub Katie during sweeps?

 

Stay tuned (no pun intended)....

 

This is what I love about those who whine about a biased Liberal Meeeedia. When the media reports both positive AND negative things about the Obama Administration, it's not balance. It's accuracy and anomaly respectively.

 

How many negative reports about Obama will it take to overcome them being "amazing" or reflective of the media "eating their own"?

 

There probably is no number. Because when you have a victim mentality, you are always the victim. Even if you have to bend things a bit to make it look that way. The media is against you and your team, Booby. Poor, poor you.

 

Ben

 

 

More cracks in the dike:

 

 

When you are a liberal and you start to lose CNN, you are really working the fringes.

 

Edit: Seems like this clip is already news.

 

Sorry, Wabbit, your Messiah is still a liar, and now the WH press corps is calling him on it.

 

Where's the "Hope" and "Change"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
So now Cheney got all the bad intell for Powell....

 

Is this out of your ass, or is the a RW blog somewhere

that needs laughing at?

 

No - my comment was suggesting that it's crazy to think Powell got his info from Cheney -- that it was the other way around. Cheney's comments were based on Powell's info.

 

 

Brilliant -- Deserves embedding --

 

 

A typo on my part, it should have been from, not for.

 

You apparently still think Powell was the source

of the bad intell, so again, is this a product of your

ass or is there a RW blog somewhere that needs a laughing at?

 

 

 

It has been proven once again that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

 

Did you take a look at the cite, Mark? Do you think that Powell would have testified before the UN with info he got from Cheney? Do you think Cheney pulled that out of his ass without anything to back it up? It came through intel. Bad intel, but intel none the less. And intel that was convincing enough for Powell, who relied on it, to make a convincing presentation to the UN.

 

If you'd like, I'd be happy to provide you with additional, non-partisan sources.

 

You yanked it out of your ass. The article says nothing

of the sort. If you had followed those events in any

way you wouldn't be making an idiot out of yourself

right now.

 

At some level, you have to know you are making

things up.

 

Was Collin Powell making things up?

 

I didn't yank it out of my ass, Mark. Here's the cite again. Are you challenging the cite?

 

"In the February 2003 presentation to the UN Security Council, Mr Powell forcefully made the case for war on the regime of Saddam Hussein, offering "proof" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD)."

 

Link to entire article - here.

 

Maybe you'd believe it if it came directly from Collin Powell?

 

 

Now I'm questioning your ability to read, along with

your ability to think. You must stop digging. This is

getting embarassing.

 

Now, slowly, so you can understand it....

 

Powell......was......not.....the.....source.....of.....the

bad.....intelligence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So now Cheney got all the bad intell for Powell....

 

Is this out of your ass, or is the a RW blog somewhere

that needs laughing at?

 

No - my comment was suggesting that it's crazy to think Powell got his info from Cheney -- that it was the other way around. Cheney's comments were based on Powell's info.

 

 

Brilliant -- Deserves embedding --

 

 

A typo on my part, it should have been from, not for.

 

You apparently still think Powell was the source

of the bad intell, so again, is this a product of your

ass or is there a RW blog somewhere that needs a laughing at?

 

 

 

It has been proven once again that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

 

Did you take a look at the cite, Mark? Do you think that Powell would have testified before the UN with info he got from Cheney? Do you think Cheney pulled that out of his ass without anything to back it up? It came through intel. Bad intel, but intel none the less. And intel that was convincing enough for Powell, who relied on it, to make a convincing presentation to the UN.

 

If you'd like, I'd be happy to provide you with additional, non-partisan sources.

 

You yanked it out of your ass. The article says nothing

of the sort. If you had followed those events in any

way you wouldn't be making an idiot out of yourself

right now.

 

At some level, you have to know you are making

things up.

 

Was Collin Powell making things up?

 

I didn't yank it out of my ass, Mark. Here's the cite again. Are you challenging the cite?

 

"In the February 2003 presentation to the UN Security Council, Mr Powell forcefully made the case for war on the regime of Saddam Hussein, offering "proof" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD)."

 

Link to entire article - here.

 

Maybe you'd believe it if it came directly from Collin Powell?

 

 

Now I'm questioning your ability to read, along with

your ability to think. You must stop digging. This is

getting embarassing.

 

Now, slowly, so you can understand it....

 

Powell......was......not.....the.....source.....of.....the

bad.....intelligence.

 

 

I never said that Powell was the source of the bad intelligence - I said that it was bad intel. Cheney was not the source of the bad intelligence either. They were both working from the same intelligence. Bad intel that was believed to be good intel at the time by both Cheney and Powell. If Cheney was lying, then so was Powell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Mark K'

 

I never said that Powell was the source of the bad intelligence - I said that it was bad intel. Cheney was not the source of the bad intelligence either. They were both working from the same intelligence. Bad intel that was believed to be good intel at the time by both Cheney and Powell. If Cheney was lying, then so was Powell.

 

Pants on fire.

 

From post #28 of this thread:

 

"Rumsfeld was going on information provided to the Admin and Congress by Colin Powell. When it comes to WMD's, Powell was the liar." -Reggatta Dog

 

Really wasn't my intention to brow-beat ya over this.

We all say stupid things sometimes, have false memories,

what have you. I really was more interested in seeing

if there is some blogospere revisionist history

running around about the source of all the bad

intell. The "Office of Special Plans" people have a

lot of apologists, and have been known to tell a

whopper or two themselves on occasion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pants on fire.

 

From post #28 of this thread:

 

"Rumsfeld was going on information provided to the Admin and Congress by Colin Powell. When it comes to WMD's, Powell was the liar." -Reggatta Dog

 

Really wasn't my intention to brow-beat ya over this.

We all say stupid things sometimes, have false memories,

what have you. I really was more interested in seeing

if there is some blogospere revisionist history

running around about the source of all the bad

intell. "Office of Special Plans" people have a

lot of apologists.

 

I misspoke and stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

I appreciate your graciousness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Mark K'

 

I never said that Powell was the source of the bad intelligence - I said that it was bad Intel. Cheney was not the source of the bad intelligence either. They were both working from the same intelligence. Bad Intel that was believed to be good Intel at the time by both Cheney and Powell. If Cheney was lying, then so was Powell.

 

Pants on fire.

 

From post #28 of this thread:

 

"Rumsfeld was going on information provided to the Admin and Congress by Colin Powell. When it comes to WMD's, Powell was the liar." -Reggatta Dog

 

Really wasn't my intention to brow-beat ya over this.

We all say stupid things sometimes, have false memories,

what have you. I really was more interested in seeing

if there is some blogospere revisionist history

running around about the source of all the bad

intell. The "Office of Special Plans" people have a

lot of apologists, and have been known to tell a

whopper or two themselves on occasion.

I caught the change from Rumsfeld to Cheney it does get hard to keep track of who the Liberals really Blame after GW of course. But here is your chance to clear things up - WHO DO YOU BLAME for the bad Intel that Powell presented to the UN?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's bad intel EVERYWHERE. Over half the shit on this forum is bad intel.

I blame the people that believed it, and expected us to believe it, without

making sure it was good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...