How do we argue against the "technicality;"

[blondeatlast]

"The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: "Iraq has ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that’s how it was delivered."

Of course, that is all I need, but I don't need to ell you that I'm no **** apologist. This is gonna come from the media, the conservative think tanks, and your neighbor orco-worker who still has the ****-****** sticker on his car.

We need to stop it before it starts.

On edit--crappy formatting

[Peachhead22]

1. weasel wording

That's the kind of weasel wording the 'Pubs went nuts over during the Clinton years. And just the kind of thing Bush promised not to do. Even if the British believed it (and I have my doubts), our guys didn't. It's dishonest as hell, and if 'Pubs hang on to the technicality of it we'll roast their asses.

<rhetorically speaking of course>

[Liberal_Andy]

2. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski."...

was factually accurate. (According to the definition set out for the Jones deposition.)

When one makes a statement he knows is deceptive, but technically accurate, he's lying. One can weigh the circumstances if one chooses, I happen to think lying to the nation in order to take it into war is a more serious offense than lying to the nation to cover up a private, personal affair.

Tell them they have to decide for themselves if it makes a difference.

[rfranklin]

7. Tell them Bush is plulling "a Clinton"

Tell them, it's not about the WMDs (or Saddam Hussein), it's about the lying, remember?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Liberal_Andy]

4. That's right, Pete! Why was it a "mistake" to include it?

Because it was true?

Hell No!

What did they knew and when did they know it? (see CBS online)

[chascarrillo]

5. MWO's got it down

Check out MWO's coverage of this - they nailed it.

* wanted this statement in the address. The CIA had to clear it - but they would not sign off on it until * revised it saying that British intelligence claimed it. (As a blurb on ABC News tonight said, they intended to "pin it on the British.")

Thus, * put it in while intentionally including an "out" for him if the intel proved wrong.

And on that note, I'm getting a little ticked off at the continual news reports that the uranium story later proved to be false. This is incorrect - it had earlier been proven false - 10 months earlier.

[kcwayne]

6. Their assertions were not technicalities

Bush, Powell, Cheney, and Rumsfeld stood before the world and assured us that they had significant and compelling intelligence that mandated action be taken immediately, at the cost of tens of thousands of casualties. They were indignant and vengeful against those that questioned their motives and judgement. Charges of treason and un-Americanism were leveled at those that disagreed with their assessment. We were asked (required) to trust our leadership when they ventured out on an unparalleled course of pre-emptive war.

Our trust and support was demanded by the administration, because they assured us they had concrete evidence and they were protecting Americans from those who were ready to do us harm.

The basis for their position consisted of the African uranium, some inconclusive photos of facilities in Iraq, and some undislosed intelligence that we were assured was too sensitive to let out, or our intelligence sources would be compromised.

It is hardly a technicality when one of the major claims made by the administration is proven to be not only false, but known by the administration to be false at the time they bandied it about.

[kimchi]

11. Welcome to DU, kcwayne!

I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly.

[Az]

8. The repukes specialize

in CYA. They always leave weasle clauses in their statements.

Look. Here are the facts. We have two tools. Emotional appeals and the Search for Evidence.

Until we find the evidence to put these criminals in their place what we have to do is ramp up the emotional charge in the air. We need the people to become increasingly frustrated with George and his secrecy. We need the people, not just us, to start demanding that George and Co fess up. We have hound dogs like Levin already partrolling the perimeter and closing in on the unelected fraud. We need to keep the emotional pressure up in the public so Ari Fleshhead has to make more proclomations about what the Pres is thinking. We need to make Cheney crawl out from his cave and expose him to the light of day. We need to cut the strings on the puppet Bush and get him talking for himself. His outburst are one of their biggest weaknesses. We need to rattle their cage so much that they begin making more and more mistakes until..... until a solid peace of evidence falls through the cage and we can put these rat bastards (appologies to any fans of rodents) in jail where they belong.

[NNN0LHI]

9. Swear em all in and have them testify in front of live televised hearings

That will separate the men from the boys real quick.

Don

[Jacobin]

10. Wasn't a "technicality" or "mistake" it was a fucking FORGERY

And, it was known prior to the SOTU address.

And, how bout all those tons and tons of horrible poisons?

Was that a mere technicality, or was that another HUGE LIE?

Forging pretexts to invade another country is not a technicality....it is a crime against humanity. It's how Hitler whipped up the population to justify invading Poland.

[blondeatlast]

13. We agree on that. I'm thinking of how we can stop the "weasel"

factor.

I'm thinking of the argument a prosecuting attorney would use to counter the defenses move to dismiss aon a technicality. We're on the same side--now let's think like lawyers, the shrewder, the better.

[LiberalLibra]

12. The way I argue against it is to say.....

...."Then what the crap do we pay taxes to support the CIS, FBI, NSA for? Let's just drop all those taxes and pay one tax to MI6." Shuts the neo cons up every time.

on edit: In fact, if Bush & Co wants to continue with this idea that the intel came from the British, therefore, it must be true stuff I think we should begin a drive to disban the above mentioned investigative service. We can simply argue that since Bush wants to depend on British intel we can save some money on this side of the ocean. Turn the tables on him. When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

[leftofthedial]

14. Our intelligence told Beelzedubya

that the British info was false. Being the second person to tell a known lie doesn't make it not a lie.

[newyawker99]

15. Hi kcwayne!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: