MasterJaguar01
Posts: 2423
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
"And that gets us to a rather unique kind of liar, who uses new lies as a vehicle for recycling extremely damaging old lies. That unique liar, of course, is Jon Stewart, who pretends that his ideologically-driven news show interspersed with snark and dishonesty is, in fact, a comedy show impartially poking fun at the news.
Thankfully, Stewart is leaving his show this year, but he's still on the scene now and continues his solemn mission to protect Obama as long as he possibly can. To that end, just this past week, Stewart used his bully pulpit at The Daily Show to prevent his audience acolytes from asking a logical question: "If it's bad that Brian Williams lies, isn't it worse that Obama has been revealed yet again to be a serial and significant liar?"
Stewart effected this misdirection by explicitly tying William's lies, not to Obama's lies, but to George Bush. (You remember, of course, the Democrat Party mantra: "Bush lied, people died.") At the 3:55 mark in his puerile, punny, unfunny segment about Williams' lies, Stewart suddenly inserts that eleven-year-old attack on Bush:
Now this might seem like overkill, but for me, no, it's not overkill because I am happy. Finally, someone is being held to account for misleading America about the Iraq War. Finally. [Audience cheers loudly.] It might not necessarily be the first person you'd want held accountable on that list, but never again will Brian Williams mislead this great nation about being shot at in a war we probably wouldn't have ended up in if the media had applied this level of scrutiny to the actual f***ing war.
But you want to know what the really funny thing is about the that flabby, sneering Stewart shtick? Stewart is lying through his teeth when he accuses George W. Bush of lying about Iraq. In fact, George W. Bush was never anything but honest about Iraq. He relied on America's intelligence apparatus and that apparatus, as it does rather consistently about everything, got it wrong."
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/obama_and_progressivisms_bodyguard_of_lies.html
You need some original thought, and try some water to wash down the kool-aid. Your post quotes your link.
Your link is more kool-aid and propaganda.
From your link:
The intelligence community’s 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) stated, in a formal presentation to President Bush and to Congress, its view that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction—a belief in which the NIE said it held a 90% level of confidence. That is about as certain as the intelligence community gets on any subject.
First of all, show me where the NIE says 90% certainty. If I am not mistaken, the 90% certainty was made up by John Yoo in his book. Secondly, the statement makes no sense. The NIE is a document. How can a document state ANYTHING in a formal presentation? Does it jump off the table and give its own summary of itself?
Thirdly, the redacted version of the NIE redacts ALL of the dissenting opinions.
Let's listen to John McLaughlin, Deputy CIA Director:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/themes/nie.html
.. It was a document that contained, in my judgment, more grist for debate than people understand. If you added up the number of pages in it that contained alternative views or dissenting opinions, it would probably come to at least 10, some say 15, depending on who you count as a dissenter. While it was clear in its conclusions about Saddam possessing chemical and biological weapons, there were dissents clearly expressed on the nuclear program.
The State Department dissented in a major way, and the Department of Energy, it is not often realized, had three full pages of dissents on the role of aluminum tubes, expressing the skepticism that they were intended for centrifuge and therefore for uranium enrichment. There were dissents also on things like the potential for unmanned aerial vehicles [UAVs] to be used for disseminating biological weapons. The Air Force expressed that dissent and dissents on other issues.
Not to mention, the White Paper which was created (by the National Intelligence Council (the neo-con wing of the intelligence community), which was supposed to be the final word.) Bush didn't want an NIE because, they would have to include dissenting opinions (which of course were redacted in the original release)
It still boggles the mind, that even today, people still believe the "Bush didn't lie. It was faulty intelligence" myth.
< Message edited by MasterJaguar01 -- 6/25/2015 9:26:39 PM >
|
The Poor You Know! - .gif){kind=avatar}
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread