How Low Can They Go; Pt. Duex! - Comments Page 3

Article comments

Subscribe to comment RSS

• 76 - Hal Pawluk

  Aug 17, 2004 at 1:20 pm

  David, could you give me the exact quotes and page numbers from the Franks book where this happens:

  In his book, "American Soldier," Tommy Franks confirms even further that belief in that he discusses how he was warned by nearly every one of Iraq's neighbors that Saddam had the weapons and had every intention of using them against the US.

  
  It may be true, but in your How Low Can They Go; Pt. Duex! post you claimed:
  

  "This is [the] month in which Mr. Wilson published his book, The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir, which claimed, amazingly that the President had not lied about the Niger incident."

  
  I just finished reading the Wilson book yesterday and I didn't find it doing any such thing.
  
  Thanks.
  
  

• 77 - golden palace

  Mar 07, 2005 at 11:47 am

  Thanks so very much for taking your time to create this very useful and informative site. I have learned a lot from your site. Thanks!! I think you have done an excellent job with your site. I will return in the near future.

• 78 - HJ

  Jan 20, 2006 at 11:48 am

  Far too late to be relevant to this thread, but I just wanted to point out a teeny little omission in the "Amazon Site" (whatever that is... do you mean amazon.com ?) quote cited in Hal Pawluk's post (#3, above).
  
  (From Amazon Site:)
  
  [...]
  When President George W. Bush claimed in the now
  notorious sixteen words in his 2003 State of the
  Union address that "Saddam Hussein recently
  sought significant quantities of uranium from
  Africa," Wilson could not stand by silently.
  [...]
  
  The phrase quoted has ten words, not sixteen. The missing six words? From the actual text of the speech, that quote was preceded by "The British Government has learned that". Seems a bit too convenient to the left-leaning argument that the quote is truncated up front by the word 'that', conveniently omitting a non-trivial bit of context.
  
  Those six words of context make the assertion that the President flatly lied, and the putative belligerence of this quote (as widely reported on TV and in the papers), a whole lot weaker. How come no one ever points that out?

• 79 - JR

  Jan 20, 2006 at 1:38 pm

  Because it's a bogus argument. "...has learned that..." implies the reality of the assertion - it's the same as saying that it's true. For the sentence to be honest, Bush would have to say, "The British government has evidence that..." or "The British Government believes that...".
  
  Although in hindsight, even those might be questionable. Perhaps he should have said, "I believe that..."
  

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.

Name:

URL:

Remember name and url?

Comment:

Please preview your comment.