Republicans Still Denying Bush Lied About Iraq
Silberman does not mention that the commission he chaired did not even investigate whether the Bush administration manipulated intelligence. Senate Republicans refused to allow the commission to investigate this matter, fearing it would harm Bush’s reelection prospects.
...
The question of whether, in addition to being victimized by faulty intelligence, also misrepresented the intelligence it did have, was left to a second Senate report, called the “Phase II” report, which came out a few years later. That report, which was endorsed by two of the committee’s seven Republicans and all its Democrats, concluded, “the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent.”
Incredibly, Silberman’s op-ed does not mention the Phase II report at all. Silberman simply asserts that his committee, which was specifically instructed not to investigate whether Bush manipulated intelligence, did not find that Bush manipulated intelligence, and presents this as the final word.
more:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/02/republicans-still-denying-bush-lied-about-iraq.html
Silberman also overturned the convictions against Oliver North:
https://consortiumnews.com/200...
Some of that fury played out within conservative judicial circles. In Firewall, Walsh’s book about the Iran-contra scandal, the special prosecutor described how the black-robed Republican appointees to the U.S. Appeals Court in Washington “waited like the strategic reserves of an embattled army.”
A leader of this partisan faction was Judge Laurence H. Silberman, an obstreperous conservative who had served as a foreign policy adviser to Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign. At one point during the Iran-contra scandal, Silberman berated MacKinnon over his support for the special-prosecutor law.
https://consortiumnews.com/2001/012901b.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
It is pretty easy to prove most -- mainstream especially have told a lie it is certainly easy to show what they're omitting when saying this or how the way they said it is very misleading (Bill O'Reilly. Tells a lot of half-truths as well as an outright lies). Bill O'Reilly shouting at a 9/11 victim family member how Bill O'Reilly has done way more than the 9/11 victim's families than he could ever hope to which was wrong on so many levels but had nothing to do with his other claims (such as I'm glad your father isn't here to see you on here saying this stuff which said he actually wasn't a fan of Bush and felt the 2000 election of Bush was illegitimate) but as soon as Glick was about to mention Reagan/Bin Laden/Soviets Bill O'Reilly knew exactly where this was heading and was so desperate to cover up something that is practically indisputable (IOW, not a conspiracy theory) so eventually he "cut his mike out of respect for his father" which strike me as falling short of crossing a line violently, I don't see how you could be more disrespectful to anyone involved.
This is more of a lighter note but Stephen A Smith & Sean Hannity who was obsessing over something Obama did or say that may or may not have been lie can't remember what but Stephen A was defending whatever it was he said and defending the contradict (I'm pretty sure it was a statement regarding the topic of racism. I don't think it had anything policy was. Obama tends to add his 2 cents regarding topics of national interest such as "deflategate"
but Hannity said, "you agree he lied then" or basically made the argument Obama told a lie then and Stephen A said "Of course he lied, what politician doesn't lie?"
I couldn't tell if Hannity was dead serious and it was very hard to tell because he delivered with a similar kind of a facial expression like Al Franken but they cut to commercial after Hannity answered "Reagan" which led to Stephen A cracking up like I never heard him laugh so hard.
Its very conservative where I live & I also happened to go to the Iraq War myself. I haven't run into this much lately but at first a lot of younger people I knew before & shortly after seemed disappointed. They thought I'd be one of those buy & defend the lies, not to mention the decision to even go there. I wish I was as familiar with Wahabbism (I had no idea why or what sect Al-Qaeda brand of terrorists & dictators belonged to or even that many things are in contrary with traditional Islam--they oppose the Hajj for example) as I am now because my realization of that & given that Saddam was a secular dictator (gave West Boro Baptist permission to hold an anti-gay protest in Baghdad in the run-up to the invasion. It just doesn't compute, especially when he launched an invasion of a country ran by Wahabbi dictators (kuwait)
