George Tenet-War Profiteer

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Gavik, Apr 28, 2007.

  1. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    *Before I start, I wasn't sure whether to put this under politics or world news, so mods, move it as you see fit.

    http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003571875

    So George Tenet has jumped onto the tell all book train. To everyone's suprise, he says the Bush regime didn't ever consider not invading Iraq and that Tenet never said "slam dunk."

    Now you're probably wondering why his making money off of this is such a bad thing. Well, he said that he didn't want the medal of freedom, and that he knew the war was wrong, but just didn't feel like speaking up about if until four years, hundreds of billions of dollars and a million casualties[FONT=&quot][/FONT] later. This is just sick. The right choice is hard choice to make, but his silence was morally wrong. He could have probably made just as much money, maybe even more, if he'd have spoken up when needed.
     

  2. Stoner

    Stoner Guest

    You can't outright lie just to support your political agenda, bro. Come on, dude, you have to do better than that.

    Here's an actual quote.

    http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

    So yes, he did indeed say "salm dunk". Next time stick to facts and not fabrications of the truth.

    If you're going to debate with me you're going to have to come up with a better tactic than just outright lying. I'll shoot you down 10 out of 10 times.
     
  3. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    You want to hear an outright lie?

    The insurgency is in its last throws-Dick Cheney

    First, we need to look here:

    Link1

    And then, look at this headline from your source:

    I'm sorry, could you repost this with a little more wanking?

    And lets assume for a second that he did say it in that context. That doesn't really change a lot of the main point here.
     
  4. Stoner

    Stoner Guest

    The bottom line is you lied and then tried to mask it by attempting to change the subject. Won't work on me, son.

    You were caught in a lie. Tenent did indeed use the term, "slam dunk". He admitted it inthe quote. He just said it was taken out of context. But yes, he did say it.

    Try not to lie anymore in political debates to fit your political agenda. Just stick to facts and you will do a lot better.
     
  5. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    Did you read anything I posted? The topic is not called "Tenet never said slam dunk so Bush is evil." And it was out of context. That changes a lot of things. And even if we left the slam dunk thing out, it doesn't change anything about his morality.
     
  6. Stoner

    Stoner Guest

    So why did you say, "Tenet never said "slam dunk" when you knew he did?

    Better yet don't answer that. You've been proven a liar in this thread. You're all over the place with your arguments and you can't tell the trith about the simplest of things.

    I'll wait for a lib on here to debate with that doesn't blatantly lie in his posts.
     
  7. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    Firstly, moved to World News. If it's a fifty-fifty, just do it in News, Politcs is getting clogged.

    Seondly, it was a reaction post. Tenet writes a tell-all in which he says that he was sure of his now popular convictions but didn't really act on them. We can, in a genuine sense, see this as either more or less despicable than that of Powell's.

    Brief Intermission, Tenet's Tenets, or secrets of success:

    I lol'd.

    So Tenet's covering his ass, and Gavik stated sardonically that off course that'd the first thing he would deny and push away in a book. Did Gav say that "slam dunk" was said in that context? No, of course not, Tenet rationally would attack this public perception that's made him such a late night comedy bullseye over these last few years.

    Gavik didn't state any so-called 'agenda' remarks in regards to "slam dunk", he then constructed a series of logical steps that would make his book's content and his own actions a violation of his stated moral compass; things you have conviently sidestepped in favor of a detail that means nothing to the actual statement itself.

    If you want to call Gavik an outright liar not once, not twice, but three times, you ought to actually debate his statement, not a detail that's not actually incorrect in the context it is used.

    We get it, you think you've found the arsenic in the bathtub for the statement; regardless, that doesn't make you correct, especially when you don't provide any sources outside of some superflous counter.

    Move this conversation along, or it gets closed.
     
  8. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    Because at the time of the post I actually didn't. There were several articles that had mixed reports as to the truth of it. Granted, out of context would have been a better way to put it

    You can't refute aanything else about it.

    Oh, like the Bush regime does every day?
     
  9. fleinn

    fleinn 101010

    I think he's lying. I think he knew full well what he was saying, how it was percieved, and that this would be used relentlessly to shift the blame over to the CIA afterwards. Just like Addington, during the libby- trial, when he recounted how he was asked about the authority of the president - he made a general statement that was technically correct, but that he had to be blind and dumb not to understand what would mean.

    So he's not actually wiping his hands clean, now is he. In august 2002 the first statements about Iraq and wmds were presented by the administration. And they said things then that they had to go back on, since it could not be confirmed, either by foreign intelligence or CIA. And still they included the nuclear weapons, the aluminum tubes, the yellowcake from Niger and so on in their general talking points, until the war started, and long afterwards. Right under Tenet's nose. So are we to understand the administration just went beside the director general of the CIA, And that he didn't notice? Perhaps he thought it wasn't any trouble just standing around in the White House and presenting an implicit confirmation of how everything the administration said was confirmed? Yes, perhaps he didn't have anywhere else to sit during Powell's presentation in the security council than right beside him?

    What a bloody bastard. Really, how dares he say this now? "He regrets", huh. Son of a bitch. It's not like it was anything important, either.
     
  10. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    He said those things under pressure from the White House, and that's my point, that he's no better than those who embezzle from the DoD, either illegally or through over-inflated, no-bid contracts because he was too spineless to do a damn thing while thousands were slaughtered right before him.
     

Share This Page