Comments on: Joe Scarborough Rips Bush On Iran NIE: He’s Either ‘Lying’ Or ‘Is Stupid’

By: jaramilr

jaramilr — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:42:26 +0000

“Heâ€™s Either â€˜Lyingâ€™ Or â€˜Is Stupidâ€™”

Duh. That’s what we’ve been saying all along! I wish it was the latter but I believe it is the former.

By: hterrya

hterrya — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:41:35 +0000

Exley, like O. Bigfoot and the numerous other trolls on other threads that TP allows to dominate ALL discussions, is STILL the ONLY topic here, despite the headline, “Joe Scarborough Rips Bush On Iran NIE: Heâ€™s Either â€˜Lyingâ€™ Or â€˜Is Stupidâ€™.”

You regular contributors to TP sure are gullible! You DESERVE the likes of Exley and the rest of the trolls.

By: rehbock

rehbock — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:30:45 +0000

Exley,
Why is the administration still lying over the circumstances of how the report was delivered, when the president was briefed, etc. etc.?
Why is that dishonesty necessary? In order to compound the fact theyâ€™ve been dishonest about the level of threat Iran has posed over the past 3-4 years?
Comment by Tweedster â€” December 5, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Tweedster,
Now HERE I will agree with youâ€¦They do seem to tripping over themselves in explaining this. There may be a valid reason for it, but it appears bad. If I had been the WH political adviser, I would have gotten this out there with fanfare and touted it as a great success and good news.
Comment by Exley â€” December 5, 2007 @ 3:44 pm

Which gets back to my earlier question and the Scarborough story on which these posts derive:

Ok, Exley, if the invasion of Iraq is the reason that Iran stopped trying to build Nukes then why wouldnâ€™t Bush have been informed of the NIE many months ago? If he was informed why would he lie about it in the press conference? Why would he have not brought Iranâ€™s past program and itâ€™s cessation to the attention of the public to demonstrate that our invasion had accomplished this?
Comment by rehbock â€” December 5, 2007 @ 1:26 pm

Exley, I am heartened that you are acknowledging the original premise that the claim by Bush that he just learned of the NIE makes him appear either a liar or stupid. You appear to have no explanation other than that there “may be a valid reason”.
If Bush was telling the truth then he needs to do something to address that “valid reason”. If he was lying then he needs to correct himself. Because absent his lying about what and when he knew about the NIE the only reason other than that the President is too stupid to be successfully briefed is that his subordinates usurped his Presidency and conspired to hide the views of all the Intelligence agencies from the President for many months.

By: Exley

Exley — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:01:47 +0000

Hey…Just popped back in to see if TomBaker finally admitted he was wrong when he embarrassingly said Ronald Reagan was president in 1980…..Let’s see…..Nope. Looks like TomBaker is still sticking with his erroneous assertion. He still doesn’t know that Jimmy Carter was president from 1977 to 1981. Heh!

By: ralph the wonder llama

ralph the wonder llama — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:15:28 +0000

Exley’s strategy on this thread has been similar to a football coach coming off a 40-point loss complaining about the illegal procedure call the refs missed in the first quarter.

By: tombaker

tombaker — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:21:00 +0000

no exley, you meant to continue on with your bullshit “gamesmanship”, you tedious, boorish, mock-intellectual prick.

By: Exley

Exley — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:37:35 +0000

And to show that unlike TomBaker, I can admit when I have made an error (in this case, a typo)…Obviusly in my response to RickS, I meant to type “Inauguration Day 1981″

By: Exley

Exley — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:36:11 +0000

Tom — Are you STILL clinging to your erroneous claim that Ronald Reagan was president in 1980??? Wow….

By: Exley

Exley — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:34:13 +0000

RickS,

Your analogy doesn’t work. The deal to release the hostages was announced by the Carter administration and the Iranians before Inauguration Day 1980.

By: tombaker

tombaker — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:20:49 +0000

Tom Baker is not, was not, wrong, in any way. There exists only one person who thinks he was, and there is no one here (nor anywhere) who agrees with that one person.

Exley is/was (and likely will be) wrong, and will not admit it, no matter the weight of evidence and testimony against him (kinda like his cheerleader buddy in the WH)

He will never stop lying about it.

He’s a poor excuse for a rhetorician to boot.

Like a home-schooled kid taking classes at a real University.

By: RickS

RickS — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:19:16 +0000

So it must not have been a coincidence that the Iranians released the hostages on the same day that Reagan took the oath of office?

Those allegations that the Reagan campaign cut a deal with the Iranians must have been true.

By: Exley

Exley — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:14:55 +0000

Yeah, I am sure it was a COMPLETE coincidence that Moammar Gadhafi annouced he was renouncing Libya’s WMD programs just days after a bedraggled Saddam Hussein pulled out of his spider-hole and taken into custody by US troops…..

By: Tweedster

Tweedster — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:29:11 +0000

Spot on Ricks…

By: RickS

RickS — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:20:09 +0000

Tweedster,

I’m pretty sure that economics also played a role in Khaddafi’s decision, and not the threat of invasion.

Money talks and bulls**t walks, as they say.

By: PaulD

PaulD — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:16:55 +0000

VIDEO

Chris matthews asks a neo-con “is Iran a strategic threat”? and DEMANDS AN ANSWER

http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=9fcb21ca-effa-40b8-aa36-8856d7b71ea4

By: Tweedster

Tweedster — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:15:57 +0000

Ralph,

Exley is the face of blind adulation in many respects. Every criticism she claims to have against Bush is always tempered with fall-back options for blame. And we’ve seen how she hands out praise to the guy…

By: Tweedster

Tweedster — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:03:08 +0000

284

Go ahead and put preasure on them and continue to, but donâ€™t lie to us about what the threat actually is.

DigDug,

This issue is a real litmus test for Bush diehards. They can accept being deceived by their beloved “leader” just because it is Bush doing the lying. Its scary and sad.

By: ralph the wonder llama

ralph the wonder llama — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:01:47 +0000

I have to say, given that the most credit Exley will afford to the British, French and German dilpomats who negotiated the 2003 deal with Iran is, “It is a success shared by many, including Bush” I have to conclude that yes, it WAS a mistake to assume that Exley is capable of complex thought.

Seems pretty single-minded to me.

By: DigDug

DigDug — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:53:36 +0000

DigDug,

Exley gave Bush a pass on the dishonesty because it was central to our â€œdiplomatic strategyâ€ concerning Iran. Even though our diplomacy wasnâ€™t exactly what turned the tide on the whole thing, even once they agreed to halt their nuclear program, Bush was FORCED to keep LYING about the threat Iran posed because he HAD to as a matter of â€œdiplomatic strategy.â€

Comment by Tweedster

I see. I kind of figured that’s what he was trying to do.

There’s a big problem with that arguement though. There is a big difference between “putting preasure on a country”, and telling your own citizens that they may be in for WWIII if we don’t stop a nuclear program that you already know was stopped years ago.

Go ahead and put preasure on them and continue to, but don’t lie to us about what the threat actually is.

By: Tweedster

Tweedster — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:53:28 +0000

gummitch,

How dare you interfere with someone else’s cognitive dissonance?!

/snark