or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama the Bald Faced Liar
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama the Bald Faced Liar - Page 2

post #41 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I see this is the new talking point you've both embraced. Comparing the two "conflicts" is utterly absurd. They are different in too many ways to list. Really, this tactic to derail the thread is cheap and transparent.

As for a War Based On Lies™, that's become quite tiresome as well. There is no evidence that the Bush Administration lies. None.



Naw they were just very careful about it. Like mentioning Iraq and 911 in the same paragraph. Hint they had nothing to do with each other but if you say them fast enough people will think that they do. It's kind of like saying " Coolwhip! The natural tasting nondairy creamer " All people hear is " Whip, natural, dairy and cream ".

What's become tiresome is the denial of how badly the american public got hoodwinked by them.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #42 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Regardless of what the war was based on or why we went, it is unconstitutional.

Support our troops. Bring them home.

How is it unconstitutional?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #43 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post



Naw they were just very careful about it. Like mentioning Iraq and 911 in the same paragraph. Hint they had nothing to do with each other but if you say them fast enough people will think that they do. It's kind of like saying " Coolwhip! The natural tasting nondairy creamer " All people hear is " Whip, natural, dairy and cream ".

What's become tiresome is the denial of how badly the american public got hoodwinked by them.

Yes, kind of like we heard "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" over and over again, right?

Also, can you demonstrate intent to link the two?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #44 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

How the fuck can you make the distinction between the situations of the Soviet Union and Iraq on one hand and then claim that you can't make the distinctions between George W Bush & Obama on other?

When did I claim we can't make distinctions between Obama and Bush?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #45 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

How is it unconstitutional?

Well, to start with, I think wars are supposed to be officially declared by the U.S. Congress. Using other words to describe them (e.g., "police action as in Korea) or delegating the ability to start just about any military action he wants (e.g., the war powers act) doesn't really change that.

Now I suppose that the war resolution might be considered an official declaration of war but, looking back, I suspect this was more of a weasely worded way of declaring but not actually declaring.

But, beyond constitutionality, I think a reasonable argument can be made for the immorality of it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #46 of 65
Congressional funding eliminates the question of illegitimacy.
post #47 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Congressional funding eliminates the question of illegitimacy.

How so?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #48 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

How so?

The law says that armed action over 90 days - any kind of action, whether it's a war or a police action - must be legitimate by approval of Congress. It's defined in The War Powers Resolution of 1973.

So, by approving funding for continued action Congress makes it legitimate even if they hadn't voted for it specifically. You can't have a war without paying for it.
post #49 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Well, to start with, I think wars are supposed to be officially declared by the U.S. Congress. Using other words to describe them (e.g., "police action as in Korea) or delegating the ability to start just about any military action he wants (e.g., the war powers act) doesn't really change that.

Congress does have the power to declare war. However, the President is the Commander in Chief. Prior to the War Powers Act, the President could send troops pretty much where and when he wanted.

Quote:

Now I suppose that the war resolution might be considered an official declaration of war but, looking back, I suspect this was more of a weasely worded way of declaring but not actually declaring.

We haven't declared war since 1942 (on Romania). 60 years of weaseling, then?

Quote:

But, beyond constitutionality, I think a reasonable argument can be made for the immorality of it.


You'll never win nor lose that argument. I for one completely disagree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

The law says that armed action over 90 days - any kind of action, whether it's a war or a police action - must be legitimate by approval of Congress. It's defined in The War Powers Resolution of 1973.

So, by approving funding for continued action Congress makes it legitimate even if they hadn't voted for it specifically. You can't have a war without paying for it.

It's even beyond that. There's this little thing called the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. This specifically authorizes the use of military force, and leaves it to the President to decide when his diplomatic measures have been exhausted.

There is absolutely no debate about the invasion being constitutional and legal.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #50 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Congress does have the power to declare war. However, the President is the Commander in Chief. Prior to the War Powers Act, the President could send troops pretty much where and when he wanted.

I think you mean after the War Powers Act. The WPA was Congress effectively abdicating its constitutional responsibility to the president.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We haven't declared war since 1942 (on Romania). 60 years of weaseling, then?

Sure. Why not? Just because it's happened a lot doesn't make it right. In fact it's interesting to note that we haven't engaged in a truly defensive war since the department of ware was renamed to the department of defense.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You'll never win nor lose that argument. I for one completely disagree.

You think it was morally okay to invade a sovereign nation for no reason at all and under false pretenses?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

There is absolutely no debate about the invasion being constitutional and legal.

Thus saith the Lord.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #51 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You think it was morally okay to invade a sovereign nation for no reason at all and under false pretenses?

Actually, there wasn't a pretense made. Sadaam was told to come out or he was going to be pulled out, simple as that. The public was told many things, about his refusal to allow sufficient inspection, the terrorism being supported by Iraq, etc.

Bush made too much of the WMD thing, but the fact of the matter is that Sadaam would have been pulled off his throne anyway. Bush was just told the WMD thing was a "slam dunk" by CIA Director George Tenet 2 weeks before the invasion and he played it up big 'cause it was great 15 second headline material.
post #52 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, kind of like we heard "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" over and over again, right?

Also, can you demonstrate intent to link the two?

Quote:
Also, can you demonstrate intent to link the two?

To anyone but a Bush supporter it's obvious. There was clearly no reason to mention 911 when talking about Iraq. They just kind of slipped it in there like the time Toad in " American Graffiti " ordered liquor from the Drug store. It all goes together right?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #53 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

How is it unconstitutional?

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=12723

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #54 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I think you mean after the War Powers Act. The WPA was Congress effectively abdicating its constitutional responsibility to the president.

That's a very odd view. I've always viewed it to be a limit on the President's power to act militarily. Wiki...

Quote:
During the Korean and Vietnam wars, the United States found itself involved for many years in situations of intense conflict without a declaration of war. Many members of Congress became concerned with the erosion of congressional authority to decide when the United States should become involved in a war or the use of armed forces that might lead to war.

I think you're assuming that the Act came about so Congress did not have to declare war any longer. There is really no evidence of that being true. Just read how and why it came about.

Quote:


Sure. Why not? Just because it's happened a lot doesn't make it right. In fact it's interesting to note that we haven't engaged in a truly defensive war since the department of ware was renamed to the department of defense.

1. OK, so all military action since 1942 was essentially illegitimate. Gotcha.

2. Is defensive war the only kind of morally justifiable conflict? How would you characterize Afghanistan or the first Gulf War?

Quote:





You think it was morally okay to invade a sovereign nation for no reason at all and under false pretenses?

1. Man, here we go with the "sovereign nation" crap again. I think you just like the way it sounds. Here's this poor little sovereign nation, just trying to get by. "I think I can I think I can I think I can," the poor little sovereign nation said.
ALL NATIONS ARE SOVEREIGN. All invasions involve "sovereign" nations. Good lord.

2. Right, we had "no reason at all." None. It's not like that violated the 1991 ceasefire about 17 different ways. It's not like they targeted our aircraft every day. It's not like we had to bomb Saddam in 1998 as he attempted to restart his weapons program. It's not like he played games with weapons inspectors for a decade. It's not like he supported suicide bombers and looked the other way on terrorism--in the least.

3. False pretenses implies that we know he had no WMD before invading. The problem with this notion is there is absolutely no evidence supporting it. Every major intel agency in the world thought he had WMD. The Germans thought so. The British thought so. The French thought so. The Russians thought so. The Israelis thought so. The CIA thought so. Everyone thought he had them.

Quote:



Thus saith the Lord.

Then show me how it was unconstitutional and/or illegal. Make the case, because you haven't come close to doing so yet.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #55 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's a very odd view. I've always viewed it to be a limit on the President's power to act militarily. Wiki...



I think you're assuming that the Act came about so Congress did not have to declare war any longer. There is really no evidence of that being true. Just read how and why it came about.



1. OK, so all military action since 1942 was essentially illegitimate. Gotcha.

2. Is defensive war the only kind of morally justifiable conflict? How would you characterize Afghanistan or the first Gulf War?



1. Man, here we go with the "sovereign nation" crap again. I think you just like the way it sounds. Here's this poor little sovereign nation, just trying to get by. "I think I can I think I can I think I can," the poor little sovereign nation said.
ALL NATIONS ARE SOVEREIGN. All invasions involve "sovereign" nations. Good lord.

2. Right, we had "no reason at all." None. It's not like that violated the 1991 ceasefire about 17 different ways. It's not like they targeted our aircraft every day. It's not like we had to bomb Saddam in 1998 as he attempted to restart his weapons program. It's not like he played games with weapons inspectors for a decade. It's not like he supported suicide bombers and looked the other way on terrorism--in the least.

3. False pretenses implies that we know he had no WMD before invading. The problem with this notion is there is absolutely no evidence supporting it. Every major intel agency in the world thought he had WMD. The Germans thought so. The British thought so. The French thought so. The Russians thought so. The Israelis thought so. The CIA thought so. Everyone thought he had them.



Then show me how it was unconstitutional and/or illegal. Make the case, because you haven't come close to doing so yet.

And yet a lot of people didn't think there was enough to start a war. Even the UN didn't think military action was required. And guess what? They were right. You can't change that SDW. He should have waited and gathered more intel.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #56 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

1. Man, here we go with the "sovereign nation" crap again. I think you just like the way it sounds. Here's this poor little sovereign nation, just trying to get by. "I think I can I think I can I think I can," the poor little sovereign nation said.

I love it when wingers revert to type - this reminds me of that time Bush was mocking the woman asking for clemency from the electric chair... wasn't it "Please don't kill me President Bush..please" while cackling maniacally in a mock sobbing voice as he denied the pardon...it was almost sexual.

Actually there is a long history of this with wingers....a British judge Lord Goddard used to have a similar issue:

Quote:
Lord Goddard apparently got perverted pleasure from sending people to death. His clerk later revealed that he had to put out a spare pair of pants for Goddard whenever the judge handed down the death sentence, as he always ejaculated in his pants.

I guess it just updates the more abuses occur: "poor little iranny-wanny...suffering from our little nukey-wukey bomby womby...".

Kind of sick really....makes you wonder if the extremists don't have a point...
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #57 of 65
How many presidents have said with glee, "I'm a war president"?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #58 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And yet a lot of people didn't think there was enough to start a war. Even the UN didn't think military action was required.


The UN never said "military action is not required."

Quote:

And guess what? They were right. You can't change that SDW. He should have waited and gathered more intel.

Why? Do you think that with more time, the world's intel services would change their minds?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #59 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Do you think that with more time, the world's intel services would change their minds?

Given that they never found WMDs and assuming they were actually seeking the truth rather than a reason for war, then the logical answer to your question is possibly.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #60 of 65
The Iraq war (and others) were planned by the neocons prior to their installment in the 2001 Bush Cabinet. They started discussing war against Iraq in the first days after Bush's inauguration in January 2001. They spent long hours discussing how to sell the preplanned war to the public.. the WMD "justification" was reached because not only was it was the easiest sell to an already traumatized US public, but all the other "justifications" would have been too open to discussion . In other words, the Iraq war was started, not because of WMDs (they knew Iraq had none since 1992 anyway), but other reasons. When Powell addressed the UN of Feb 5, 2003, he was lying.. and he knew it... only hours previously he had been given a draft of the contents of his speech by his neocon masters, he threw a fit and slammed his fist on the table saying "this is BULLSHIT"! So they toned down the lies and gave him a diluted version. When Bush addressed the country on the eve of the war, he used the phrase "to disarm Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction". He was also lying and he knew it.

SDW, just because the parties to which *you* happen to be loyal, ie conservative Republicans. were involved in lying to the country and the world to start wars of choice... it doesn't mean you have to remain in denial.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #61 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

I love it when wingers revert to type - this reminds me of that time Bush was mocking the woman asking for clemency from the electric chair... wasn't it "Please don't kill me President Bush..please" while cackling maniacally in a mock sobbing voice as he denied the pardon...it was almost sexual.

Actually there is a long history of this with wingers....a British judge Lord Goddard used to have a similar issue:



I guess it just updates the more abuses occur: "poor little iranny-wanny...suffering from our little nukey-wukey bomby womby...".

Kind of sick really....makes you wonder if the extremists don't have a point...

It is all about sex with you isn't it...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #62 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

I love it when wingers revert to type - this reminds me of that time Bush was mocking the woman asking for clemency from the electric chair... wasn't it "Please don't kill me President Bush..please" while cackling maniacally in a mock sobbing voice as he denied the pardon...it was almost sexual.

Actually there is a long history of this with wingers....a British judge Lord Goddard used to have a similar issue:



I guess it just updates the more abuses occur: "poor little iranny-wanny...suffering from our little nukey-wukey bomby womby...".

Kind of sick really....makes you wonder if the extremists don't have a point...

Yeah, that's what I'm doing, sego. Righto. I take pleasure in death. Believe what you want and continue to prop up your enormous straw man.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #63 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Given that they never found WMDs and assuming they were actually seeking the truth rather than a reason for war, then the logical answer to your question is possibly.

OR..since we're into hypotheticals lately....

Let's say Saddam did have an active program. Stringing out the inspections would only give him more time to advance it. After all, you don't really believe the inspectors had full unfettered access, do you?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #64 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

OR..since we're into hypotheticals lately....

Let's say Saddam did have an active program. Stringing out the inspections would only give him more time to advance it. After all, you don't really believe the inspectors had full unfettered access, do you?

The problem you have here is that we have the benefit of hindsight to hypothesize from. The question was whether waiting to gather more intel would have been beneficial. If we are constructing a hypothetical from that point, it might have been, if they were actually looking for the truth and not simply setting up a pretext for war. The next logical question is what would have been the worse thing to happen if we had waited. Would we have discovered Iraq's WMD before they were able to use them and take action quickly then? My guess is actually yes. It was highly doubtful (even then when they were claiming Iraq did have WMDs) it would have been a very sophisticated or elaborate program and, thus, one which would have likely been handled with more "surgical" bombings and aerial attacks which the U.S. is always in position to do.

Personally, I have come to believe they actually knew there were no WMDs but didn't really give a shit. It sounded good. An easy little soundbite for the American public to swallow.

No, the U.S. was going into Iraq come hell or high water. The reasons were not about WMDs or even terrorism. They were much more grand, much more selfish and much more personal at the time. Grand: Try to divide the middle east and establish a permanent U.S. military presences smack dab in the middle of the region. Selfish: To secure oil throughout the region. Personal: To get Saddam for his threats to Bush the senior.

Now, fast forward to the present time. All of the people "in the know" (intel agencies, UN, etc.) are saying Iran does NOT have a weapons program, but the administration is, like Bush before, setting up a pretext for war with Iran. The U.S. has established an ugly habit, that is becoming increasingly obvious, of playing a diplomacy strategy of "head I win, tails you lose" game with people and nations it feels the need to go to war with. It's getting a bit tiresome.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #65 of 65
Excellent post! ^^^

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama the Bald Faced Liar