The Bush admin is still lying to start a war - Page 16  

Sorry but, you've already lost your crediability. You can't wiggle out of this one by clouding the issue. Also it seems to me that you're the one who's partisan. You're the one who's always bringing up these Republican - Democrat comparisons. But keep slinging the crap about how you'd like a dictator instead of a democracy. At this point it's almost amusing.

Asking you to back up your accusations is clouding the issue?

Che Guevera and his "bourgeoise details", eh?

"Don't confuse me with the facts!" - Bill McNeal

Nice try. Won't work.

When did I say anything that would even remotely resemble support of a dictatorship?

Also:
What about what Bush has done in any way resembles a dictatorship more than any previous modern president?

Please answer those questions.

Do I really have to quote you? I wasn't the only ( or first one ) in this thread to draw that conclusion.

He stepped over the line. That's why he's being " crucified ".

Nice backpeddling! But as Nicholas Cage's character in " Vampire's Kiss " ( a hilarious film if you've never seen it ) says, " Too late! Too late! Too late! "

Yeah I have to admit I sort of like him too. I have several close friends that are Bush supporters. We tend to talk about different things. Must dash. Work time!

Out of context, giant, out of context.

And even if it was in context, it has nothing to do with the subject now.

Phantom moral victories abound.

--

jimmac:


Why start backing up your arguments now?


For all the blustering you guys do, you really think you would come up with more than an 8-month-old quote that is semi-incriminating, and only then when taken completely out of context.

So, you're finally going to admit it?

Would you mind sending me your copy of the thread? I would be interested to read it.

bunge:

Admit what?

8 months ago giant said:
Now that we know that the basis for attacking Iraq, WOMD, is simply a lie, we can now see without any doubt that, as the title states, our president and his administration are lying to the citizens of the United States in order to start a war with Iraq...

What does it mean that "WMD is simply a lie"? (1st reason I want to see the entire thread)

Bush lied about WMD in certain circumstances, but as I've told you before the WMD issue was around 10 years before Bush took office. It is an issue outside of Dubya and his war aims.

Otherwise, why does UNMOVIC even exist?

Also note that 8 months ago we hadn't seen the all of the "evidence" brought by Bush; Powell's speech was in February of '03. (2nd reason I want to see the entire thread)

Not only that, how much of what was said prior to the posting date has actually been shown to be lies? (3rd reason)

So I'd really like to see the thread. If it shows that some of my opinions from nearly a year ago differ from those I hold today, then I'm prepared to acknowledge that fully.

groverat . . ordinarily you argue and seem to mean it . . . I mean you seem to actually believe what you say

but the post above is just plain silly . . and it seems that even you know it . . . somehow in the prose

everybody knows that there had been an 'issue' for ten years or more . . . but what many came to doubt was the continued existence of said 'issue' and definitely the proported exigency of the demand to do away with the 'issue' through the invasion of another country, killing people including our own young American soldiers . . . and many who came to doubt the existence were themselves part of the apparatus that was supposed to KNOW . . . unlike the 'politicians' wo knew that they didn't know (at best) or, at worst knew the issue was false and therefor LIED like hell

but your post above seems to be grasping at straws . . . perhaps its time to admit that the title of this thread is right . . .

Groverat, the basis of the American system of government, the very system that has made our country the greatest in the world is that major decisions are made with the support of the people paramount in its regard. Bush took away the people's right to make an informed choice on this issue. He spent OUR tax dollars. He sent OUR sons and daughters to war. He greatly reduced OUR COUNTRY'S international reputation in terms of morality and global equality. This was all done without our consent. If you claim he had our consent, then you are wrong. He lied. You admit that. He had no consent because he lied.

We might have chosen to pursue further diplomatic solutions, a course that in hindsight, as we see there was no threat to the US at all, would have been a much better use of our resources. All those billions could have been put back into our economy in ways that would benefit all Americans. But by lying, Bush took that choice away from us. That is un-American. That is unpatriotic. That is overstepping the authority of the Executive Branch.

Bush should be impeached for that. Let the investigations begin (and they shall). Already we have congressmen calling for such.

He did, under no uncertain terms.


But he still excuses that and says Bush lying is AOK. That's un-American. Groverat is supporting the erosion of the American ideal.

FWIW, Blix had this to say today about the missing WMD:

"As I have noted before, this does not necessarily mean that such items could not exist," he said. "They might -- there remain long lists of items unaccounted for -- but it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for."

UPI report here.

pfflam:


Better to keep the issue alive by killing civilians by the truckload and getting nothing done than to remove the issue entirely by killing a few soldiers and less than a month's worth of civilians?

I don't see what the problem is, really.


Title of the thread:
The Bush admin is still lying to start a war

Have I not been saying that Bush lied, or at least seems to have bent the truth a good deal? Have I not?

Perhaps it's time you read my freaking posts.
In this thread, in March, before the first bombs fell:
Finding holes in the arguments of politicians is not a challenge.

Yeah, I'll FINALLY admit Bush isn't honest. You broke me!

--

tonton:



tonton... this is me you're talking to. Do you really think you can sell me this line of bullshit? I mean honestly... "the very system that has made our country the greatest in the world is that major decisions are made with the support of the people paramount in its regard"?

Did you just say that to me in a serious tone?

And let's just imagine that isn't a load of over-idealistic crap... the majority of the country supported the war. Lest we forget.

When did this retarded idea that democracy meant rule by protest #s and opinion polls come out? heh.. Christ


How? How is that overstepping the authority of the Executive Branch?

Bush took WHAT choice away from you? You HAD no choice. And don't give me this "but what about democracy!?" bullshit, did Clinton become a dictator when he bombed Iraq the night before his ****ing impeachment hearing? We're in a representative democracy, they do what they can in the bounds of law (and what Bush did was 100% kosher WRT American law). Don't vote for him next time.

What a joke. What a stupid joke. What a ridiculously stupid joke.

Do you know how the government works? I'm curious.

I still can't believe that you guys are still arguing about this. If only your attention spans were as short as mine this topic would be so passe.

Look! Over there! The Mariners are playing! Go fetch!

The issue is not whether or not the country supported the war. The issue is whether or not the Bush admin lied to get the public, and the congress, to support it.

Cheers
Scott

You said war was necessary to disarm Iraq of its WMD.

Rumsfeld says the WMD were probably gone before the war began.

Either you're wrong, or Rummy's wrong.

If Rummy's correct, then you're wrong.

Groverat, you're in denial. Yes, America is built on ideals. Representative government is an ideal. And the closer we follow that ideal, the better our progress. Don't underestimate the power of values.

"The majority supported the war"? After being LIED to! Don't you get that? The majority was misinformed. In fact, we all were misinformed. Would the majority have supported the war given all the facts and none of the lies? Possibly. Possibly not. We were not given that choice. And yes, it is our congressmen and women who represent our choice. they had a vote. It is our President who is supposed to represent our choice. He had a vote. But how can Congress or the Executive represent our choice if our choice is (even partially) based on a lie?

No matter how much you argue it, no matter how much you apologize for your lack of values LYING IS NOT OK. PERIOD. NO EXCUSES.

You have no values. I wouldn't trust you with a dollar for the cleaners. I wouldn't invite you into my home, because if lying is okay to you, then maybe stealing is okay, too. If you get what you want. If "everybody does it". Riiight.

Well, according to you, our government works through a complex system of dishonesty. Whether or not that's true, it's simply not acceptable. That's where you and I differ.

No, he wasn't wrong. He was just lying. But that's okay. Because the Iraqi people are free now.

midwinter:


And again, since when would this be new, special or even noteworthy? Politicians ALWAYS lie; to get elected, to raise taxes, to lower taxes, to start war, to end war; lying is like breathing to them.

So what would make this unique or special? Well, he lied to aid his war goal, and war takes lives! That is why we hate war, because it kills people.

But what if war is a replacement for something that killed more? What is the objection to war then?

Right... a hatred of Bush because he's got an R next to his name. Or a general disdain for America (for whatever reason).

--

bunge:


How about this option:
**** Donald Rumsfeld. I don't care what he says. Never have.

--

tonton:


Perhaps if our only source of information were the PotUS then you would have a point, but he's not. We are inundated with media every day, a great deal of it discussing the WoMD situation, outlining the counter-arguments of the oppossing nations and covering in a reverential hush the very public spats between the sides.

You can say Bush lied, but to say he subverted the Democratic process is melodramatic bullshit. It's total farce. The information was out there and BOTH sides lied to push their agenda.

Either millions were marching against the war or they weren't; Bush lied but for Christ's sake let's not act like we're in an Orwellian society here.

"We were not given that choice."... Jesus ****ing Christ what a melodramatic load of shit. I cannot believe you post that expecting it to be taken seriously.

I'll ask you what the others don't want to answer:
Did Clinton take away our choice when he unilaterally bombed Iraq before his impeachment? Did he subvert the Democratic process with his WoMD lies? Was America like a dictatorship under his reign?

My answer: no.
Yours?

I thought the big Clinton witch hunt was all about him LYING. Oh wait, since Bush wasn't under oath when he lied to us about why we should go to war it suddenly is alright?

well ok then . . . .

we can spare the Iron Maiden with hot thumb screws

Yeesh, Groverat. I had thought that, at least, you and I had gotten past this kind of thing in our last significant exchange, which I thought was remarkably productive and insightful. It was also frank in its willingness to admit that there are questions to which we don't know the answer.

By the way, it was neat the way you completely avoided the Blix quote I offered. I mean, Blix is the guy you keep quoting and all, so I thought you might find it interesting. That was why I posted it.


Since you started it, how about an example of a politician lying about another country's ability to strike the US (as you admit is the status quo) to both congress and the American people in order to start a war that involves at least 200,000 American soldiers? Can you give me one?


I'll let you answer the first question, since I really expect my president not to lie in order to satisfy some "war goal." Indeed, I expect presidents to do their best to avoid war. Wouldn't that seem like the kind fo thing you'd want to avoid?

What does make this significant or special? You asked the question.


War is always a failure of diplomacy. It is a failure of imagination. Always.


Just to have some fun with this argument, I'll say this: Nah. It just that you like to see the kids get shot at. Or the brown people get burned. Take your pick. I'm fine with you saying you like either one.

Look, man. I understand your position. I know that you think that the removal of SH was a crucial goal regardless of the arguments made in its favor by this admin. But that's not the point. The point, as I said earlier, is whether or not the admin lied about the level of threat posed by Iraq as a means of convincing people who DON'T THINK LIKE YOU. This includes congress. This includes the president's adddress to the people. And if they did lie, which you seem to admit they did, there could potentially be hell to pay.

Cheers
Scott

That means you still have too much pride to admit you were wrong. Hubris is ugly.

Feel free to **** Donny if you like. But since WMD don't exist in Iraq you were wrong. At least, not enough WMD to consider Iraq 'armed' and needing of a cleansing.

I don't know for certain that we won't find anything, I'm just suggesting that you get used to saying that you were wrong.

The war in iraq is already finished. This thread has turned into a bad remake of OK Corral.

It's time to hide the Colts and start a new threas about WOMD in Iraq.