or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Lies and the Presidency
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lies and the Presidency - Page 3  

post #81 of 561
ahhh....signs of humour are starting to return....

(But you guys really should read and then comment on the Coulter column.)
post #82 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Why summarize, they're up there. Respond.

I got this link from a shy lurker.

The "silent majority" speaks through The Evil Moderator!


New Theory:

First Paragraph:

Ever since the destruction of the First Temple (in Jerusalem), the Isrealites, and by extention the Christians, have sought ways in which to kick the Babalonian ass that had destroyed most sacrelgiously the sacred resting place of God on Earth. Recall with piercing horror the rise of the would be Babalonian king, Saddam. He rebuilt the Hanging Gardens and rumor has it he even wanted to create the Iraqi Space Agency to see the face of God for himself. Realizing early on the significance of Saddam to the causes of kicking Babalonian ass, the Regan administration having full use of thier senses for all of a year, set forth a policy of setting up a Babalonian King (dictator) on balsa stilts. As you may well know balsa wood is strong when force is applied on its ends, but when twisted breaks like a teepee under a MOAB. The story is obvious from there, each administration took pot shots at the would be Babalonian Sun Dictator until our current one, in a mindless delusion of granduer matched only by Saddam's took down the Babalonian empire in the name of God...

post #83 of 561
There's nothing to respond to. It's all strawman and not connected to reality. The only argument I see there that makes any sense is the idea that Saddam needed to go so he could oppress Iraqis. Well, I'm sure you will find few people that will disagree there, but war this spring was not the only option. Of course, THIS WAR WAS SOLD ON WMD, and WMD was cited as the reason we had to go in so quickly. If this was a war for humanity, we would have no trouble convicting Saddam of crimes against humanity and then gone from there. However, this is not what the war was sold on, so it doesn't matter. It's already been discussed to death in other threads here. Trying to use smoke and mirrors to divert attention from the biggest lie in American history ain't going to work.

Anyway, I have an opinion piece here, too

Quote:
Was the Iraq war worth the human toll? Speaking as a World War II Navy veteran, a peace activist, a compassionate person, and one who affirms the inherent worth and dignity of every person, my answer is an unequivocal "no."

For starters, the case for first-strike military action against Iraq was illusory by any rational cost-benefit analysis. On the cost side, such action:

n Increased the threat of attacks in the United States by suicide bombers, thereby decreasing our national security.

n Put our armed forces in harm's way and risked massive casualties to thousands of Iraqi children and their families.

n Is costing unbudgeted billions (including payoffs for the deals the administration made with other countries to buy their support) money better spent on domestic programs needed by taxpayers who will pay the bill.

n Added incentive for rogue nations to develop nuclear weapons.

n Disqualified the U.S. from complaining when other nations breach international law.

n Resulted in decimation of Iraqi cultural institutions.

n Elevated military might over diplomacy and other non-violent means to settle disputes.

Except for field testing our military machine, gaining control of Iraqi oil, diverting media attention from domestic economic woes, and profiteering by well-connected Pentagon contractors, the benefits of Bush's war were negligible. Iraq was never really an imminent threat to the U.S.; its ill-equipped army was no match for the overwhelming superiority of the air, sea and land forces of the U.S. and United Kingdom.

There were other ways to depose Hussein (e.g., an indictment, trial and conviction by the International Criminal Court for his crimes against humanity). It was never one of our national priorities to invade and capture a foreign country in order to impose "democracy" on its citizens.

Peace activists have never questioned the valor and proficiency of our armed forces. What we questioned were the morality, the given purpose (it kept changing), and ultimately the need for rushing to war against Iraq. Finding that this war clearly failed to meet most of the universally recognized criteria of a just war, we exercised our right indeed, our patriotic duty in a country that prizes freedom to speak out against the president's decision to put our troops in harm's way in Iraq. (In truth, sending our troops to the Middle East last fall and ordering them to attack Iraq in March were pursuant to plans made before 9/11 in secret by Bush and his advisors.)

Being anti-war is also pro-troops. I'd wear a yellow ribbon if it would help keep soldiers and innocent civilians safe, but the better talisman is to stand up against using the force of arms and to advocate non-violent means such as diplomacy now being used with North Korea as the better way to achieve legitimate political purposes.

Bush's war has taken its toll on his image abroad. The preemptive attack on Iraq before UN weapons inspectors were able to complete their task and without Security Council backing is regarded as an unjust war of aggression, and the popular perception of the U.S. president as an arrogant, imperialist bully is now confirmed. Furthermore, the belief widely held here as well as abroad that Bush used intentional disinformation (i.e., propaganda) to dupe Congress and the public into supporting his war, has been substantiated by the absence to date of any viable cache of banned weapons in Iraq.

I believe preemptive war is un-American. The present administration's unprecedented policy of preventive war is reckless and wrong it would not survive exposure to serious, non-partisan debate in Congress and in the public square. I'm convinced the Iraq war was initiated to advance the political agenda of the administration, under the strong but divisive and unworthy leadership of President Bush.

There has also been an insidious human toll on the home front. Concurrently with "liberating" the population of Iraq, liberty in our own country is being seriously curtailed. Here, dissent from Bush's war is labeled "unpatriotic," whistle-blowers are being muzzled by the Attorney General, the White House has been using the media to manage public opinion, and opposition to wrong-headed government policies is muted for fear of reprisal.

Constitutionally protected civil rights have been broadly suspended in the name of homeland security but without diminishing fear of fanatical terrorist assaults.

While forecasting billions to "rebuild" Iraq, President Bush is asking Congress to reduce income taxes of the richest Americans and to cut spending for programs that help our youth and our powerless citizens. Even before the war began, U.S. military spending exceeded $1,000,000,000 EVERY DAY more than the combined military budgets of all other countries in the world and an outrageously high sum given the desperate needs of millions of Americans living at or below the poverty level.

For every dollar spent in Iraq, voters should insist that Congress allocate another dollar (or more) to rebuild our own inner city neighborhoods and schools, provide health care for the uninsured, protect our environment, and create economic opportunities for disadvantaged Americans. This is the way to make life more secure for U.S. citizens.

http://goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...ON30/106060260

Anyway, you guys should post your own opinions rather than relying on radicals. At least pick someone who's sane.
post #84 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Why summarize, they're up there.

No, you said she makes a 'few good points', so which few do you think are good? Which ones are being ignored?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #85 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Why summarize[?]

I think you now know why people would ask you to summarize. Because you have no valid point and they're calling you on it.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #86 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
It's the end of the day, but if you remove the errors in fact, attempts at rewriting history and strawman portrayals, you end up with a post that looks like this:



I would say nice try, but quoting a radical like Ann Coulter spouting off her delusional world view really hurts your credibility.

Look, I found this quote from her:



So this is where folks like SDW get their directions. The blind leading the blind

giant,

Why would anyone even try with you. You consider yourself a critical thinker yet I could type your replies before you do because they are nothing but reflexive.

You don't even reply to points, you just dismiss them and repeat yourself.

As for swing voters, most people would find it amusing and also highly cynical to believe that someone could change their beliefs or vote due to 30 second commercial spots and things of that nature, yet that is obviously what happens and worse still what decides elections, regardless of who wins them. Idiot voters may be a provocative name, but what would you call someone who votes off no core beliefs and little information?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #87 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
When someone is as dishonest as you, everyone must seem 'self-rightous.'

No one believed they would kill hundreds and thousands of our troops. You lie here and say 'They screamed that Sadfdam' would do whatever, when it's a flat out lie.

Don't lie. It makes you look bad.

'They' continuously said that Sadfdam wasn't a threat to the United States. It sure as hell looks like 'they' were correct. You don't have the courage to admit that 'they' were right though.

You're welcome to repeat my typo all day if you want. I suppose you need to do something to amuse youself.

There were plenty of folks here and in the Sunday talk shows and newspaper editorial columns saying this would be another Vietnam or at minimum there would be casualties both from "urban warfare" to borrow the favored 24 hour news phrase and also from chemical weapons.

You refuse to address the point. You were the one around here yourself saying inspections could work with multiple aircraft carriers sitting off the coast.

Why would Saddam need that sort of "incentive" to comply if he had no weapons? Wouldn't it just be better to prove he had nothing, get the sanctions removed and get on with building yet another presidential palace?

I'm only dishonest to someone someone so politically and dogmatically dug in as yourself. For you the daily "truth" only consists of the Democratic party talking points. People of all stripes and persuasions have brought up points regarding sactions, inspectors and all you do is call names, dismiss others and repeat whatever talking point you have to spin as the "truth" that morning.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #88 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
There's nothing to respond to. It's all strawman and not connected to reality. The only argument I see there that makes any sense is the idea that Saddam needed to go so he could oppress Iraqis. Well, I'm sure you will find few people that will disagree there, but war this spring was not the only option. Of course, THIS WAR WAS SOLD ON WMD, and WMD was cited as the reason we had to go in so quickly. If this was a war for humanity, we would have no trouble convicting Saddam of crimes against humanity and then gone from there. However, this is not what the war was sold on, so it doesn't matter. It's already been discussed to death in other threads here. Trying to use smoke and mirrors to divert attention from the biggest lie in American history ain't going to work.

Anyway, I have an opinion piece here, too



http://goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...ON30/106060260

Anyway, you guys should post your own opinions rather than relying on radicals. At least pick someone who's sane.

If I didn't want to deal with radicals, I would respond to you, Sammi Jo, Tonton, BillBob..etc.

The one very good point Ann Coulter made is that we didn't just pull the weapons of mass destruction weren't just pulled out of the air. Saddam had used them on Iran, the Kurds, and on his own people as well.

This is basically the same point people have been arguing about since the inspectors. We know he has the weapons, the only question is if he destroyed them. All he would have to do is show how he did that and he refused. The job of the inspectors should have simply been to see the evidence of destruction, not see if the weapons were still around and attempt to find them.

Considering what he had to gain, (staying in power and continuing to starve people, rape, kill, etc. which all the progressive folks around here are too political to acknowledge Bush has ended) why wouldn't he just show that they were gone? I mean he could have started selling even more oil than he was secretly piping out to sell through Syria. (Gee the inspectors didn't find that either did they)

Your inability to see any good from this war shows that you will twist your arguments in any manner you care to in order to advance a political agenda.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #89 of 561
WOOOOHOOOOOO!!!!!!


Nobody wants to touch the Coulter piece.


Amazing.
post #90 of 561
Hate to do this because it will derail the thread from the topi: Did Bush lie and what is the consequence if he did.

Quote:
quote:
In fact, the question was never whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We know he had weapons of mass destruction. He used weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds, against the Iranians and against his own people.

Remember all that is passé. It happened 12 years ago. WHat he had then has very little to do with what he has today. But lets for the sake of the argument take it seriously and put it into the context of this thread:

The claim must be this: The fact that Bush used claimed iraq posession of WoMDs as an argument to the congress, the americam people, GB, Polan, Turkey and SC to go to war against better knowledge is somehow not so serious because he Saddam used WoMD in the 80s? Please explain this.

This argument has nothing to do with the "proof" used. Bush didn´t say "he used these weapons in the 80s therefore he still have them". No he said " We know these trailers are used for weapons, they have imported Uran from Uganda, that these building are used for weapons production"

In Short: It has nothing to do with the current issue.


Quote:
The United Nations weapons inspectors repeatedly found Saddam's weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, right up until Saddam threw them out in 1998. Justifying his impeachment-day bombing, Clinton cited the Iraqi regime's "nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs." (Indeed, this constitutes the only evidence that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction: Bill Clinton said he did.)

I am not democrat and even if I were this is an example of "Whaaa but he did it too" argumentation. Even if Clinton lied it doesn´t make Bush lie less. And again it was not the arguents used by Bush. He used current intelligens (or at least it was claimed that he did)

Quote:
Liberals are now pretending that their position all along was that Saddam had secretly disarmed in the last few years without telling anyone. This would finally explain the devilish question of why Saddam thwarted inspectors every inch of the way for 12 years, issued phony reports to the U.N., and wouldn't allow flyovers or unannounced inspections: It was because he had nothing to hide

What does it matters? Bush didn´t used that as an argument. He didn´t say "Look there must be a reason why so tight restrictions were put on the UN inspectors so they had to withdraw a few years ago. Based on that we presume he has got WoMDs".

So Coulter puts up a lot of smoke to hide the fact: That Bush claimed he had current intelligence to proof Saddams WoMD program. What Coulter does is to render it possible that Saddam had WoMDs based on historical events. An completly other argument than that of Bush.

Lets return to the main argument in this thread.
post #91 of 561
Besides there is absolutly nothing new in her argument. It has been used many times over and over again. But that doesn´t make it any better.
post #92 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders the White
I am not democrat and even if I were this is an example of "Whaaa but he did it too" argumentation. Even if Clinton lied it doesn´t make Bush lie less.


...this is a new twist....so you would be willing to say at least until 1998 SH had CBN programs?
post #93 of 561
Question to you: What does it matter? Bush didn´t use Clintons bombing as a proof. He claimed he used current intelligence.
post #94 of 561
There are some on this thread who say SH got rid of all his CBN in the early ninties....but if he still had these programs untill 1998 (or even later) he sounds much more culpable.

The thing with GWB lying is that it will take A LONG TIME before all comes to light. This thing where giant paints SH as the forthcoming, transparent complier of UN resolutions and GWB as the evil capitalist swine up to no good, just totally blows me away.
post #95 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
giant,

Why would anyone even try with you. You consider yourself a critical thinker yet I could type your replies before you do because they are nothing but reflexive.

You don't even reply to points, you just dismiss them and repeat yourself.

As for swing voters, most people would find it amusing and also highly cynical to believe that someone could change their beliefs or vote due to 30 second commercial spots and things of that nature, yet that is obviously what happens and worse still what decides elections, regardless of who wins them. Idiot voters may be a provocative name, but what would you call someone who votes off no core beliefs and little information?

Nick

you would rather replace ideological rigidity and stubborn unthought with the possibility that someone would think criticaly about an issue and decide to change their perspective?

well that explains why you dogeedly will pursue a point long after its viability has been shown to be moot: in other words you just let your entrenched attitudes, which might as well simply be a uniform and part of the 'neo-con' trendy beltway project, do your thinking for you.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #96 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Your inability to see any good from this war shows that you will twist your arguments in any manner you care to in order to advance a political agenda.

Nick

By the way, this issue has nothing to do about 'seeing any good' in the war.
Many of us have acknowledged that some of the outcome has turned out to be beneficial, not just to Bush's super-rich cabal-leros, but to Iraqis, and maybe even to the mid-east balance as a whole . . .

... but the point is is that we invaded a sovereign country, effectively reversing a very honorable policy of not taking the role of aggressor and did so with false pretexts . . . pretexts who's falsity was used to change people's minds as to their support

Never mind that Coulter would rather have us be black-shirts effectively never question the position of 'the Party' . . . people were swayed because they were lead to feel that we were under immanent theat
lead to think so by people who probably knew otherwise
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #97 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders the White
Hate to do this because it will derail the thread from the topi: Did Bush lie and what is the consequence if he did.



Remember all that is passé. It happened 12 years ago. WHat he had then has very little to do with what he has today. But lets for the sake of the argument take it seriously and put it into the context of this thread:

The claim must be this: The fact that Bush used claimed iraq posession of WoMDs as an argument to the congress, the americam people, GB, Polan, Turkey and SC to go to war against better knowledge is somehow not so serious because he Saddam used WoMD in the 80s? Please explain this.

This argument has nothing to do with the "proof" used. Bush didn´t say "he used these weapons in the 80s therefore he still have them". No he said " We know these trailers are used for weapons, they have imported Uran from Uganda, that these building are used for weapons production"

In Short: It has nothing to do with the current issue.




I am not democrat and even if I were this is an example of "Whaaa but he did it too" argumentation. Even if Clinton lied it doesn´t make Bush lie less. And again it was not the arguents used by Bush. He used current intelligens (or at least it was claimed that he did)



What does it matters? Bush didn´t used that as an argument. He didn´t say "Look there must be a reason why so tight restrictions were put on the UN inspectors so they had to withdraw a few years ago. Based on that we presume he has got WoMDs".

So Coulter puts up a lot of smoke to hide the fact: That Bush claimed he had current intelligence to proof Saddams WoMD program. What Coulter does is to render it possible that Saddam had WoMDs based on historical events. An completly other argument than that of Bush.

Lets return to the main argument in this thread.

It wasn't just the 80's.

Iraq timeline

They were being found, (not voluntarily given up) after the 1991 war as well.

BTW, a little off topic but here is what the article quotes the coordinators of the sanctions had to say about them. For those of you who can find nothing good about the war, chew on this.

Quote:
In 1998, the co-ordinator of the programme, Denis Halliday, resigned, saying sanctions were bankrupt as a concept and damaged innocent people.

And his successor, Hans von Sponeck, quit his post in 2000, saying sanctions had created a true human tragedy.

Meanwhile UNICEF says...

Quote:
Unicef estimated in 1999 that child mortality in Iraq had doubled since before the Gulf War.

How humanitarian and "compassionate" are folks like you that will let child after child die while allowing a tyrant to starve, rape, brutalize and murder his own people so that U.N. "inspectors" can go around giving 48 hour notices and then showing up to find, gee all the stuff we thought was here has been moved. That was up until 1998 when they were kicked out. With carriers off the coast he finally allowed something resembling real inspections to begin but gee of course he had only had month after month to hide them.

All he had to do was show they had been destroyed and the point is people like yourself would have turned a blind eye to his atrocities and allowed him to continue living and ruling as he had. You know this to be a fact. Saddam could have simply remained in power if he had shown and given proof the weapons had been destroyed and the international community would have left it at that. So why would ANYONE choose to work against that?

Regardless of all the dismissing of history, facts, etc by folks such as yourself. The issue no one will touch is why Saddam acted as he did. Why would you force a showdown that knocks you out of power over something you don't have when the alternative leaves you no worse off, or possibly better off.?

Please address this point if you want some credibility.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #98 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
you would rather replace ideological rigidity and stubborn unthought with the possibility that someone would think criticaly about an issue and decide to change their perspective?

well that explains why you dogeedly will pursue a point long after its viability has been shown to be moot: in other words you just let your entrenched attitudes, which might as well simply be a uniform and part of the 'neo-con' trendy beltway project, do your thinking for you.

By the way, this issue has nothing to do about 'seeing any good' in the war.
Many of us have acknowledged that some of the outcome has turned out to be beneficial, not just to Bush's super-rich cabal-leros, but to Iraqis, and maybe even to the mid-east balance as a whole . . .

... but the point is is that we invaded a sovereign country, effectively reversing a very honorable policy of not taking the role of aggressor and did so with false pretexts . . . pretexts who's falsity was used to change people's minds as to their support

Never mind that Coulter would rather have us be black-shirts effectively never question the position of 'the Party' . . . people were swayed because they were lead to feel that we were under immanent theat
lead to think so by people who probably knew otherwise

I have thought critically about this matter. From my posts on these boards you should know that I likely lean quasi-libertarian on plenty of matters rather than dogmatically Republican. I don't even support free trade. So I don't know where this neo-con bit comes from. 9/11 changed our understanding of the Middle East. We began to stop seeing things like nation-states and realized the fluidity of people there. We began pondering tribal thinking and realized some pretty terrible things could happen pretty quickly.

Please critically think and address this question.

Regardless of all the dismissing of history, facts, etc by folks such as yourself. The issue no one will touch is why Saddam acted as he did. Why would you force a showdown that knocks you out of power over something you don't have when the alternative leaves you no worse off, or possibly better off.?

Give some proper motivations for his actions, and I will begin questioning Bush and lying. If you can't show why a profoundly selfish man would take a course that would allow him to remain so instead of losing everything, then nothing about the "conspiracies" that pass for theories around here make any sense.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #99 of 561
I am not going to get into a point by point reply-quote response on this.

The bottom line is that as ena's Coulter quote said, there is NO QUESTION Saddam had WMD. Anyone who argues otherwise is either intellectually dishonest or just plain stupid. Anyone who argues that Saddam simply gave up his program after the inspectors left in 1998 cannot be taken seriously. The only question that remains is when we'll find the weapons and how many of them we'll find.

Democrats and Republicans looked at this intelligence and then passed a resolution allowing the President to use force. Multiple high ranking Congressional representatives saw the evidence. It isn't a question of "Bush lying to Congress". If the intelligence was flawed, Bush cannot be held responsible. The administration doesn't collect and present the intelligence, the CIA, NSA and Military Intelligence do.

As far as Bush "lying publicly", the evidence on that is extremely thin. I agree he may have focused on WMD too much. That was probably a mistake, though nothing more than a poiltical one. I also know about this IAEA report fiasco which giant cites ad nauseam . That remains an unanswered question for me. I don't think it is proof of Bush lying. I do remember talk of reports by an agency regarding Saddam being within a year (at some point) of developing a nuke. I don't know when this was or to be honest, who issued it. The point is that we know Saddam wished to aquire nukes. Is there even a question of that? Or, have some here become so apologetic for Saddam that they don't believe it's true? I don't know why Bush said what he said (I saw the quote on video). There could be any number of reasons as I mentioned. I'm just saying that for someone to come out and jump on this as "evidence" of Bush lying or "fabricating reports" is really, really weak. I would say that Bush should have come out and corrected himself shortly thereafter. If you saw the quote, you know it was not a strong emphatic statement by the President. In fact, it was almost an "I think there was..." statement. It was pretty casual in nature and probably not a good idea. To twist this statement into "fabricating reports" is a bit ridiculous.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #100 of 561
Good posts, guys. I think we can get this bad boy ironed out before giant gets back and starts bombing this thread those splendid 58,000 word posts.
post #101 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
Good posts, guys. I think we can get this bad boy ironed out before giant gets back and starts bombing this thread those splendid 58,000 word posts.


ROTFL.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #102 of 561
Quote:
Give some proper motivations for his actions, and I will begin questioning Bush and lying. If you can't show why a profoundly selfish man would take a course that would allow him to remain so instead of losing everything, then nothing about the "conspiracies" that pass for theories around here make any sense.


Well put. I think some of this stems from a true hatred of Bush; a hatred that comes out of the anger about the 2000 election. We still have people running around saying he was never elected. Liberals are beside themselves with anger over the fact that the Republicans have the governmental trifecta going for them. Bush is basically doing what he said he would do and this makes liberals go apoplectic. He said he would cut taxes an he has. He said he'd increse military morale and he has. He said, after 9/11, that things were going to do whatever was necessary to prevent the US from being attacked again, including preemptively striking if need be....and we have.

Bush is implementing an agenda that many liberals and leftists think is nothing short of the end of the world. His conservative positions are at odds with everything liberals stand for, from abortion at will, to tax-and- spend, to extreme environmentalism and special treatment for minorities. He's a principled conservative President and they hate him for it. He makes decisions based not on polls and pragmatism, but on his moral and religous beliefs and on the advice of his cabinet. Liberals don't want a President like that. They don't want a Congress like that, and they certianly don't want a Supreme Court like that. The problem is that they don't have any issues left. They know quite well that the ecnonomy is probably going to be very different in '04 than it is today. Republicans have even taken the prescription drug benefit debate away from them.

So what's left? Personal attacks on the President for political gain. Criticizing him for landing on a carrier and as the commander-in-chief. Criticizing the war and his handling of it, even though many voted for the resolution authorizing it. No Democrat is going to have a chance with these "issues". Their tactics are going to backfire, just as they did in the Congressional midterms. Given a choice between a party that has a agenda that they don't agree with 100%, and one that has no agenda other than attacks and criticisms, voters are going to choose the former each and every time.

The accusations of lying and going to war for personal gain will keep coming, though. They'll keep coming even though said accusations will fail. The Dems just don't know what else to do.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #103 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
You're welcome to repeat my typo all day if you want. I suppose you need to do something to amuse youself.

Sorry, I was quoting you. It was a little bit of funnin' and a little bit of accuracy.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
There were plenty of folks here and in the Sunday talk shows and newspaper editorial columns saying this would be another Vietnam or at minimum there would be casualties both from "urban warfare" to borrow the favored 24 hour news phrase and also from chemical weapons.

This is just not true. You've got access to the search field at AI & Google. Don't generalize or we'll have to continue to burn your straw-men to the ground.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Why would Saddam need that sort of "incentive" to comply if he had no weapons? Wouldn't it just be better to prove he had nothing, get the sanctions removed and get on with building yet another presidential palace?

This is a bit of a weird situation. A lot of people here were arguing that it's impossible to prove you don't have something you don't have. He gave the world access to everything down to his golden bathrooms. We could have searched anywhere, and we did.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm only dishonest to someone someone so politically and dogmatically dug in as yourself. For you the daily "truth" only consists of the Democratic party talking points.

If I were a Democrat you might be right. But since I can't even name two* of the Democratic presidential candidates, this statement is probably 100% wrong.

*I don't consider Braun a candidate because she's from my state and I have experienced her complete lack of brain power first hand.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #104 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
The accusations of lying and going to war for personal gain will keep coming, though. They'll keep coming even though said accusations will fail. The Dems just don't know what else to do.

Why would there be Democrats in England attacking Bush's policies?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #105 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Regardless of all the dismissing of history, facts, etc by folks such as yourself. The issue no one will touch is why Saddam acted as he did. Why would you force a showdown that knocks you out of power over something you don't have when the alternative leaves you no worse off, or possibly better off.?

We can all critically think about it, but let's rephrase it so it accurately states that Bush forced a showdown.

Why would Bush lie and force a showdown over war in Iraq?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #106 of 561
trumptman:

If you think they're going to answer you about the sanctions you're kidding yourself.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #107 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
If you think they're going to answer you about the sanctions you're kidding yourself.

Groverat, what would that question have to do with the thread?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #108 of 561
Anders:

Quote:
I am not democrat and even if I were this is an example of "Whaaa but he did it too" argumentation.

Wait... but what about the "Why pick Hussein? There are lots of other bad dictators?" anti-war argument?

And also, if you're wanting to stick with the main point of the thread, a comparison between Bush and Clinton is more germane than anything you've posted. Read the very first post of the thread again.



--

bunge:

You happily bring up spelling/punctuation errors, let's not have whining about staying on topic simply because you can't address the point. It has everything to do with the topic because Bush mentioned Hussein's brutality (albeit not sanctions) and that's another thing your lot won't address.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #109 of 561
There's no doubt that going after the president over this is a political loser for Democrats.

I posted the links to this in another thread:

Bush's approval rating after winning the war in Iraq: 72%
Clinton's approval after being impeached in sex scandal: 73%

People don't like their president attacked. It doesn't matter if he deserves it. If the opposition party attacks the president, people rally around him and support him.

Republicans just couldn't resist during the Clinton presidency. After years and years of perpetual investigations of anything and everything, they had finally got him on something, even if it wasn't what they had hoped it would be. So they just reflexively followed through with impeachment, even though most knew it was a loser for them.

But here's the difference: I don't see Congressional Democrats jumping on this. Congress is held by Republicans, so any hearing will be chaired by Republicans anyway. That's a huge difference, and diffuses the partisanship. And there is no Democratic independent counsel dedicating his career to investigating Bush for years and years on every little thing that comes up.

I think and hope the Democrats are smarter than the Republicans were during Clinton's term. And I don't think it's just smarts. As much as SDW and others think the Democrats hate Bush, I don't think it holds a candle to how partisan Republicans felt about Clinton. They honestly thought he was just an evil man and that they were doing God's work in going after him. And of course it backfired again and again.

Democrats should just let this bubble up in the media and in the currently planned hearings. I think people basically understand what happened, and I think reports will come out showing that political influence was put on intelligence, and I think that will hurt the president, as it should. Otherwise, there's no need to turn this into a partisan attack.
post #110 of 561
^

I agree with some of that, but not all. I agree the Republicans hated Clinton. I was kind of waiting for someone to bring that up. The thing is, the two situations are quite different. I really believe Clinton was every bit as corrupt and they thought he was....it's just that the Lewinsky thing was the only thing they could get him on. Secondly, the Republicans obviously profited poltically from their stance on Clinton throughout the 1990's. Clinton's polices cost the Dems control of the house in the mid nineties. Of these, the debate on healthcare was the prime culprit, followed by his massive tax increase. In other words, Clinton's agenda was sort of a disaster poltically. I believe the only thing that saved him was the strong economy in the latter half of the decade.

Quote:
And of course it backfired again and again.

I don't know that the above is true. It backfired to an extent. Then again, they got him impeached and took over Congress all in the same decade.

In this situation, I DO see many Dems jumping on the wagon. I do agree with you, BRussell, that Congress is held by Republicans. Things will be quite different.


Quote:
Democrats should just let this bubble up in the media and in the currently planned hearings. I think people basically understand what happened, and I think reports will come out showing that political influence was put on intelligence, and I think that will hurt the president, as it should. Otherwise, there's no need to turn this into a partisan attack.

That's where I think you are wrong. Well, at least mostly wrong. The Dems should (if I were rooting for them, so to speak) let the media handle it...I agree. But, I don't think it will hurt Bush because

1) We'll find the weapons
2) He can defend himself convincingly if we don't
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #111 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Regardless of all the dismissing of history, facts, etc by folks such as yourself. The issue no one will touch is why Saddam acted as he did. Why would you force a showdown that knocks you out of power over something you don't have when the alternative leaves you no worse off, or possibly better off.?

First: it is you who are dismissing the history and the facts: the intelligence reports for instance

second: SH very likely did not believe that Bush would Invade. Also we simply don't understand 'honor' as concieved by the Tikritis. Also, there is a real chance that SH believed that if he held the bluff we would be frightened of his 'WMD' and merely bomb his citizens again . . . and you know that he always seemed to think that another blood bath was just what those upity citizens needed . . .

anyway, who knows why? but we pretty much knew that it was the case according to many of the intelligence sources. . . and that is the point: the reality was withheld

If they lied as directly as some assume that they did don't put planting weapons beyond them.

As for the critical thinking post i was responding to your gladly aligning yourself with the idiocies that flow out Coulter's brain: that seemed to be the point of your post above, namely tht you too condemn "swing voters" . . . that attitude smacks of the most pathetic self-identity paralysis . . and she tries to make a virtue out of it . . unbelievable!!
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #112 of 561
Also I would add that it is likely that SH may have felt that, as was apparent from all indications,that no matter what he did Bush was going to have his war and get his top-percent wealthiest folks frineds of his into the oil fields of Iraq . .

. . .what?! you don't buy that one?

hmmm?!\
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #113 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
First: it is you who are dismissing the history and the facts: the intelligence reports for instance

second: SH very likely did not believe that Bush would Invade. Also we simply don't understand 'honor' as concieved by the Tikritis. Also, there is a real chance that SH believed that if he held the bluff we would be frightened of his 'WMD' and merely bomb his citizens again . . . and you know that he always seemed to think that another blood bath was just what those upity citizens needed . . .

anyway, who knows why? but we pretty much knew that it was the case according to many of the intelligence sources. . . and that is the point: the reality was withheld

If they lied as directly as some assume that they did don't put planting weapons beyond them.

As for the critical thinking post i was responding to your gladly aligning yourself with the idiocies that flow out Coulter's brain: that seemed to be the point of your post above, namely tht you too condemn "swing voters" . . . that attitude smacks of the most pathetic self-identity paralysis . . and she tries to make a virtue out of it . . unbelievable!!

I named exactly the type of voter I would condemn. I call them swing voters and I described the characteristics of what swing voter means to me. What would you call them and are you saying it is a virtue to vote while uninformed and based off of no beliefs or information?

I am not dismissing reports... you must have double or triple vision. The article people here are getting up in arms about (talk about knee jerking) is one part of an unreleased report. In otherwords someone has leaked something and all the leftists here running around drawing conclusions from one sentence in an unreleased report.

So I have not dismissed history or facts. Saddam had the ability to create and also had used them. He kicked out inspectors in 1998 and could have gladly come clean at any time and be allowed to continue terrorizing his own people just as he had since 1979.

As for your unsupportable assumption that Saddam would think we were bluffing or not willing to attack, HELLO, massive build up in the region requiring a month or so of time, involving air craft carriers, etc. It wasn't like we just appeared out of the blue. It isn't even like he was working from ignorance since he had experienced it before.

Again it wasn't the cause with many intelligence sources. It has been one sentence in one unreleased report that has entered the 24 hour news echo chamber.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #114 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
Also I would add that it is likely that SH may have felt that, as was apparent from all indications,that no matter what he did Bush was going to have his war and get his top-percent wealthiest folks frineds of his into the oil fields of Iraq . .

. . .what?! you don't buy that one?

hmmm?!\

Sure I'll buy it. I just don't understand why he didn't let them into Alaska via presidential decree and then simply annex Mexico which has a large oil supply and is right next door.

As for the missing WOMD, they were probably shipped through the nice oil pipeline to syria that UN never knew about.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #115 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

You happily bring up spelling/punctuation errors...

Why do you lie so freely? It detracts from a discussion.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #116 of 561
Trumptman: About sanctions. Been there, done that. Read this pre-war thread for reference: linky

If you don´t want to read it: I have never been for the sanctions as there were implemented. They were not smart enough and targeted the iraqi population instead of Saddam. Every medical or technical equipment that in theory could be modified to be used for production for weapons were banned and the rest faced a year long aproval process that made it impossible to keep up buissness with the recipients.

If you want to argue please read the thread for reference. I really don´t want to restate my arguments all the time:
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #117 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Trumptman: About sanctions. Been there, done that. Read this pre-war thread for reference: linky

If you don´t want to read it: I have never been for the sanctions as there were implemented. They were not smart enough and targeted the iraqi population instead of Saddam. Every medical or technical equipment that in theory could be modified to be used for production for weapons were banned and the rest faced a year long aproval process that made it impossible to keep up buissness with the recipients.

If you want to argue please read the thread for reference. I really don´t want to restate my arguments all the time:

I didn't ask about sanctions. I asked about this..

The issue no one will touch is why Saddam acted as he did. Why would you force a showdown that knocks you out of power over something you don't have when the alternative leaves you no worse off, or possibly better off.?

The conspiracy freaks here want to argue that Saddam allowed for absolutely no reason that for which he had killed thousands avoiding, and that is being out of power.

Choices...choices...reveal I have no chemical weapons and continue to rape, murder, sell oil secretly, sell oil through U.N., possibly have sanctions removed, continue to building presidential palaces, sleep with whoever I want and also hey watch that crazy Uday of mine....

or...

Die, or be deposed and sit around watching bunker busters try to blow my brains out for... absolutely nothing since that would be the weapons SH would have according to some here.

Now when we consider that this is ...a report... and ...one conclusion in that report...this seems a bit, well premature. Especially when the same folks pointing fingers here were the ones screaming that the inspectors needed ever more time since Iraq is a huge country. (6 months minimum and we have been there in non-fighting fashion for...two.)

The motives given to believe this conspiracy make no sense. Why would some one who loves power give it up for no reason and no gain? Likewise if we believe Bush to be as equally loving of power and money as those here would claim, why would he do something knowing it would harm him and his interests so?

Oh hey, I know we have all three branches of government and after the next election we will have even more senate seats so why don't I ... go and get myself impeached and blow it all...for... absolutely no gain.

Yeah that makes sense... that's believable.

Next up. Hillary Clinton takes it all off for Playboy in an attempt to get taken "serioiusly" as a feminist and politician....

That would make about as much sense as the motives claimed here.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #118 of 561
trumptman,

I think you're saying that 'because we can't think of a better reason for Saddam to act this way, we'll attack'. Is that correct?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #119 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I didn't ask about sanctions. I asked about this..

The issue no one will touch is why Saddam acted as he did. Why would you force a showdown that knocks you out of power over something you don't have when the alternative leaves you no worse off, or possibly better off.?

The conspiracy freaks here want to argue that Saddam allowed for absolutely no reason that for which he had killed thousands avoiding, and that is being out of power.

Choices...choices...reveal I have no chemical weapons and continue to rape, murder, sell oil secretly, sell oil through U.N., possibly have sanctions removed, continue to building presidential palaces, sleep with whoever I want and also hey watch that crazy Uday of mine....

or...

Die, or be deposed and sit around watching bunker busters try to blow my brains out for... absolutely nothing since that would be the weapons SH would have according to some here.

Now when we consider that this is ...a report... and ...one conclusion in that report...this seems a bit, well premature. Especially when the same folks pointing fingers here were the ones screaming that the inspectors needed ever more time since Iraq is a huge country. (6 months minimum and we have been there in non-fighting fashion for...two.)

The motives given to believe this conspiracy make no sense. Why would some one who loves power give it up for no reason and no gain? Likewise if we believe Bush to be as equally loving of power and money as those here would claim, why would he do something knowing it would harm him and his interests so?

Oh hey, I know we have all three branches of government and after the next election we will have even more senate seats so why don't I ... go and get myself impeached and blow it all...for... absolutely no gain.

Yeah that makes sense... that's believable.

Next up. Hillary Clinton takes it all off for Playboy in an attempt to get taken "serioiusly" as a feminist and politician....

That would make about as much sense as the motives claimed here.

Nick

These guys just don't get it. It's out in the open now. And guess what? The public doesn't like it.

Most people don't do things like this thinking they'll be impeached ( I'm sure Nixon didn't think he'd get into trouble ). They do it because they're stupid enough to think they'll get away with it.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #120 of 561
Quote:
These guys just don't get it. It's out in the open now. And guess what? The public doesn't like it.

Where are you getting this from? From the polls I've seen, a pretty large majority (70%) of the American public approves of how the war was handled, and doesn't care if WMDs are ever found.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Lies and the Presidency