or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows. - Page 14

post #521 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Her version of Joesph McCarthy and I'm sure she has other examples in mind..

We've been through that one before. Sometimes I think you're getting altzheimers but I know you're just playing dumb.

Also he's only flip flopping to you. Maybe what we need is a radical to get some change in the tired way of doing things. And antiwar well that speaks for itself.


All and all he sounds like a pretty good fellow to me.

You've really got to be scrambling like mad to find something bad to say about him if these are your examples.

The problem with you is when you can't find anything to argue about you then try to pick at something small about what I've said ( notice I didn't comment on your typo ). At least that's been your pattern.



That's desparate.



I find that good also.

1. Can you refute her McCarthy claims?

2. He's certainly not only "flip flopping to me". It's all in his ridiculous record, which cannot be explained. We have to look no further than the Iraq issue. He's all over the map. He has a case of Goreitis.

3. Of course he sounds lke a good fellow to you, because you'll ignore anything in anyone's background as long as you think he can beat the evil GWB. You'd have supported the insane Howard Dean if he was going to be nominee. I'm sure.

4. I can't find examples? Are you kidding? Please tell me you are. Gay marriage=for, then against. Iraq war 1991=against. Iraq war 2003=for, then against. NAFTA=I voted for it, then "it needs to go to protect American jobs." $87B war funding=against, despite voting for the war. WMD=Saddam has them and everyone knows it, then Bush lied to us. Intelligence=cut intel spending in 1995, now criticizes quality of intel. Death Penalty=Against it for international terrorists, now for it.

Whether you're voting for Bush or not, at least admit Kerry's a flopper. Come on, jimmac.
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 #522 of 654
In a worst case scenario, I'd rather vote for a "flopper", which he isn't(nice try), than a liar.
post #523 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. Can you refute her McCarthy claims?

2. He's certainly not only "flip flopping to me". It's all in his ridiculous record, which cannot be explained. We have to look no further than the Iraq issue. He's all over the map. He has a case of Goreitis.

3. Of course he sounds lke a good fellow to you, because you'll ignore anything in anyone's background as long as you think he can beat the evil GWB. You'd have supported the insane Howard Dean if he was going to be nominee. I'm sure.

4. I can't find examples? Are you kidding? Please tell me you are. Gay marriage=for, then against. Iraq war 1991=against. Iraq war 2003=for, then against. NAFTA=I voted for it, then "it needs to go to protect American jobs." $87B war funding=against, despite voting for the war. WMD=Saddam has them and everyone knows it, then Bush lied to us. Intelligence=cut intel spending in 1995, now criticizes quality of intel. Death Penalty=Against it for international terrorists, now for it.

Whether you're voting for Bush or not, at least admit Kerry's a flopper. Come on, jimmac.

You come on. Many sources from the time say the same thing about McCarthy. Geez!

The rest of your stuff is ranting your backwards conservative viewpoint and not really worth replying to.

No, your going to spend the rest of your life in that little conservative box. I'll never change you.

And yes SDW Kerry will beat the evil George Bush. People are getting sick of him.

By the way there is one thing you won't be able to to be in denial about come November.
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 #524 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX Well I am sorry to poke holes in your theory, but I am not a republican or democrat

So Naples, will you finally tell us what you are, if as you claim, you're neither a Dem or a Rep, or will you just keep avoiding the question? This is the fourth time I've asked.
post #525 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
In a worst case scenario, I'd rather vote for a "flopper", which he isn't(nice try), than a liar.

He isn't? Prove it. Prove he hasn't been all over the place. Give me a break. As for lying, I again ask you to show me evidence...ANY evidence that Bush lied. The lack of WMD does not even begin to prove anything.
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 #526 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
You come on. Many sources from the time say the same thing about McCarthy. Geez!

The rest of your stuff is ranting your backwards conservative viewpoint and not really worth replying to.

No, your going to spend the rest of your life in that little conservative box. I'll never change you.

And yes SDW Kerry will beat the evil George Bush. People are getting sick of him.

By the way there is one thing you won't be able to to be in denial about come November.

What sources jimmac? Really...I'd like to know. Coulter provides a very different look at McCarthy, and unless you can refute what she says in her book, I'd suggest not commenting. She backs up what she says about McCarthy....now you do the same.

As far as Bush, I'll again caution you not to underestimate the man. You've done so time and time again, just as most of his opponents have. Kerry might win. It's possible...but to be confident about it would be a very, very large mistake.
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 #527 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
He isn't? Prove it. Prove he hasn't been all over the place. Give me a break. As for lying, I again ask you to show me evidence...ANY evidence that Bush lied. The lack of WMD does not even begin to prove anything.

Here you go, again parroting about the WMDs. I have a DVD FULL of Bush's, Powell's, Cheney's, Rice's claims, imminent threats, mushroom clouds over NY/US, blah blah blah, "solid intelligence", "best intelligence in the world", "we know where they are","saddam and Al qaeda" and on and on and on. I guess if I was a Bush FANATIC like everyone can see you are, the lack of WMD wouldn't mean anything to me either.

The great thing about Karl Rove, is that he is so astute that most of the time he has others do the "dirty" work for Bush, so that in a worst case scenario, Bush has enough space to come and either deny it, or deny knowledge of it. The puppet master is very smart.
post #528 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Coulter provides a very different look at McCarthy,



Defending coulter?

You might as well dance around in a dress with a plunger on your head.
post #529 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
What sources jimmac? Really...I'd like to know. Coulter provides a very different look at McCarthy, and unless you can refute what she says in her book, I'd suggest not commenting. She backs up what she says about McCarthy....now you do the same.

As far as Bush, I'll again caution you not to underestimate the man. You've done so time and time again, just as most of his opponents have. Kerry might win. It's possible...but to be confident about it would be a very, very large mistake.

Coulter's a revisionist slime.

I am confident.
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 #530 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Here you go, again parroting about the WMDs. I have a DVD FULL of Bush's, Powell's, Cheney's, Rice's claims, imminent threats, mushroom clouds over NY/US, blah blah blah, "solid intelligence", "best intelligence in the world", "we know where they are","saddam and Al qaeda" and on and on and on. I guess if I was a Bush FANATIC like everyone can see you are, the lack of WMD wouldn't mean anything to me either.

The great thing about Karl Rove, is that he is so astute that most of the time he has others do the "dirty" work for Bush, so that in a worst case scenario, Bush has enough space to come and either deny it, or deny knowledge of it. The puppet master is very smart.

It means something to me. I'd like to know WTF went wrong. I still don't believe Bush lied, for a variety of reasons...one of which is that President Clinton and pretty much the entire US Government believed the same thing for years. I have to point out that if Bush did knowingly lie, then he is, in fact, stupid. Think about it: It would take about three seconds to figure out that if one lied about WMD and then of course didn't find them, there would political hell to pay. I think they really believed they were there and could at least find enough to justify war.

giant and jimmac:

I say again: Either refute what Coulter has said about McCarthy or stop posting on the topic. It's that simple. I'm not Coulter's biggest fan, but here is what she claims:

Coulter states (proves) that nearly every person McCarthy accused was, in fact, guilty. We know this from the benefit of historical perspective. Coulter also claims that McCarthy did *not want* to disclose names on his list, but was essentially forced to. She claims communists were at the highest levels of the US government, particulary in the State Department. Her claims are suprising, but well-supported. You should at least read her book (Treason) before you comment. She may be a skanky man-bitch, but she's got some fantastic points on this topic.
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 #531 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I have to point out that if Bush did knowingly lie, then he is, in fact, stupid. Think about it: It would take about three seconds to figure out that if one lied about WMD and then of course didn't find them, there would political hell to pay.

Welcome aboard!

No, seriously, there's enough blinkered maniacs who swallow any old shit out there; they wouldn't believe he was lying no matter what he said.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #532 of 654
The entire era of McCarthy/Nixon/HUAC is still shrouded in a deep veil of mystery. It was during those hearing that the US lost its innocence, not after Kennedy was shot. People actually believed our government was safe from external espionage. We are now jaded enough to realize this isn't the case. Whether the few people McCarthy did go after (evidently his original 250 claim was a gross over estimate) were a part of an espionage ring is a part of history. The methods that were used (most of which he didn't employ until his doing out) were unfair and brought down a significant number of other people who were innocent.
No matter how you put it McCarthy was a political opportunist as was Nixon, and these trials essentially destroyed the legitimate Socialist Party...
post #533 of 654
McCarthy was also a HUGE drunk.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #534 of 654
post #535 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I have to point out that if Bush did knowingly lie, then he is, in fact, stupid.

I don't think stupid is the right word here. Maybe he just had an agenda to follow. An agenda pushed by the extreme conservatists of PNAC around him? I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here.
Quote:
Think about it: It would take about three seconds to figure out that if one lied about WMD and then of course didn't find them, there would political hell to pay.

Considering the majority are busy watching reality shows and the choice in news is "limited", I don't think the administration is worried too much about that. The country is very polarized, and under the veil of patriotism, very gullible.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
I'll let you figure out whose quote I just used.
Quote:
I think they really believed they were there and could at least find enough to justify war.

Who cares if they "really" believed it? (I "really" believe I'm very handsome but maybe I'm not.) How about some CONCRETE proof before taking the nation to war?? How about some CONCRETE proof that we needed to act right then because the country was in danger and we didn't want to have to see a "mushroom cloud over NY"? We were told that without a doubt Iraq had WMDs.

It's not like the world didn't have inspectors on the ground in Iraq. It's not like we didn't have a crapload of spy satellites. It's not like we didn't control more than half of the country already (no fly zones).
The best "proof " we got was what Powell presented to the UN and the world:
-a couple of satellite pictures of a "chemical bunker" (that the inspectors had already visited many times).
-a couple of ARTIST RENDITIONS of the "mobile" labs. How about some actual pics?? hmmm.
-the assertion, based on a document that was such a bad forgery it was ridiculous, that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger...(numerous mispelled french words, dates that didn't match the days, signatures of people years removed from office. etc).
-they told us Iraq had x amount of tons of biological and chemical weapons produced x amount of years ago. Biological and chemical agents have a very short shelf life of a few months at best.
Call it whatever you want if not lies. At the very least, all we were told about WMDs was a gross or extreme exaggeration to get us to go to war.
post #536 of 654
Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.

Julius Caesar
post #537 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.

Julius Caesar

While that quote speaks words of wisdom...

http://urbanlegends.about.com/librar...esar-quote.htm

It's not really from caesar.
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #538 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
So Naples, will you finally tell us what you are, if as you claim, you're neither a Dem or a Rep, or will you just keep avoiding the question? This is the fourth time I've asked.

A human being. I am not affiliated with any party does that answer your question?
post #539 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
A human being. I am not affiliated with any party does that answer your question?

Works for me, I'm in the same boat.
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #540 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Welcome aboard!

No, seriously, there's enough blinkered maniacs who swallow any old shit out there; they wouldn't believe he was lying no matter what he said.

I don't think that's true.
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 #541 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
McCarthy was also a HUGE drunk.

Well that's fair.
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 #542 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
While that quote speaks words of wisdom...

http://urbanlegends.about.com/librar...esar-quote.htm

It's not really from caesar.

Quote:
hort of the culprit stepping forward, there's little likelihood of ascertaining who did write this politically convenient baloney, but we know it wasn't Shakespeare and we can be reasonably sure it wasn't Julius Caesar. It does, however, bear all the markings of a "classic" Internet hoax.

whoops.
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 #543 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
I don't think stupid is the right word here. Maybe he just had an agenda to follow. An agenda pushed by the extreme conservatists of PNAC around him? I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here. Considering the majority are busy watching reality shows and the choice in news is "limited", I don't think the administration is worried too much about that. The country is very polarized, and under the veil of patriotism, very gullible.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
I'll let you figure out whose quote I just used. Who cares if they "really" believed it? (I "really" believe I'm very handsome but maybe I'm not.) How about some CONCRETE proof before taking the nation to war?? How about some CONCRETE proof that we needed to act right then because the country was in danger and we didn't want to have to see a "mushroom cloud over NY"? We were told that without a doubt Iraq had WMDs.

It's not like the world didn't have inspectors on the ground in Iraq. It's not like we didn't have a crapload of spy satellites. It's not like we didn't control more than half of the country already (no fly zones).
The best "proof " we got was what Powell presented to the UN and the world:
-a couple of satellite pictures of a "chemical bunker" (that the inspectors had already visited many times).
-a couple of ARTIST RENDITIONS of the "mobile" labs. How about some actual pics?? hmmm.
-the assertion, based on a document that was such a bad forgery it was ridiculous, that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger...(numerous mispelled french words, dates that didn't match the days, signatures of people years removed from office. etc).
-they told us Iraq had x amount of tons of biological and chemical weapons produced x amount of years ago. Biological and chemical agents have a very short shelf life of a few months at best.
Call it whatever you want if not lies. At the very least, all we were told about WMDs was a gross or extreme exaggeration to get us to go to war.

I don't think it's accurate to say that all WMD have shelf life of a few months at best. In any case, WMD was not the only reason to go to war. Not by far. Where I think the Bush Adminstration went wrong was to focus too heavily on this aspect. Saddam had fired on our aircraft, refused to cooperate with inspectors, funded terrorists, etc. We had quite few reasons.
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 #544 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Saddam had fired on our aircraft, refused to cooperate with inspectors,

<random musings>Yeah, I can't believe we didn't roll back in there and take him out when he first started doing those things after the first gulf war. You know how those evil dictators can be. If you don't smack 'em back down right away, they get all insolent and start demanding things. Like cheesy poofs. I'll bet Saddam ate tons of those things.</random musings>
post #545 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't think it's accurate to say that all WMD have shelf life of a few months at best. In any case, WMD was not the only reason to go to war. Not by far. Where I think the Bush Adminstration went wrong was to focus too heavily on this aspect. Saddam had fired on our aircraft, refused to cooperate with inspectors, funded terrorists, etc. We had quite few reasons.

You know, I know, and Bush knows that this was the only reason this war got off the ground.

Nice back peddling however.
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 #546 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't think it's accurate to say that all WMD have shelf life of a few months at best. In any case, WMD was not the only reason to go to war. Not by far. Where I think the Bush Adminstration went wrong was to focus too heavily on this aspect. Saddam had fired on our aircraft, refused to cooperate with inspectors, funded terrorists, etc. We had quite few reasons.

it *was* pretty much the only reason to goto war. At least, it was the rallying call, the justification, and the motivation.

there may have been anterior motives, but they certainly weren't talked about nearly as much(or at all)

But, once we got there and realized that there were no WMDs, the justification became "we gotta take out saddam"

The truly lame part is how the whole switcheroo felt kind of like "sorry we misled you, but hey! this guy's bad, no harm no foul right? ends justify the means eh?"

now, I agree that saddam was pretty heinous of a dude, no one that kills so people should be left to their devices to kill more. But, maybe if we had been told that from the start things'd be different eh?
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #547 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
A human being. I am not affiliated with any party does that answer your question?

Kinda lame answer, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I don't know you from anything other than your very strongly anti-liberal paranoia laded Bush-forever posts.

Wrong Robot: thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

SDW:
Quote:
I don't think it's accurate to say that all WMD have shelf life of a few months at best. In any case, WMD was not the only reason to go to war. Not by far. Where I think the Bush Adminstration went wrong was to focus too heavily on this aspect. Saddam had fired on our aircraft, refused to cooperate with inspectors, funded terrorists, etc. We had quite few reasons.

Nice back peddaling there. Most biological agents do have a very short shelf life,months, while some nerve agents may last a few years. I recall an inspector saying that Iraq's botulism and anthrax(when they had them)were of such poor quality that they would only kill you if they landed on your head.

Just like your hero Bush: March 2003: Weapons of mass destruction.

June 2003: Weapons of mass destruction programs.

October 2003: Weapons of mass destruction-related programs.

January 2004: Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.

Hook line and sinker eh SDW? lmao
post #548 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
it *was* pretty much the only reason to goto war. At least, it was the rallying call, the justification, and the motivation.

there may have been anterior motives, but they certainly weren't talked about nearly as much(or at all)

But, once we got there and realized that there were no WMDs, the justification became "we gotta take out saddam"

The truly lame part is how the whole switcheroo felt kind of like "sorry we misled you, but hey! this guy's bad, no harm no foul right? ends justify the means eh?"

now, I agree that saddam was pretty heinous of a dude, no one that kills so people should be left to their devices to kill more. But, maybe if we had been told that from the start things'd be different eh?

Well you were but you only heard WMD apparently:

"And Iraq is ruled by perhaps the world's most brutal dictator who has already committed genocide with chemical weapons, ordered the torture of children, and instituted the systematic rape of the wives and daughters of his political opponents." - GWB radio address October 5, 2002

"The issue is straightforward: We must choose between a world of fear, or a world of progress. We must stand up for our security and for the demands of human dignity. By heritage and choice, the United States will make that stand. The world community must do so, as well." - GWB radio address September 14, 2002

"Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state." - GWB address to the UN September 12, 2002

"The United States is committed to helping make the world more peaceful and more just. We are committed to freedom for all. We're also committed to protecting human dignity, and today's vote is an important step toward fulfilling those great American commitments." GWB to the press secy. October 10, 2002

"America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin." - GWB Cincinnati Address October 7, 2002

From the same speech as an aside:

"Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear."

"And Iraq is ruled by perhaps the world's most brutal dictator who has already committed genocide with chemical weapons, ordered the torture of children, and instituted the systematic rape of the wives and daughters of his political opponents." - GWB radio address October 5, 2002

"We also know the nature of Iraq's dictator. On his orders, opponents have been decapitated and their heads displayed outside their homes. Women have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation. Political prisoners are made to watch their own children being tortured. The dictator is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control within his own cabinet, within his own army, even within his own family. We will not leave the future of peace and the security of America in the hands of this cruel and dangerous man." - GWB rose garden October 2, 2002

"The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us.

"Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them." - GWB Washington Hilton Hotel February 26, 2003

"Saddam Hussein has a long history of brutal crimes, especially in time of war -- even against his own citizens. If conflict comes, he could target civilians or place them inside military facilities. He could encourage ethnic violence. He could destroy natural resources. Or, worst of all, he could use his weapons of mass destruction." - GWB radio address March 1, 2003

"We know from recent history that Saddam Hussein is a reckless dictator who has twice invaded his neighbors without provocation -- wars that led to death and suffering on a massive scale. We know from human rights groups that dissidents in Iraq are tortured, imprisoned and sometimes just disappear; their hands, feet and tongues are cut off; their eyes are gouged out; and female relatives are raped in their presence." - GWB Radio address March 15, 2003

"My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger" - GWB oval office March 19, 2003

this was a fairly quick search, I know I can find hundreds more, if you like?
post #549 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Kinda lame answer, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I don't know you from anything other than your very strongly anti-liberal paranoia laded Bush-forever posts.

If you will look back you will see that I am only railing against intellectually dishonesty. I will comment if the other side is doing the same thing. However, there is really not a shortage of people criticizing Bush here, is there?
post #550 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
If you will look back you will see that I am only railing against intellectually dishonesty.

Why don't you reail against intellectual incompetence . . . . or would that be oxymoronic coming from 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...

Reply
"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...

Reply
post #551 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
Why don't you reail against intellectual incompetence . . . . or would that be oxymoronic coming from you?!


Is that supposed to make me mad or something? This is really what your tactics boil down to?

I see you have attended Giant's "when all else fails insult 101" class.
post #552 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
Why don't you reail against intellectual incompetence . . . . or would that be oxymoronic coming from you?!


ouch!
post #553 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well you were but you only heard WMD apparently...

this was a fairly quick search, I know I can find hundreds more, if you like?

Tell you what: go back through each of those speeches you referenced and see how many sentences Bush devoted to WMD versus sentences devoted to SH is a "bad, bad man."

Talk about cherry-picking evidence. Did Bush talk about multiple reasons to get rid of Hussein? Of course. Did he consistently emphasize WMD as the primary reason? Yes. Did he consistently suggest a terrorism connection with SH? Yes. Did he suggest an al Qaeda connection? Yes. Would the public have supported the war without the WMD claims? Probably not. Would the public have supported the war without the al Qaeda links? Did SH have WMD? Apparently not. Did Bush lie to us? Apparently. Is he trying to pawn it off on intelligence failures? Yes.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #554 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
If you will look back you will see that I am only railing against intellectually dishonesty. I will comment if the other side is doing the same thing. However, there is really not a shortage of people criticizing Bush here, is there?

Well, you're not criticizing him yet so I say there's at LEAST a shortage of one.

Also, criticizing Bush isn't intellectually dishonest. You're crossing two ideas.
"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
Reply
"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
Reply
post #555 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Tell you what: go back through each of those speeches you referenced and see how many sentences Bush devoted to WMD versus sentences devoted to SH is a "bad, bad man."

Talk about cherry-picking evidence. Did Bush talk about multiple reasons to get rid of Hussein? Of course. Did he consistently emphasize WMD as the primary reason? Yes. Did he consistently suggest a terrorism connection with SH? Yes. Did he suggest an al Qaeda connection? Yes. Would the public have supported the war without the WMD claims? Probably not. Would the public have supported the war without the al Qaeda links? Did SH have WMD? Apparently not. Did Bush lie to us? Apparently. Is he trying to pawn it off on intelligence failures? Yes.

All of you guys keep saying that WMD was only reason for going to war, I can show you hundreds of times SH atrocities were mentioned, along with other things of course, but now I am cherry picking?

This is what wrong robot wrote:

"now, I agree that saddam was pretty heinous of a dude, no one that kills so people should be left to their devices to kill more. But, maybe if we had been told that from the start things'd be different eh?"

We were told this from the start. Thus my list of quotes.

You guys say that WMD was the main reason for going to war right? Ok, I'll bite, but that was the thing that the UN has sanctions against Iraq for. They didn't care about the needless deaths or the rape rooms, or the acid dippings, or the starvation. It now looks like the whole Oil-for-food programs was a giant racket, with Cofi getting his hands in the pot. They looked the other way and took the money. And you guys wanted bush to go through that corrupt low life organisation? He may have done the US a favor by bypassing the UN. Where is the outcry over that. Oh I forgot this is the daily "Bush Lied" thread.

Your question:

"Would the public have supported the war without the WMD claims? Probably not."

Last I looked the majority of the public is still behind bush on this one. I think you mean to say would the "radical left wing" be behind him if it was just those pesky human rights violations?

What a disgrace. Keep harping on the WMD thing and you align yourself right there with the crooked UN and France, Germany, and Russia.

If you read his speeches carefully (I know that is a lot to ask) you will see that the overall reason was that we can't trust rogue nations with the peace and security of this or any other nation. SH had not accounted for his WMD programs and supplies, and do we want to take the chance of another 9/11 type of attack?

Apparently you do, and wish SH was never taken care of. The left, the party that claims to care about people, doesn't. All they care about now is ABB.

ABB.
post #556 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Well, you're not criticizing him yet so I say there's at LEAST a shortage of one.

Also, criticizing Bush isn't intellectually dishonest. You're crossing two ideas.

Criticizing Bush or anyone based on lies and spin is intellectually dishonest.

Holding Bush to certain standards and not applying those same standards to yourself and those that influence your opinions is intellectually dishonest.

Parsing quoted words and taking quotes completely out of context is intellectually dishonest.

Ignoring what Bush has said because it does not support your view is intellectually dishonest.

Assuming that anyone that does not agree with you is misinformed or uneducated is intellectually dishonest.

Doing the above mentioned and then trying to turn the tables and accusing those you don't agree with with doing the same thing is also intellectually dishonest.
post #557 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
You know, I know, and Bush knows that this was the only reason this war got off the ground.

Nice back peddling however.

Nice try. I've said that the Bush Admin. focused too heavily on WMD pretty much from the beginning. I know you'd like it if that wasn't true, but it is.

Naples:



Quote:
Criticizing Bush or anyone based on lies and spin is intellectually dishonest.

Holding Bush to certain standards and not applying those same standards to yourself and those that influence your opinions is intellectually dishonest.

Parsing quoted words and taking quotes completely out of context is intellectually dishonest.

Ignoring what Bush has said because it does not support your view is intellectually dishonest.

Assuming that anyone that does not agree with you is misinformed or uneducated is intellectually dishonest.

Doing the above mentioned and then trying to turn the tables and accusing those you don't agree with with doing the same thing is also intellectually dishonest.

Well said.

There were many reasons to go to war. Would people have supported it without the WMD claims? Who knows. That's not a question that can be answered. One can't look at today's polling data on the subject and come to a conclusion.

The fact is that Bush never said Saddam was an imminent threat. In fact, he argued that we couldn't let him *become* an imminent threat. Bush often spoke of material Saddam had not accounted for, rather than concretely state Saddam had the actual weapons.

I would like to know what the hell went wrong as much as all of you would. To accuse of Bush of lying, though, is totally unsupported. What we have is a lot of unanswered questions. Two of these questions are 1) If Bush was lying, then wasn't Bill Clinton lying too about the very same issue? Go back and look at Clinton's statements...you'll see they are remarkably similiar to Bush's. 2) Was Tony Blair lying as well? (and come to think of it, was John Kerry lying? Was every Democrat who voted for war lying?)
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 #558 of 654
SDW2001, why didn't we let the inspector's work then? What was the rush, if what we were worrying about was some missing material and not actual weapons? If Bush thought the weapon's claim was shaky because he, according to you, didn't mention any weapons, then the inspections had no reason to be halted. Saddam wasn't known to have had weapons... Bush strongly overstated the threat Saddam posed and in this way lied about his knowledge to get a war. He may not have lied about specific material, but he certainly halted a working UN process to bomb the country back to the stone age and on what justification?
post #559 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
SDW2001, why didn't we let the inspector's work then? What was the rush, if what we were worrying about was some missing material and not actual weapons? If Bush thought the weapon's claim was shaky because he, according to you, didn't mention any weapons, then the inspections had no reason to be halted. Saddam wasn't known to have had weapons... Bush strongly overstated the threat Saddam posed and in this way lied about his knowledge to get a war. He may not have lied about specific material, but he certainly halted a working UN process to bomb the country back to the stone age and on what justification?

Twelve years of inspection did not work. What was to be the ever allusive line in the sand? Come on, someone had to do it. SH had no intention of cooperating with anything that had even a hint of the US.

Forget about WMD for a second, why wasn't just the atrocities committed by SH and sons enough of a reason for you guys. Where is your compassion for the poor souls in his grip of death?

You seem to be more interested in tearing down your own government than interested in the people of Iraq. I really feel nauseous now.
post #560 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Nice try. I've said that the Bush Admin. focused too heavily on WMD pretty much from the beginning. I know you'd like it if that wasn't true, but it is.


The sad thing is that the administration felt that the atrocities would get no traction in the world community.

They were right because even now the only thing that matters in certain circles is WMD. The disgusting things that the Iraqi people endured for so long are not even mentioned.

Almost every speech that GWB gave mentioned the brutal nature of the regime, yet even now that reason is passed over like that doesn't matter.

Not to seem jaded, but 600 lives have been lost in this effort. I wonder how many Iraqi lives were saved by this action. I would venture to say 10 to 100 times that. That fact totally escapes the "Bush Lied" crowd. It is as if they do not care about Iraqi civilians. I mean the more I think about it, the more I really feel sorry for these heartless people.

It does appear that bush was right about the atrocities that were going on and that life for the Iraqi people is better now. It appears that he was right about democracy taking hold. He was right about removing a destabilizing influence in the MI. He seems to be right that showing force will influence other nations to fall in line. It appears he was right about the UN being unable to make the situation go away, in fact he may have been more right then he knew. He also appears to have been right not to cow-tow to the French and Germans and Russians, being that they were being corrupted by the UN.

Despite all of this, the one thing that gets a held on to is the WMD thing. This goes in the face of just about every intelligence agency in the world believing he had WMD's or at least programs and plans for them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.