Groverat, check out what Wolfowitz says about your argument:
Quote:
criminal treatment of the Iraqi people...is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.
Sorry groverat, but your flawed belief structure crumbles around you.
So why did we go to war, Wolfowitz?
Quote:
there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two.
YES. Lets focus on this instead of what Grovy said or didn´t say. The importent thing is what the prez said to defend the war and not what some goat beard growing Marylin Manson listening individual said.
What I say doesn't matter and as far as I am concerned absolutely nothing GeeDub says matters. Never has, never will.
Actions are what count when it comes to leaders, not what you say to the press.
Quote:
On a side note: I think Grovy got his ass covered here. But no matter what he do he can´t cover Georgies ass.
1 - I don't want to cover GeeDub's ass. I don't care about his ass.
2 - There's no ass-covering here, just me speaking my opinion. If others refuse to read an opinion that doesn't fit into a stock mold that's their own problem.
Quote:
Reality matters and should have been explained.
It was, Bush and Blair (mostly Blair) both made outlines of the humanitarian case. It wasn't the cornerstone and it wasn't the main thrust. Choosing to focus on WMD is one's own choice. I never really gave a shit about them and don't today, even thought GeeDub tried to sell me on it.
Funny how that works.
WRT to the "the war wouldn't have happened". It's a sad world we live in when humanitarian reasons aren't compelling enough to oust a brutal dictator. A sad, self-interested world indeed.
--
giant:
Quote:
But why in Iraq. If we can save more people in much more dire situations by focusing elsewhere, then why start a war in Iraq?
"focusing elsewhere"?
Did the world stop turning while we fought in Iraq? We don't do everything we could but it's borderline braindead to look at it in "one thing at a time" terms.
Also, we could fix the Iraq situation with war, other problems require different solutions.
And beyond that, we aren't as interested in other nations as Iraq.
Quote:
Yes. Note that the US, through the UN, focused on Weapons of Mass Destruction (as you did, if you need a refresher go to the beginning of the thread) because they are threat. Not because they are environmentally unsound. Not because they ruin the decor. The are targeted because of the threat.
So if the anti-war nations didn't consider Iraq a threat why have they pushed so hard for disarmament? Because threat status has little to do with disarmament.
hmmmm
Quote:
Groverat, check out what Wolfowitz says about your argument:
If I don't give a good goddam what the president says why would I give a shit about the Secretary of State's personal secretary has to say about what goal is worth what price?
Why would Wolfowitz's words disprove anything I say?
My backing sources are UNICEF, CASI, WHO, UN and the like. If you can find me using the administration as a source then go ahead, but until then shut the **** up with your administration bullshit.
OK, actually groverat claimed that the administration didn't use terrorism to justify the war.
Groverat you can flail around and insult people all you want, like you do when you make dumb arguments and get backed into your own corner, but you have zero credibility on this issue.
Bush and Blair stated that WMD is why the war was waged. Period. (well...there was regime change, the lies about Saddam and al qaida, etc, but those were secondary).
Now that no WMD have been found, the best form of damage control is to rely on that old chestnut of "humanitarianism" and sell it tooth and nail. This line of argument is emotional blackmail of the sickest variety. Bush will only have an interest in the Iraqi people (or people anywhere in the world for that matter) when they become "consumers" or a docile work force.
Actions are what count when it comes to leaders, not what you say to the press.
Wrong. This wasn´t just presented to the american people (who gave shit anyway. It all more or less came down to "Hey we are stilln agry over 911. Lets kick some ass"). It was also given as reason at the SC (like that matters for you) AND those giving the prez the go ahead for a war of aggression.
Accountability is what count when it comes to leaders
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
It's a sad world we live in when humanitarian reasons aren't compelling enough to oust a brutal dictator. A sad, self-interested world indeed.
If he really meant it GWB had the opportunity to say "you may not agree with me but I find the humanitarian situation in Iraq so bad I want to engage in war over it" instead of making up WoMDs, strange far out links to al Quada.
It's a sad world we live in when humanitarian reasons aren't compelling enough to oust a brutal dictator.
It's a sad world we live in when a privilaged and wealthy young american is so vain he pretends to care about people who actually suffer (well, not really, since he ignores places where people are currently watching militants eat their recently dismembered arms in front of them as they die) in order to save face.
Groverat you can flail around and insult people all you want, like you do when you make dumb arguments and get backed into your own corner, but you have zero credibility on this issue.
Repeatedly lying about what I say (and then trying to cover up the first lie with more lies) is more insulting than any name I could call you.
Quit while you're behind.
--
Anders:
Quote:
If he really meant it GWB had the opportunity to say "you may not agree with me but I find the humanitarian situation in Iraq so bad I want to engage in war over it" instead of making up WoMDs, strange far out links to al Quada.
Well Bush provided myriad reasons. He and Blair both discussed ad nauseum the humanitarian crisis in Iraq but it was then (as it is now) brushed off as if it didn't exist. As you can see from giant's "but people are suffering in other places, too" logic of denying the humanitarian case.
I provide links but you guys act like you don't see them.
Again: Bush and Blair made the humanitarian case for war. It was done. The humanitarian case against Hussein and sanctions was made by many human rights groups for a decade before GeeDub even took office.
- Was it Bush's main goal or motivating factor? I don't give a rat's ass what George W Bush thought was most important. It would be physically impossible for me to care less. I can think for myself, thank you very much.
- Was it Bush's main method of selling it? Certainly not.
- Was it there? Undeniably.
And if the case (that you damn well knew existed) is not compelling enough for you then that's your own problem. That's what I'm saying.
---
giant:
Quote:
It's a sad world we live in when a privilaged and wealthy young american is so vain he pretends to care about people who actually suffer (well, not really, since he ignores places where people are currently watching militants eat their recently dismembered arms in front of them as they die) in order to save face.
Glad to see you've run out of arguments and have dropped the pretense that you are actually able to debate content with me.
No face-saving here, love, I've been making the same argument for damn near 8 months.
What places do I "ignore"?
How many threads have you started about African strife (less than me, most likely) and how often do you bring it up?
Just stop posting in the thread, you're embarrassing yourself.
" Again: Bush and Blair made the humanitarian case for war. It was done. The humanitarian case against Hussein and sanctions was made by many human rights groups for a decade before GeeDub even took office.
- Was it Bush's main goal or motivating factor? I don't give a rat's ass what George W Bush thought was most important. It would be physically impossible for me to care less. I can think for myself, thank you very much.
- Was it Bush's main method of selling it? Certainly not.
- Was it there? Undeniably. "
This is just more smoke and mirrors. Geez! The main thrust of their argument was ( the only thing that would justify this war as their are many places with bad humanitarian conditions in the world ) Saddam was a threat. He has WOMD. That's what this thread is about. That was the only thing that would have gotten Bush and Blair past go! Dancing around this won't make you anymore credable. Geez! You're almost as bad as SDW! I always knew you and I would never see eye to eye on most world politics but I never figured you were just full of BS when it came down to proof of your case.
There was great human suffering in Iraq due to saddam. As there is in the world still. That's not what we're talking about in this thread. It's also not the reason Bush was able to go to war without a lot more difficulty.
This is just more smoke and mirrors. Geez! The main thrust of their argument was ( the only thing that would justify this war as their are many places with bad humanitarian conditions in the world ) Saddam was a threat. He has WOMD. That's what this thread is about.
Since when are we just supposed to discuss the very specific topic and never stray?
Bush lied, it's been established. Anyone who thinks Bush was 100% honest is a lunatic. It's been established.
We are discussing other things now, if you're uncomfortable with that you are free to not click the link and read.
Quote:
There was great human suffering in Iraq due to saddam. As there is in the world still. That's not what we're talking about in this thread. It's also not the reason Bush was able to go to war without a lot more difficulty.
If you don't want to acknowledge the humanitarian issue that's your thing.
No one is forcing you to read or post about it. I don't think you have any moral or logical right or imperative to instruct me to not discuss the humanitarian issue.
Also, if we're going to discuss Bush lying we must discuss what he said. And he most certainly has mentioned the humanitarian case dozens of times.
So should we only discuss that which you're prepared to or think you have compelling arguments for and ignore everything you can't refute to fit your partisan positions that require no independent thought?
Bush lied, it's been established. Anyone who thinks Bush was 100% honest is a lunatic. It's been established
I'm actually pretty interested to see what happens with the various inquiries (in the US and the UK) into whether or not he (and Blair) misled Congress (and Parliament) into supporting the use of force in Iraq.
Since when are we just supposed to discuss the very specific topic and never stray?
Yeah and this is coming from the " Evil Moderator "
My problem isn't that you agree that Bush lied. My problem is that you seem to find it acceptable. Not a small lie ether. It resulted in the death of many people. Now I know you're going to say it resulted in saving many people but that's not the point. An american president is supposed to have better values than to lie just to get his way ( yes I'm including Clinton in this as well ). Especially when it results in the death of many ( something that Clinton's lie didn't ).
Plus I strongly suspect getting his way didn't have anything to do with humanitarian issues.
I'm actually pretty interested to see what happens with the various inquiries (in the US and the UK) into whether or not he (and Blair) misled Congress (and Parliament) into supporting the use of force in Iraq.
I'm not saying it was all lies, but I am definitely saying he wasn't 100% forthright in representing the threat Iraq posed and definitely let his listener's mind wander on to inflate greater importance of that threat; Hence: people believing Saddam had something to do with 9/11?
Did he say Saddam was behind 9/11? Of course not.
Did he present the cases in such a way that it could be picked up by an ignorant third party? Perhaps.
But to decry this truth-twisting as anything unique or exceedingly noteworthy is just foolish and wholly ignorant of recent presidential history re: Iraq. And that is why the outcry about "new precedents" being set makes me laugh. It's laughable.
-
jimmac:
Quote:
My problem is that you seem to find it acceptable. Not a small lie ether. It resulted in the death of many people. Now I know you're going to say it resulted in saving many people but that's not the point.
Impossible fantasy is more important than life on the ground, eh?
If the senate wants to investigate go ahead but until Dubya commits an impeachable offense I don't give a shit. You hate him because you're a partisan tool, plain and simple. I'm not motivated by that like you are.
Quote:
An american president is supposed to have better values than to lie just to get his way ( yes I'm including Clinton in this as well ). Especially when it results in the death of many ( something that Clinton's lie didn't ).
Excuse me, jimmac, EXCUSE ME?
Clinton lies didn't cost lives?
Ever heard of Desert Fox, my friend? EVER?
"This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance."
Which president said this before dropping a metric assload of bombs on Iraq?
Or were Clinton's bombs made of rainbows and fairy tales?
And this is what I mean when I accuse you of having no real motivation or thought aside from partisan bullshit.
So now we have established that you think Bush lied. Now do you defend his right to lie to the congress (about WoMDs, the Nigerian link and other stuff) in other to reach a greater good?
Now do you defend his right to lie to the congress (about WoMDs, the Nigerian link and other stuff) in other to reach a greater good?
1) Did he lie to Congress? proof?
2) Did he lie under oath? (was this sworn testimony?)
If answer to 2 is "no". 3) Did he provide any information that members of Congress couldn't independently verify or research?
If answer to 3 is "yes". 4) Was this information a deciding factor in any of their decisions?
These are basic fundamental questions if anyone is interested in bringing some substance to the discussion.
-
I think presidents should be honest, but I see the world as full of grey and for different causes I think lying or truth-bending is absolutely acceptable. For other causes it was not.
Bush played the exact same WMD card that had been played by his internationally-popular predecessor for 8 years. The difference? Bush has an "R" next to his name.
That's what this is about, the "R". And I've met very few people who will be honest about that.
Bush played the exact same WMD card that had been played by his internationally-popular predecessor for 8 years. The difference? Bush has an "R" next to his name.
Uh, yeah, that's the only difference between Bush's and Clinton's Iraq policies.
Man you are a tool. "Did he lie under oath?" You sound like you're his lawyer trying to get him off on technicalities, rather than making objective judgments. Of course he wasn't under oath.
You also claimed in one of your defenses of Bush that terrorism wasn't really one of his reasons for the war.
2) Did he lie under oath? (was this sworn testimony?)
No, but if he deliberately misrepresented the level of threat to Congress ( to get them to grant approval for the war), to the UN (via Powell), and to the American people (via his national press conference), I would say that that's a very, very bad thing.
Quote:
If answer to 2 is "no". 3) Did he provide any information that members of Congress couldn't independently verify or research?
Wasn't there a problem with members of congress requesting intelligence data and not getting it?
Quote:
If answer to 3 is "yes". 4) Was this information a deciding factor in any of their decisions?
Difficult to say, since I'm not a member of Congress.
Quote:
Bush played the exact same WMD card that had been played by his internationally-popular predecessor for 8 years. The difference? Bush has an "R" next to his name.
Clinton wages a full-scale war, with hundreds of thousands of troops, and I didn't notice? The difference is not the R or the D. The difference is that Clinton wanted to contain SH (and occasionally drop some bombs on him to keep him in check); Bush wanted to remove him from power.[/QUOTE]
As a side note, Groverat, while I'm with you that the B and B attempted to make a humanitarian case for SH's removal, do you not think it's strange that the probes (in the US, led by a Republican from VA) are investigating the hyping of claims of WMD? Why would neither admin be making the argument you've been advancing if, in fact, the humanitarian issue had been such a large part of their case? Seriously.
If you don't want to acknowledge the humanitarian issue that's your thing.
You're still playing dress-up. So when was the last time you did any humanitarian work? When was the last time anyone you knew did humanitarian work.
While you are BSing about where your heart is, many people around me actually risk their lives to help people. My boss' husband was the first aid worker to the NA front lines right after Sept 11. He returned there after the fall of the taliban at a time when aid workers were routinely being shot. He just came back from Iraq. My other co-worker spends quite a bit of time every year in South Africa working with impoverished communities. Another one of my co-workers was instrumental in the South African elections. My Aunt has deovted her live to child health care to the point where she has never been married. She now head the most advanced children's hospital in the world now under constructon here in Chicago and spend 24 hours a day devoted to her job. One close fiend of mine is now in the peace corps. Another one (who's whose working on doctorate #2) has devoted her life to working on the AIDS problem in Africa to the point where she has to move from country to country month to month. I've done my part through my work with Vipassana. How many more do you need? Easily half of the 200 some people I work with actually volunteer regularly to do humanitarian work in some of the most dangerous places on earth. Some of them are the people behind important legislation. Hell, even our student workers spend each summer working to help people around the world, primarily by going to washington and working on policy.
People that devote their lives to humanitarian work are probably the most outspoken people AGAINST the war in Iraq. But hey, I guess the world is thankful to have real devoted humanitarians like you. I guess everyone else that actually has spend years studying it and devoting their lives to it just have their heads up their asses.
Sorry bud, you are going to have to lie another way
Comments
Originally posted by giant
Then the war wouldn't have happened.
Sccchy. I wanted Grovie to say that
criminal treatment of the Iraqi people...is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.
http://dod.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20...ecdef0223.html
Sorry groverat, but your flawed belief structure crumbles around you.
So why did we go to war, Wolfowitz?
there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two.
YES. Lets focus on this instead of what Grovy said or didn´t say. The importent thing is what the prez said to defend the war and not what some goat beard growing Marylin Manson listening individual said.
What I say doesn't matter and as far as I am concerned absolutely nothing GeeDub says matters. Never has, never will.
Actions are what count when it comes to leaders, not what you say to the press.
On a side note: I think Grovy got his ass covered here. But no matter what he do he can´t cover Georgies ass.
1 - I don't want to cover GeeDub's ass. I don't care about his ass.
2 - There's no ass-covering here, just me speaking my opinion. If others refuse to read an opinion that doesn't fit into a stock mold that's their own problem.
Reality matters and should have been explained.
It was, Bush and Blair (mostly Blair) both made outlines of the humanitarian case. It wasn't the cornerstone and it wasn't the main thrust. Choosing to focus on WMD is one's own choice. I never really gave a shit about them and don't today, even thought GeeDub tried to sell me on it.
Funny how that works.
WRT to the "the war wouldn't have happened". It's a sad world we live in when humanitarian reasons aren't compelling enough to oust a brutal dictator. A sad, self-interested world indeed.
--
giant:
But why in Iraq. If we can save more people in much more dire situations by focusing elsewhere, then why start a war in Iraq?
"focusing elsewhere"?
Did the world stop turning while we fought in Iraq? We don't do everything we could but it's borderline braindead to look at it in "one thing at a time" terms.
Also, we could fix the Iraq situation with war, other problems require different solutions.
And beyond that, we aren't as interested in other nations as Iraq.
Yes. Note that the US, through the UN, focused on Weapons of Mass Destruction (as you did, if you need a refresher go to the beginning of the thread) because they are threat. Not because they are environmentally unsound. Not because they ruin the decor. The are targeted because of the threat.
So if the anti-war nations didn't consider Iraq a threat why have they pushed so hard for disarmament? Because threat status has little to do with disarmament.
hmmmm
Groverat, check out what Wolfowitz says about your argument:
If I don't give a good goddam what the president says why would I give a shit about the Secretary of State's personal secretary has to say about what goal is worth what price?
Why would Wolfowitz's words disprove anything I say?
My backing sources are UNICEF, CASI, WHO, UN and the like. If you can find me using the administration as a source then go ahead, but until then shut the **** up with your administration bullshit.
Groverat you can flail around and insult people all you want, like you do when you make dumb arguments and get backed into your own corner, but you have zero credibility on this issue.
Now that no WMD have been found, the best form of damage control is to rely on that old chestnut of "humanitarianism" and sell it tooth and nail. This line of argument is emotional blackmail of the sickest variety. Bush will only have an interest in the Iraqi people (or people anywhere in the world for that matter) when they become "consumers" or a docile work force.
George Bush gives a damn about human rights!!!!
Where's that 200 kilo cluestick...
Originally posted by groverat
Actions are what count when it comes to leaders, not what you say to the press.
Wrong. This wasn´t just presented to the american people (who gave shit anyway. It all more or less came down to "Hey we are stilln agry over 911. Lets kick some ass"). It was also given as reason at the SC (like that matters for you) AND those giving the prez the go ahead for a war of aggression.
Accountability is what count when it comes to leaders
Originally posted by groverat
It's a sad world we live in when humanitarian reasons aren't compelling enough to oust a brutal dictator. A sad, self-interested world indeed.
If he really meant it GWB had the opportunity to say "you may not agree with me but I find the humanitarian situation in Iraq so bad I want to engage in war over it" instead of making up WoMDs, strange far out links to al Quada.
Originally posted by groverat
It's a sad world we live in when humanitarian reasons aren't compelling enough to oust a brutal dictator.
It's a sad world we live in when a privilaged and wealthy young american is so vain he pretends to care about people who actually suffer (well, not really, since he ignores places where people are currently watching militants eat their recently dismembered arms in front of them as they die) in order to save face.
Groverat you can flail around and insult people all you want, like you do when you make dumb arguments and get backed into your own corner, but you have zero credibility on this issue.
Repeatedly lying about what I say (and then trying to cover up the first lie with more lies) is more insulting than any name I could call you.
Quit while you're behind.
--
Anders:
If he really meant it GWB had the opportunity to say "you may not agree with me but I find the humanitarian situation in Iraq so bad I want to engage in war over it" instead of making up WoMDs, strange far out links to al Quada.
Well Bush provided myriad reasons. He and Blair both discussed ad nauseum the humanitarian crisis in Iraq but it was then (as it is now) brushed off as if it didn't exist. As you can see from giant's "but people are suffering in other places, too" logic of denying the humanitarian case.
I provide links but you guys act like you don't see them.
Again: Bush and Blair made the humanitarian case for war. It was done. The humanitarian case against Hussein and sanctions was made by many human rights groups for a decade before GeeDub even took office.
- Was it Bush's main goal or motivating factor? I don't give a rat's ass what George W Bush thought was most important. It would be physically impossible for me to care less. I can think for myself, thank you very much.
- Was it Bush's main method of selling it? Certainly not.
- Was it there? Undeniably.
And if the case (that you damn well knew existed) is not compelling enough for you then that's your own problem. That's what I'm saying.
---
giant:
It's a sad world we live in when a privilaged and wealthy young american is so vain he pretends to care about people who actually suffer (well, not really, since he ignores places where people are currently watching militants eat their recently dismembered arms in front of them as they die) in order to save face.
Glad to see you've run out of arguments and have dropped the pretense that you are actually able to debate content with me.
No face-saving here, love, I've been making the same argument for damn near 8 months.
What places do I "ignore"?
How many threads have you started about African strife (less than me, most likely) and how often do you bring it up?
Just stop posting in the thread, you're embarrassing yourself.
" Again: Bush and Blair made the humanitarian case for war. It was done. The humanitarian case against Hussein and sanctions was made by many human rights groups for a decade before GeeDub even took office.
- Was it Bush's main goal or motivating factor? I don't give a rat's ass what George W Bush thought was most important. It would be physically impossible for me to care less. I can think for myself, thank you very much.
- Was it Bush's main method of selling it? Certainly not.
- Was it there? Undeniably. "
This is just more smoke and mirrors. Geez! The main thrust of their argument was ( the only thing that would justify this war as their are many places with bad humanitarian conditions in the world ) Saddam was a threat. He has WOMD. That's what this thread is about. That was the only thing that would have gotten Bush and Blair past go! Dancing around this won't make you anymore credable. Geez! You're almost as bad as SDW! I always knew you and I would never see eye to eye on most world politics but I never figured you were just full of BS when it came down to proof of your case.
There was great human suffering in Iraq due to saddam. As there is in the world still. That's not what we're talking about in this thread. It's also not the reason Bush was able to go to war without a lot more difficulty.
This is just more smoke and mirrors. Geez! The main thrust of their argument was ( the only thing that would justify this war as their are many places with bad humanitarian conditions in the world ) Saddam was a threat. He has WOMD. That's what this thread is about.
Since when are we just supposed to discuss the very specific topic and never stray?
Bush lied, it's been established. Anyone who thinks Bush was 100% honest is a lunatic. It's been established.
We are discussing other things now, if you're uncomfortable with that you are free to not click the link and read.
There was great human suffering in Iraq due to saddam. As there is in the world still. That's not what we're talking about in this thread. It's also not the reason Bush was able to go to war without a lot more difficulty.
If you don't want to acknowledge the humanitarian issue that's your thing.
No one is forcing you to read or post about it. I don't think you have any moral or logical right or imperative to instruct me to not discuss the humanitarian issue.
Also, if we're going to discuss Bush lying we must discuss what he said. And he most certainly has mentioned the humanitarian case dozens of times.
So should we only discuss that which you're prepared to or think you have compelling arguments for and ignore everything you can't refute to fit your partisan positions that require no independent thought?
Originally posted by groverat
Since when are we just supposed to discuss the very specific topic and never stray?
Oh my god I think I just got a hernia.
Bush lied, it's been established. Anyone who thinks Bush was 100% honest is a lunatic. It's been established
I'm actually pretty interested to see what happens with the various inquiries (in the US and the UK) into whether or not he (and Blair) misled Congress (and Parliament) into supporting the use of force in Iraq.
Cheers
Scott
Since when are we just supposed to discuss the very specific topic and never stray?
Yeah and this is coming from the " Evil Moderator "
My problem isn't that you agree that Bush lied. My problem is that you seem to find it acceptable. Not a small lie ether. It resulted in the death of many people. Now I know you're going to say it resulted in saving many people but that's not the point. An american president is supposed to have better values than to lie just to get his way ( yes I'm including Clinton in this as well ). Especially when it results in the death of many ( something that Clinton's lie didn't ).
Plus I strongly suspect getting his way didn't have anything to do with humanitarian issues.
I'm actually pretty interested to see what happens with the various inquiries (in the US and the UK) into whether or not he (and Blair) misled Congress (and Parliament) into supporting the use of force in Iraq.
I'm not saying it was all lies, but I am definitely saying he wasn't 100% forthright in representing the threat Iraq posed and definitely let his listener's mind wander on to inflate greater importance of that threat; Hence: people believing Saddam had something to do with 9/11?
Did he say Saddam was behind 9/11? Of course not.
Did he present the cases in such a way that it could be picked up by an ignorant third party? Perhaps.
But to decry this truth-twisting as anything unique or exceedingly noteworthy is just foolish and wholly ignorant of recent presidential history re: Iraq. And that is why the outcry about "new precedents" being set makes me laugh. It's laughable.
-
jimmac:
My problem is that you seem to find it acceptable. Not a small lie ether. It resulted in the death of many people. Now I know you're going to say it resulted in saving many people but that's not the point.
Impossible fantasy is more important than life on the ground, eh?
If the senate wants to investigate go ahead but until Dubya commits an impeachable offense I don't give a shit. You hate him because you're a partisan tool, plain and simple. I'm not motivated by that like you are.
An american president is supposed to have better values than to lie just to get his way ( yes I'm including Clinton in this as well ). Especially when it results in the death of many ( something that Clinton's lie didn't ).
Excuse me, jimmac, EXCUSE ME?
Clinton lies didn't cost lives?
Ever heard of Desert Fox, my friend? EVER?
"This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance."
Which president said this before dropping a metric assload of bombs on Iraq?
Or were Clinton's bombs made of rainbows and fairy tales?
And this is what I mean when I accuse you of having no real motivation or thought aside from partisan bullshit.
Now do you defend his right to lie to the congress (about WoMDs, the Nigerian link and other stuff) in other to reach a greater good?
1) Did he lie to Congress? proof?
2) Did he lie under oath? (was this sworn testimony?)
If answer to 2 is "no". 3) Did he provide any information that members of Congress couldn't independently verify or research?
If answer to 3 is "yes". 4) Was this information a deciding factor in any of their decisions?
These are basic fundamental questions if anyone is interested in bringing some substance to the discussion.
-
I think presidents should be honest, but I see the world as full of grey and for different causes I think lying or truth-bending is absolutely acceptable. For other causes it was not.
Bush played the exact same WMD card that had been played by his internationally-popular predecessor for 8 years. The difference? Bush has an "R" next to his name.
That's what this is about, the "R". And I've met very few people who will be honest about that.
Originally posted by groverat
Bush played the exact same WMD card that had been played by his internationally-popular predecessor for 8 years. The difference? Bush has an "R" next to his name.
Uh, yeah, that's the only difference between Bush's and Clinton's Iraq policies.
Man you are a tool. "Did he lie under oath?" You sound like you're his lawyer trying to get him off on technicalities, rather than making objective judgments. Of course he wasn't under oath.
You also claimed in one of your defenses of Bush that terrorism wasn't really one of his reasons for the war.
Originally posted by groverat
1) Did he lie to Congress? proof?
Isn't that precisely what the Senate is going to look into? The Brits are already on it.
2) Did he lie under oath? (was this sworn testimony?)
No, but if he deliberately misrepresented the level of threat to Congress ( to get them to grant approval for the war), to the UN (via Powell), and to the American people (via his national press conference), I would say that that's a very, very bad thing.
If answer to 2 is "no". 3) Did he provide any information that members of Congress couldn't independently verify or research?
Wasn't there a problem with members of congress requesting intelligence data and not getting it?
If answer to 3 is "yes". 4) Was this information a deciding factor in any of their decisions?
Difficult to say, since I'm not a member of Congress.
Bush played the exact same WMD card that had been played by his internationally-popular predecessor for 8 years. The difference? Bush has an "R" next to his name.
Clinton wages a full-scale war, with hundreds of thousands of troops, and I didn't notice?
As a side note, Groverat, while I'm with you that the B and B attempted to make a humanitarian case for SH's removal, do you not think it's strange that the probes (in the US, led by a Republican from VA) are investigating the hyping of claims of WMD? Why would neither admin be making the argument you've been advancing if, in fact, the humanitarian issue had been such a large part of their case? Seriously.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by groverat
If you don't want to acknowledge the humanitarian issue that's your thing.
You're still playing dress-up. So when was the last time you did any humanitarian work? When was the last time anyone you knew did humanitarian work.
While you are BSing about where your heart is, many people around me actually risk their lives to help people. My boss' husband was the first aid worker to the NA front lines right after Sept 11. He returned there after the fall of the taliban at a time when aid workers were routinely being shot. He just came back from Iraq. My other co-worker spends quite a bit of time every year in South Africa working with impoverished communities. Another one of my co-workers was instrumental in the South African elections. My Aunt has deovted her live to child health care to the point where she has never been married. She now head the most advanced children's hospital in the world now under constructon here in Chicago and spend 24 hours a day devoted to her job. One close fiend of mine is now in the peace corps. Another one (who's whose working on doctorate #2) has devoted her life to working on the AIDS problem in Africa to the point where she has to move from country to country month to month. I've done my part through my work with Vipassana. How many more do you need? Easily half of the 200 some people I work with actually volunteer regularly to do humanitarian work in some of the most dangerous places on earth. Some of them are the people behind important legislation. Hell, even our student workers spend each summer working to help people around the world, primarily by going to washington and working on policy.
People that devote their lives to humanitarian work are probably the most outspoken people AGAINST the war in Iraq. But hey, I guess the world is thankful to have real devoted humanitarians like you. I guess everyone else that actually has spend years studying it and devoting their lives to it just have their heads up their asses.
Sorry bud, you are going to have to lie another way