the majority of the country supported the war. Lest we forget.
The issue is not whether or not the country supported the war. The issue is whether or not the Bush admin lied to get the public, and the congress, to support it.
The issue is not whether or not the country supported the war. The issue is whether or not the Bush admin lied to get the public, and the congress, to support it.
And again, since when would this be new, special or even noteworthy? Politicians ALWAYS lie; to get elected, to raise taxes, to lower taxes, to start war, to end war; lying is like breathing to them.
So what would make this unique or special? Well, he lied to aid his war goal, and war takes lives! That is why we hate war, because it kills people.
But what if war is a replacement for something that killed more? What is the objection to war then?
Right... a hatred of Bush because he's got an R next to his name. Or a general disdain for America (for whatever reason).
--
bunge:
Quote:
You said war was necessary to disarm Iraq of its WMD.
Rumsfeld says the WMD were probably gone before the war began.
Either you're wrong, or Rummy's wrong.
If Rummy's correct, then you're wrong.
How about this option:
**** Donald Rumsfeld. I don't care what he says. Never have.
--
tonton:
Quote:
We were not given that choice.
Perhaps if our only source of information were the PotUS then you would have a point, but he's not. We are inundated with media every day, a great deal of it discussing the WoMD situation, outlining the counter-arguments of the oppossing nations and covering in a reverential hush the very public spats between the sides.
You can say Bush lied, but to say he subverted the Democratic process is melodramatic bullshit. It's total farce. The information was out there and BOTH sides lied to push their agenda.
Either millions were marching against the war or they weren't; Bush lied but for Christ's sake let's not act like we're in an Orwellian society here.
"We were not given that choice."... Jesus ****ing Christ what a melodramatic load of shit. I cannot believe you post that expecting it to be taken seriously.
I'll ask you what the others don't want to answer:
Did Clinton take away our choice when he unilaterally bombed Iraq before his impeachment? Did he subvert the Democratic process with his WoMD lies? Was America like a dictatorship under his reign?
I thought the big Clinton witch hunt was all about him LYING. Oh wait, since Bush wasn't under oath when he lied to us about why we should go to war it suddenly is alright?
Yeesh, Groverat. I had thought that, at least, you and I had gotten past this kind of thing in our last significant exchange, which I thought was remarkably productive and insightful. It was also frank in its willingness to admit that there are questions to which we don't know the answer.
By the way, it was neat the way you completely avoided the Blix quote I offered. I mean, Blix is the guy you keep quoting and all, so I thought you might find it interesting. That was why I posted it.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
And again, since when would this be new, special or even noteworthy? Politicians ALWAYS lie; to get elected, to raise taxes, to lower taxes, to start war, to end war; lying is like breathing to them.
Since you started it, how about an example of a politician lying about another country's ability to strike the US (as you admit is the status quo) to both congress and the American people in order to start a war that involves at least 200,000 American soldiers? Can you give me one?
Quote:
So what would make this unique or special? Well, he lied to aid his war goal, and war takes lives! That is why we hate war, because it kills people.
I'll let you answer the first question, since I really expect my president not to lie in order to satisfy some "war goal." Indeed, I expect presidents to do their best to avoid war. Wouldn't that seem like the kind fo thing you'd want to avoid?
What does make this significant or special? You asked the question.
Quote:
But what if war is a replacement for something that killed more? What is the objection to war then?
War is always a failure of diplomacy. It is a failure of imagination. Always.
Quote:
Right... a hatred of Bush because he's got an R next to his name. Or a general disdain for America (for whatever reason).
Just to have some fun with this argument, I'll say this: Nah. It just that you like to see the kids get shot at. Or the brown people get burned. Take your pick. I'm fine with you saying you like either one.
Look, man. I understand your position. I know that you think that the removal of SH was a crucial goal regardless of the arguments made in its favor by this admin. But that's not the point. The point, as I said earlier, is whether or not the admin lied about the level of threat posed by Iraq as a means of convincing people who DON'T THINK LIKE YOU. This includes congress. This includes the president's adddress to the people. And if they did lie, which you seem to admit they did, there could potentially be hell to pay.
**** Donald Rumsfeld. I don't care what he says. Never have.
That means you still have too much pride to admit you were wrong. Hubris is ugly.
Feel free to **** Donny if you like. But since WMD don't exist in Iraq you were wrong. At least, not enough WMD to consider Iraq 'armed' and needing of a cleansing.
I don't know for certain that we won't find anything, I'm just suggesting that you get used to saying that you were wrong.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
the majority of the country supported the war. Lest we forget.
The issue is not whether or not the country supported the war. The issue is whether or not the Bush admin lied to get the public, and the congress, to support it.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by groverat
Admit what?
You said war was necessary to disarm Iraq of its WMD.
Rumsfeld says the WMD were probably gone before the war began.
Either you're wrong, or Rummy's wrong.
If Rummy's correct, then you're wrong.
The issue is not whether or not the country supported the war. The issue is whether or not the Bush admin lied to get the public, and the congress, to support it.
And again, since when would this be new, special or even noteworthy? Politicians ALWAYS lie; to get elected, to raise taxes, to lower taxes, to start war, to end war; lying is like breathing to them.
So what would make this unique or special? Well, he lied to aid his war goal, and war takes lives! That is why we hate war, because it kills people.
But what if war is a replacement for something that killed more? What is the objection to war then?
Right... a hatred of Bush because he's got an R next to his name. Or a general disdain for America (for whatever reason).
--
bunge:
You said war was necessary to disarm Iraq of its WMD.
Rumsfeld says the WMD were probably gone before the war began.
Either you're wrong, or Rummy's wrong.
If Rummy's correct, then you're wrong.
How about this option:
**** Donald Rumsfeld. I don't care what he says. Never have.
--
tonton:
We were not given that choice.
Perhaps if our only source of information were the PotUS then you would have a point, but he's not. We are inundated with media every day, a great deal of it discussing the WoMD situation, outlining the counter-arguments of the oppossing nations and covering in a reverential hush the very public spats between the sides.
You can say Bush lied, but to say he subverted the Democratic process is melodramatic bullshit. It's total farce. The information was out there and BOTH sides lied to push their agenda.
Either millions were marching against the war or they weren't; Bush lied but for Christ's sake let's not act like we're in an Orwellian society here.
"We were not given that choice."... Jesus ****ing Christ what a melodramatic load of shit. I cannot believe you post that expecting it to be taken seriously.
I'll ask you what the others don't want to answer:
Did Clinton take away our choice when he unilaterally bombed Iraq before his impeachment? Did he subvert the Democratic process with his WoMD lies? Was America like a dictatorship under his reign?
My answer: no.
Yours?
Originally posted by groverat
Yeah, I'll FINALLY admit Bush isn't honest. You broke me!
well ok then . . . .
we can spare the Iron Maiden with hot thumb screws
By the way, it was neat the way you completely avoided the Blix quote I offered. I mean, Blix is the guy you keep quoting and all, so I thought you might find it interesting. That was why I posted it.
Originally posted by groverat
And again, since when would this be new, special or even noteworthy? Politicians ALWAYS lie; to get elected, to raise taxes, to lower taxes, to start war, to end war; lying is like breathing to them.
Since you started it, how about an example of a politician lying about another country's ability to strike the US (as you admit is the status quo) to both congress and the American people in order to start a war that involves at least 200,000 American soldiers? Can you give me one?
So what would make this unique or special? Well, he lied to aid his war goal, and war takes lives! That is why we hate war, because it kills people.
I'll let you answer the first question, since I really expect my president not to lie in order to satisfy some "war goal." Indeed, I expect presidents to do their best to avoid war. Wouldn't that seem like the kind fo thing you'd want to avoid?
What does make this significant or special? You asked the question.
But what if war is a replacement for something that killed more? What is the objection to war then?
War is always a failure of diplomacy. It is a failure of imagination. Always.
Right... a hatred of Bush because he's got an R next to his name. Or a general disdain for America (for whatever reason).
Just to have some fun with this argument, I'll say this: Nah. It just that you like to see the kids get shot at. Or the brown people get burned. Take your pick. I'm fine with you saying you like either one.
Look, man. I understand your position. I know that you think that the removal of SH was a crucial goal regardless of the arguments made in its favor by this admin. But that's not the point. The point, as I said earlier, is whether or not the admin lied about the level of threat posed by Iraq as a means of convincing people who DON'T THINK LIKE YOU. This includes congress. This includes the president's adddress to the people. And if they did lie, which you seem to admit they did, there could potentially be hell to pay.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by groverat
How about this option:
**** Donald Rumsfeld. I don't care what he says. Never have.
That means you still have too much pride to admit you were wrong. Hubris is ugly.
Feel free to **** Donny if you like. But since WMD don't exist in Iraq you were wrong. At least, not enough WMD to consider Iraq 'armed' and needing of a cleansing.
I don't know for certain that we won't find anything, I'm just suggesting that you get used to saying that you were wrong.
It's time to hide the Colts and start a new threas about WOMD in Iraq.