If Bush is a liar then . . .

I would actually like the live, non-scripted debate, but no reasonable political advisor would agree to this. Anyone watch the "West Wing" debate? Nothing like that would ever happen and, if it did, you'd need Hollywood script writers to make it interesting. Bush vs. Gore. C'mon! That'd be "Completely incompetent debater" vs. "Bore you to sleep debater." I actually don't totally object to the electoral college. I recognize its problems, but I think that it's much easier to try to address state-wide elections than it is to address nation-wide elections. Of course, if I had my way, the electoral college wouldn't be "winner take all." If someone gets 51% of the votes in a given state, they should get 50%, plus one, of the electoral votes.

But we all agree that the salesman is seedy! I think that you can rightly assign some large part of the blame to the people who buy the car from that salesman, but I think that we can all agree that the salesman shouldn't be seedy and, in a perfect world, both the person selling and the person buying would be honest and upfront. I realize this isn't realistic, but still. . .

Believe me: I definately assign blame to the American public for electing this Bozo president, but I think that the Republicans did all they could to scare people into voting for Bush. It just seems to me that someone who wants to run a country and govern its people shouldn't need (or want) to scare people into voting for him.

The President should be held to a higher level of responsibility than a used car salesman.

 

I'm not saying that any of this is necessarily a bad thing, but since when is the US the policeman of the world? What's our justification for picking and choosing which tyrants we will tolerate and which ones we won't? There were/are many tyrants who make Saddam's antics look like child's play, and we stand by and do nothing.

That notwidthstanding... I don't think that Bush and Co. lied initially... my problem lies in the fact that our initial justification was the WMDs... and then when it became apparent that there were no WMDs, suddenly the reason we were in Iraq wasn't WMDs at all... in fact... it was never about WMDs... The real reason we are there (and went in the first place) is because Saddam is a nutjob and we cared so deeply about the people of Iraq (and obviously not those of Rwanda or China or North Korea or the Soviet Union or any other country under the control of crazy people) that we decided, in our infinite wisdom concerning what is right for everyone else in the world, to selfelessly step in and put the lives of our soldiers on the line to save those poor people.

That's the problem. Instead of being men and admitting they were wrong, Bush and Co. tried to pull a "Ministry of Truth" on us and pretended that we had gone there because of suffering of the citizens of Iraq... We're not even talking about the audaciousness of thinking that we - a Nation who can't even properly prepare for a weather system we have weeks of advance warning for... a nation who can't even preserve the "things we stand for"... namely freedom and pretty much anything having to do with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - have any place or business to tell anybody how to run their country... let alone our flip-flop morals concerning the suffering of citizens living under tyrannical regimes.

 

[/quote]

Wow. For someone who decries the shrillness of some of the liberal posters here and the agressiveness of their posts, you got a nice little bit of that going on yourself.

I suggest reading the Downing Street Memo and the links therein. Yes, it's biased, but there's still good information within it.

As far as the evidence of the administration changing the "facts" to fit their beliefs in other areas, this is well documented. In particular, the global warming stuff highlighted on 60 Minutes last week was quite interesting. Copies of papers coming back from the White House where the important parts about global warming have been crossed out is one piece of evidence.

EDIT: You can see (at least some part of) that story here.

[/quote]
I wasn't the one who introduced the weather man analogy. My point is that, while they were both making decisions based on the information they had, the President's decision had much more serious consequences. There should be a much greater burden of proof if you're justifying a war vs. predicting rain.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 26 2006, 05:51 PM) [snapback]230575[/snapback]</div>

Wildkow,

You miss yet another point because you never actually, critically think. Let's try this again (but I promise, its the last time). Think about this.

Bush quote:
..."You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." --WP, "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003

*At the time of this statement, no such weapons were found, and no such weapons have been found to this day. On this point as well as the use of the captured trailers as biolabs, the WP said this in the above article: "U.S. authorities have to date made no claim of a confirmed finding of an actual nuclear, biological or chemical weapon. In the interview, Bush said weapons had been found, but in elaborating, he mentioned only the trailers, which the CIA has concluded were likely used for production of biological weapons." There was no statement of fact, there was no smoking gun. The CIA's finding was advanced as an opinion based on its own particular process of elimination, and it was immediately challenged by both U.S. and U.K. intelligence analysts who had seen the trailers. --Politex, 08.09.03

Did you read that? Bush lied at least twice in that statement. Why? Because when you present something that is not true as absolute fact, you are lying. Do you understand that? And this simple quote also validates my claim that Bush cherrypicked information, and cooked the reasons for going to war. He was not presenting a balanced viewpioint. He was presenting presumption as fact. That is dishonoest, misleading, and inappropriate behaviour for the President of the United States to engage in when contemplating going to war.

p.s. Your weather analogy is completely off base. Weathermen "predict" the weather, but Bush and Collin Powell were not predicting. Bush said "so far we've discovered two". He also said "We found them". Those statements were not a predictions. They were lies.

And in closing, quit trying to counter my points by saying "you don't have any points", or "you have proven nothing". Those are not points and they prove nothing. So far you have countered nothing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Mar 28 2006, 12:48 PM) [snapback]231430[/snapback]</div>

There might be one exception, the instance of all interiors of 'porta-johns' around all the bases in Iraq. The interiors are the last bastion of free expression. Scribbled with the most creative anti-Bush bashing one can imagine, simply as they are far from any jurisdiction of commanding officers.

To suggest that soldiers will parade anti-dumbya sentiments in the open is rather crazy, unless an individual has some serious suicidal tendencies.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 28 2006, 02:49 PM) [snapback]231431[/snapback]</div>

Sorry........... I didn't see the FHOP. :mellow:

Glad to see your beneath me though calling me names!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dsunman @ Mar 29 2006, 09:01 PM) [snapback]231927[/snapback]</div>

Don't need to go to Iraq for that, just come into FHOP! :blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 30 2006, 04:38 AM) [snapback]232247[/snapback]</div>

p.s. wrong again, they are the synonyms

fore·cast ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fôrkst, fr-)
v. fore·cast, or fore·cast·ed fore·cast·ing, fore·casts
v. tr.
To estimate or calculate in advance, especially to predict (weather conditions) by analysis of meteorological data. See Synonyms at predict.

And like I said, you analogy is completely bogus.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 30 2006, 04:38 AM) [snapback]232247[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Mar 30 2006, 10:38 AM) [snapback]232329[/snapback]</div>

Ooooo! Kelly Ripa!

(Anyone else here watch Scrubs? I know [you] does.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 30 2006, 05:38 AM) [snapback]232247[/snapback]</div>

[sarcasam mode on]
WOW, what authority, a bunch of right wing blogs, an opinion piece, and an article from the Moonies (WTimes)! Boy, if you can't believe that what can you believe!
[/sarcasm mode off]

But since you provided links, here's one for the three remaining Bushivek loyalists here.

http://www.buzzflash.com/

 

You know, one of the ideas I had way back when, was to see if we can ALL agree on at least ONE news source.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Mar 30 2006, 11:10 AM) [snapback]232352[/snapback]</div>

This is a great idea. I vote that we let [you] decide.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Mar 30 2006, 01:12 PM) [snapback]232354[/snapback]</div>

The more I think about it, it isnt'. All you have to do is question the next level of integrity.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Mar 30 2006, 11:31 AM) [snapback]232376[/snapback]</div>

Of course it isn't a good idea. No news source is truly objective. Of course, the ends of the spectrum can be seen in Wildkow and tleonhar's posts, but all news sources have some sort of bias.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 30 2006, 04:38 AM) [snapback]232247[/snapback]</div>

Its not about sources. Its about THINKING. You have to stop and THINK. All you are doing is "siting sources". I can site numerous sources that have detailed information indicating that the "mobile weapons labs (MWL)" were not MWL, and sources that say they were MWL.

They are not MWL's...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internation...,973012,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/...labs/index.html

They are MWL's...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/13/....lab/index.html

The point is they were not KNOWN to be MWL when Bush said unequivocally they were, and they still are not KNOWN to be MWL. The issue is at best in doubt. Bush should have presented the information in that context. To not do so was disngenuous and shows a predisposition toward starting the war. He and Colin Powell should have said "we believe...." or "it is our opinion that....". They didn't, they presented speculation as fact. That is wrong.

You have not countered that, and you cannot counter by posting links to articles.

You also haven't countered any of my other points or questions, which also requires thinking. Things like:

-Why does it make sense that we are spending so much money and capability on Iraq and not on the -people that carried out the 9/11 attacks?
-Why does it make sense to fight the "war on terror" in a conventional manner, when the terrorists are scattered throughout the globe?

etc. etc. etc. (you can go back and read them). You haven't presented any counter arguments or counter points.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Mar 30 2006, 08:57 AM) [snapback]232344[/snapback]</div>

Not for me.... I'm around that stuff all day at work..... my wife watches ER and greys anatomy.... I can deal with the later because its light hearted and more real.. ER is far too Rah Rah and people are far too rude and unprofessional to each other... if people treated each other like that in real life, they would get triaged themselves as they would be a patient or they would be fired.....

I've been around that stuff since 82, Its no fun to watch unless its real and light for me, why take home crap you want to leave at work?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Mar 30 2006, 09:31 AM) [snapback]232376[/snapback]</div>

Well we all know the news is not about integrity... its about a story... the more they can bend the facts without being obvious they are exaggerating the better the story.... money is the name of the game.

How many Giant Storms, earthquakes etc etc have you seen that amount to nothin?
They love being sensational.

In the same fashion discontent, arguement, and disagreement stricks the most hits on this forum, in the same fashion the news gurus know that presenting stuff that evokes emotion is what makes news.

Its pretty scary to know how dependent we are upone them for our perception of reality out there, because they are not very real.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Mar 30 2006, 11:12 AM) [snapback]232354[/snapback]</div>

:lol: