100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: They Lied | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Drew07_2
on
Sat 04/12/08 04:26 PM
|
|
Lindyy says: madman, I cannot believe you are still going around with your head sunk in the sand. Let me refresh your memory - President George W. Bush is NOT running for President again. Please, get a life. 
Lindyy Hey Madison, perhaps you'll find the time to answer the post in which I pointed out a number of Democrats and their sincere belief long before President Bush was elected that Saddam had bio/chem/and even a nuclear program going. As far back as 1998 the same group that now claims they were "lied to" were saying EXACTLY what GWB went to war over. In this case the only difference is that while Dems believed that Saddam was a massive threat back then they didn't feel the need to do anything about it. -Drew I wouldnt hold you breath drew. You got him back against a wall and he knows it. Besides he's to bussy acting superior right now. Guess what madman, yes there are many people that think gw should be tried as a war criminal, but guess what you and the rest of those people are in the minority. I may not like the guy but at least he had the balls to step up and do the job that needed to be done when everyone else was unwilling to do it. As for losing more troops in iraq than on 9/11. We loose guy's becouse we are conducting what the polititions call a humane war. We are making sure we dont compleatly distroy the place in the process. If all we wanted was to conquer the county and take there oil, as so many have claimed, I have one word for you MOAB. Look it up some time. The simplest way to understand what this thing does is think of a nuke without the radiation. all we would have to do is drop a few of these and that would eliminat a large amount of the populated portions of the country. But on the other hand we would be sacrificing countless civilians. So we take the high road and put our men and woman in harms way so we can keep civilian casualties as low as possible. A fair and valid point. You know what else just kills me here? Where were all of the "we hate dictators" crowds when Saddam was gassing the Kurds in northern Iraq? Some people here have no trouble participating in calling GWB everything from a liar to a warmonger but you'd think that sprinkled in for flavor would be a few posts condemning those who rape, torture and murder people (and were doing so for decades) people like Saddam. I wonder if there are any posts here at all that even mention that? Again, I won't hold my breathe. -Drew So Drew, assuming we ever get out of Iraq, which dictator do you think we should go after next? I seem to recall that at the height of the Clinton impeachment hearings, many of the same people who support the war in Iraq were saying that Clinton should not have gotten us into Bosnia or other 'police' actions around the world. That he was just using those to draw fire away from himself. And that we shouldn't be Team America:World Police. Besides, Hussein was executed and we're still there with no end in sight. And if he was such a staunch member of Al Quida, why did they not lift a finger to prevent that? He was captured in the most humiliating of circumstances-- all alone in a hole in the ground. See, the trouble with your position is that you ask rhetorical question and frame the debate in such a manner that only the monoculture of George Bush supporters can possibly have any 'correct' answers. Everyone else is being stupid and/or a traitor, those being the only other choices in the equation. Public opinion polls have shown that Americans are more sophisticated than this and they voted with their feet _against_ the politicians that pulled this stunt in the last Congressional elections. They may not like what they got, but one thing is for sure-- they hated the people like Rick Santorum (who lost in a landslide) a LOT more. That's a demonstrable fact. And while people like Newt Gingrich can still get rich off the books preaching to the choir, it's one the hard line wing of the party is going to have to live with. -Kerry O. Kerry, Actually, I have asked a number of very direct questions. When confronted with "Bush Lied" just under sixty times in the last month here in this forum I posted direct quotes from Democrats stating that Saddam was not only a problem but a massive threat. A number of those quotes were made long before President Bush was elected. When I asked some here who want to blame GWB for everything from 9-11 to the sinking of Titanic there is an eerie silence that follows. Please since you believe I have framed my positions in a rhetorical manner, give me some examples. If I have I'll quickly fix it. And I was not one of the folks who thought Clinton wrong to lob some cruise missiles at Baghdad. I have never written here or anyplace else that he was wrong to get us involved in Bosnia or Somalia or in a limited way, Iraq. I should also make clear that I did not support the impeachment but there again, I digress. What dictator should we go after next? Great question and I'm up for the discussion but clearly both Clinton's use of force doctrine (for humanitarian reasons only) and Bush's doctrine are not far apart. I've said in the past that the outcome is irrelevant when the logic used to get there is identical. Clinton felt that starving people in Mogadishu was a good enough reason to ask Delta and Rangers to grab Aidid. Was he right? Was it worth the loss of life we suffered that day? I believe it was and it was something for the greater good. The Middle East is a mess. What one person does in their nation affects us today in ways the Founders could not have ever anticipated. I think my overall point has always been that I don't agree or disagree with conflict based on the President who started it. Whether a Democrat or a Republican, there are going to be wars to fight. Kennedy got us in to Vietnam. Johnson kept us there yet it is Nixon who gets the blame for most of it and he was the President who got us out. I've not discussed things like this with you in the past and I don't know your part affiliation (nor do I much think that it matters.) What I have done is taken exception to people whose only viable method of comment is to cut and paste what others think while at the same time refusing to answer points made in defense of a position. The whole notion that Bush Lied (to the exclusion of many that came before him who made his case long before he did) isn't an ideological difference--it's politics at its worst--unprincipled--based solely on the letters R or D. Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I supppose drew that if you wish to speak about democrats who supported the war you should start your own thread. but in that regard It was not the Dems who led the charge for war in Iraq or constantly manipulated things to make the idea of war seem logical. Mainly I dont respond to your twistings is that you try to draw things off topic and the topic of this thread is about the repulican war criminals who lied ovrr and ovrr again and the media silence on the fact that everything they said to sell the war turned out to be false
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drew07_2
on
Sat 04/12/08 07:12 PM
|
|
I supppose drew that if you wish to speak about democrats who supported the war you should start your own thread. but in that regard It was not the Dems who led the charge for war in Iraq or constantly manipulated things to make the idea of war seem logical. Mainly I dont respond to your twistings is that you try to draw things off topic and the topic of this thread is about the repulican war criminals who lied ovrr and ovrr again and the media silence on the fact that everything they said to sell the war turned out to be false Oh Madison, please. The title of the thread was "They Lied". The premise of that was that Bush and company lied about Iraq and lied about our reasons for war and lied about just about everything having to do with this. So, with that in mind I posted a slew of quotes that REFUTE that premise. How is it that you think that belongs in a different post? Why shouldn't a person be able to refute a statement or argue a position against it? Are you suggesting that everyone who came in to comment after seeing "They Lied" should be required to check their thoughts and opinions at the door and with a wink and a nod, simply agree? I stayed right on topic here Madison but it wasn't what you wanted to hear. I did not twist anything you said nor have I ever done that to a post topic here. What I have done is made a perfectly relevant point arguing against a "theory" you have posited that GWB lied. That my doing so bothers you is fine, had you chosen simply not to respond that also would have been cool. But to argue not against my position intellectually but from the standpoint of it having gone off topic is really just a bit sad. Telling me that my contributions to this thread have been off-topic as a way to avoid dealing with a refutation of your premise doesn't make it so any more than accusing Bush of lying makes it true. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And the madman is going to save the world by cut and paste! woohoo! I reject your logic and replace it with my own. 
TFF Myth busters
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does it get lonely in your world? Maybe if you didnt forcefeed your warped sense of your own reality you wouldnt be. Like I have said before you are not the majority get over yourself. No wonder you live in the liberal capital of the world known as Madison you wouldnt fit in other communitys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just because others do not feel they need to speak out on it, doesn't mean there are alot of people who realize they were bamboozled into war in Iraq. I knew the day we did not go after bin laden and Saddam became the target that we were headed the wrong direction but there was alot of snow jobs on the American people so I cannot blame them too much for not thinking for themselves.
We should have bin laden, we should not be removing dictators without the people of the country asking us to do so. We should not be democricizing countries (especially since the people who favor the war tell us we are not even a democracy so WTF???). The rose colored glasses of those who cannot see the Bush administration for the economically biased, personally biased, bigoted group that they are, will come off one day soon and it is not a pretty picture without the glasses clouding it  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the united states is not a democracy
it is a republic 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I supppose drew that if you wish to speak about democrats who supported the war you should start your own thread. but in that regard It was not the Dems who led the charge for war in Iraq or constantly manipulated things to make the idea of war seem logical. Mainly I dont respond to your twistings is that you try to draw things off topic and the topic of this thread is about the repulican war criminals who lied ovrr and ovrr again and the media silence on the fact that everything they said to sell the war turned out to be false the op does not look for discussion, he simply looks validation.Any discussion not validating his posts are considered to be off topic by him. When the rest of the community accepts this fact, they will all then understand his posts. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My eyes! My eyes! I was reading so much I forgot to blink, ahhhhhh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just because others do not feel they need to speak out on it, doesn't mean there are alot of people who realize they were bamboozled into war in Iraq. I knew the day we did not go after bin laden and Saddam became the target that we were headed the wrong direction but there was alot of snow jobs on the American people so I cannot blame them too much for not thinking for themselves. We should have bin laden, we should not be removing dictators without the people of the country asking us to do so. We should not be democricizing countries (especially since the people who favor the war tell us we are not even a democracy so WTF???). The rose colored glasses of those who cannot see the Bush administration for the economically biased, personally biased, bigoted group that they are, will come off one day soon and it is not a pretty picture without the glasses clouding it
Ahhh, so now they are also a bigoted group? First, bigotry is really not on topic so you might be getting a note from Madison but second (and really this is becoming a bit of fun) check out the ethnic diversity of the Bush White House as opposed to the Clinton White House. And Dragoness, part of being political is being biased. Voters don't pick presidents because of objectivity but rather for their subjectivity. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just because others do not feel they need to speak out on it, doesn't mean there are alot of people who realize they were bamboozled into war in Iraq. I knew the day we did not go after bin laden and Saddam became the target that we were headed the wrong direction but there was alot of snow jobs on the American people so I cannot blame them too much for not thinking for themselves. We should have bin laden, we should not be removing dictators without the people of the country asking us to do so. We should not be democricizing countries (especially since the people who favor the war tell us we are not even a democracy so WTF???). The rose colored glasses of those who cannot see the Bush administration for the economically biased, personally biased, bigoted group that they are, will come off one day soon and it is not a pretty picture without the glasses clouding it
Ahhh, so now they are also a bigoted group? First, bigotry is really not on topic so you might be getting a note from Madison but second (and really this is becoming a bit of fun) check out the ethnic diversity of the Bush White House as opposed to the Clinton White House. And Dragoness, part of being political is being biased. Voters don't pick presidents because of objectivity but rather for their subjectivity. -Drew Voters dont pick presidents period, but we wont go into that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot BELIEVE the way some of you are reacting to this information! it is public information, yet you still refuse to acknowledge it as such! and why would you attack a man who albeit not obvious, loves americans enough to keep trying to wake you up with your same selfish reactions ever single time!? there is nothing, NOTHING wrong with cutting and pasting articles(as long as they are short enough for all of us to readlol) to relay information, the technology is there, it's more efficient for communicating, why not!?..because it can be used to verify the information(if you have enough balls to look it up!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot BELIEVE the way some of you are reacting to this information! it is public information, yet you still refuse to acknowledge it as such! and why would you attack a man who albeit not obvious, loves americans enough to keep trying to wake you up with your same selfish reactions ever single time!? there is nothing, NOTHING wrong with cutting and pasting articles(as long as they are short enough for all of us to readlol) to relay information, the technology is there, it's more efficient for communicating, why not!?..because it can be used to verify the information(if you have enough balls to look it up!)
I read every link posted here, hell I even watched that "New World Order" video link that WarElephant posted a few days ago. I thought it was rather funny and I thought Alex Jones was a bit odd but the point is, I do look it up and it doesn't take courage to do so. For me I guess it's just that I want to know what you think, not what some guy from an online publication thinks--I like the conversation to be about ideas from a place more personal than to cut and paste. Perhaps you think that's wrong of me, but I'm prepared to live with that--it's just mu opinion. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funny thing about that Alex Jones fella, he tends to be right. Wait.. wait, before you pounce! There's a solid reason why the guy hasn't been sued, because, I would say, 80% of what the guy says is on the up and up.
Which one of his films did you watch? I recommend EndGame, he really gets into historical roots of some of the most diabolical people in our world. I think the copy and paste thing is okay, as long as you also put up what your opinion is. The copy and paste thing is a good way to source what you're about to say, IMHO. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kerry, Actually, I have asked a number of very direct questions. When confronted with "Bush Lied" just under sixty times in the last month here in this forum I posted direct quotes from Democrats stating that Saddam was not only a problem but a massive threat. I've only just gotten back to these fora after along long haitus, so I didn't see those quotes. I am familiar with most, though, having had discussions in real life with Republican friends going back as far as 2002. I think politicians like Hillary Clinton didn't want to be late to the party, and it's why I find that I have a hard time finding her protestations to the contrary as credible. There was no conviction on their parts, no willingness or fortitude to be, as that one song says "I was country... when country wasn't cool." I know I took my share of guff over it, but even now, it gives me little pleasure to say " I told you so." {quote] A number of those quotes were made long before President Bush was elected. When I asked some here who want to blame GWB for everything from 9-11 to the sinking of Titanic there is an eerie silence that follows. Please since you believe I have framed my positions in a rhetorical manner, give me some examples. If I have I'll quickly fix it. Well, for starters, the one above. Since everyone knows that it was an iceberg, such 'questions' make it appear the people who do question are unreasonable and ill-informed, who react in knee-jerk fashion at the mere mention of the name GWB. And while you're not doing it, aren't some here who agree with you very guilty of knee-jerk condemnations couched in the particularly smelly rhetoric and worse, ad hominem attacks? And I was not one of the folks who thought Clinton wrong to lob some cruise missiles at Baghdad. I have never written here or anyplace else that he was wrong to get us involved in Bosnia or Somalia or in a limited way, Iraq. I should also make clear that I did not support the impeachment but there again, I digress. FWIW, I think it's partisan idiocy to suggest it's a moral imperative that GWB be impeached. And, I have to admit that I haven't read your work here for very long, so I was under the mistaken impression that you were a hawk of the neocon variety. Just that you could use the word 'limited' in the same sentence as 'Iraq' tells me I need to recalibrate. What dictator should we go after next? Great question and I'm up for the discussion but clearly both Clinton's use of force doctrine (for humanitarian reasons only) and Bush's doctrine are not far apart. I strongly disagree with that assessment. Bush's Waterloo lies in the fact that as CEO of America, he took a 'make it so' stance by surrounding himself with people who knew to tell him only what he wanted to hear, and to eschew strategic alliances through the U.N. on any but his own terms. One time, another of my eccentric friends pulled a major head game on a faux tough guy. He was in Burger King dressed in a tuxedo when the guy made fun of him and challenged him to a fight. He mainly ignored the guy, which egged him on even worse. When finished eating, he went out and got in his vehicle, which happened to be hearse. As he pulled around the building, the tough guy was walking out the front door, whereupon he stopped the hearse alongside the guy, hit the power window button and told the guy, "And you're next." The guy turned white as a ghost. While Bush and the neocons were hoping to using this same ploy with the rest of the Axis of Evil with their Shock and Awe strategem, it's not working out as they had planned. {quote] I've said in the past that the outcome is irrelevant when the logic used to get there is identical. Clinton felt that starving people in Mogadishu was a good enough reason to ask Delta and Rangers to grab Aidid. Was he right? Was it worth the loss of life we suffered that day? I believe it was and it was something for the greater good. Yes, but as Ross Perot said, the devil is in the details. And as details go, Bosnia and Somalia were far different scenarios and we're not mired down there for five years and counting and tremendous cost in lives and resources. I'd bet you feel the same way about the corporate phenomenon of Golden Parachutes, where CEOs can run a company into the ground and walk away with millions. Although we can't fire Bush directly for his missteps, we sure don't have to keep our mouths shut. He, after all, works for us and we have every right to be Mad As Hell. The 2006 elections were the country's way of taking him to the woodshed, out way of completing that saying above, "...and we're not going to take it anymore." The Middle East is a mess. What one person does in their nation affects us today in ways the Founders could not have ever anticipated. I think my overall point has always been that I don't agree or disagree with conflict based on the President who started it. Whether a Democrat or a Republican, there are going to be wars to fight. Kennedy got us in to Vietnam. Johnson kept us there yet it is Nixon who gets the blame for most of it and he was the President who got us out. If you look back on all the wars, aren't the ones we fought unilaterally with no alliances the ones that blew up in our face? And the ones we fought with allies as equals the ones in which we triumphed and made the world a better place? Anytime someone invokes Churchill I cringe, because I know they are usually up to no good and are comparing apples to oranges as far as armed conflicts go and their likely outcome. I've not discussed things like this with you in the past and I don't know your part affiliation (nor do I much think that it matters.) What I have done is taken exception to people whose only viable method of comment is to cut and paste what others think while at the same time refusing to answer points made in defense of a position. I tend to shrug them off, or if anything, glean them for credible data and discard the rest with exteme prejudice. When the talking points take the form of "When did you stop beating your wife", I know I'm dealing with people who reason with the emotions. Who never see the blowback such fallacy generates until it hits them in the face. If you're familiar with the debating terms "Politician's Answer" and "Begging the Question", I think you know where I'm coming from. There's a reason why this president's approval ratings are the lowest for the longest time in recent American history and he has no one to blame but himself. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just because others do not feel they need to speak out on it, doesn't mean there are alot of people who realize they were bamboozled into war in Iraq. I knew the day we did not go after bin laden and Saddam became the target that we were headed the wrong direction but there was alot of snow jobs on the American people so I cannot blame them too much for not thinking for themselves. We should have bin laden, we should not be removing dictators without the people of the country asking us to do so. We should not be democricizing countries (especially since the people who favor the war tell us we are not even a democracy so WTF???). The rose colored glasses of those who cannot see the Bush administration for the economically biased, personally biased, bigoted group that they are, will come off one day soon and it is not a pretty picture without the glasses clouding it
Wow....speaking of rose colored glasses - what, you think the peace-loving citizens of Sadr City are going to come over and say "Oh please, Saddam is treating us horrible - please kill him" ? Or do you have in mind the Kurds who got gassed where going to come haunt the White House saying how they were wrongly mort'ed? And your constant rants on anything related to Bush *couldn't possibly* be considered to be somewhat biased and 'rose-colored glassy-ish' ? Nawwww...that couldn't possibly be the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its realy odd to me that the countless lies that led to the war are a non topic in this thread. One would think as good americans we would be outraged that we have been tricked into this bankrupting war that has enslaved our children to a national debt ......The CIA had evidence Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction six months before the 2003 US-led invasion but was ignored by a White House intent on ousting Saddam Hussein, a former senior CIA official said, according to CBS.
Tyler Drumheller, who headed CIA covert operations in Europe during the run-up to the Iraq war, said intelligence opposing administration claims of a WMD threat came from a top Iraqi official who provided the US spy agency with other credible information. The source "told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," Drumheller said in a CBS interview to be aired on Sunday on the US network's 60 Minutes. http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/white-house-knew-there-were-no-wmd-cia/2006/04/22/1145344306427.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow....speaking of rose colored glasses - what, you think the peace-loving citizens of Sadr City are going to come over and say "Oh please, Saddam is treating us horrible - please kill him" ? Or do you have in mind the Kurds who got gassed where going to come haunt the White House saying how they were wrongly mort'ed? No, but what _did_ happen was that the neocons got played by Ahmed Chalabi. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[There's a reason why this president's approval ratings are the lowest for the longest time in recent American history and he has no one to blame but himself. -Kerry O. Lindyy says: AND do NOT forget this new democrat majority congress has even lower ratings than President Bush. How about that! Lindyy 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At the end of the day, we have criminal elements all over our Federal Government, irregardless of who's the President. When was the last President not a member of the CFR or who was the last President not to be all but owned by some special interest group?
|
|
|
|
|
