The Second American Revolution - We The People

Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999



i am not surprised that dems do not call these people liars and instead remain grossly obsessed with bush
 
maineman said:
there is a significant difference between stockpiles of WMD's (a clear and immediate danger) and "reinvigorating programs" (not so much).

Bush lied about stockpiles of WMD's and used that LIE, along with the LIE about an ongoing Iraq-AQ operational connection, to "justify" not even letting the weapons inspectors finish the job he had gotten Saddam to acquiece and allow to recommence.
Click to expand...

Well Maine I'm a firm believer in Occum's razor and there appears to be only one of two choices here. Either Bush deliberately lied to us in order to rationalize his policy of pre-emption or he was badly mistaken. At first, and since I believe in Occum's razor, and that no one could be that inept, the obvious answer is that we were lied to. However, having seen a plentitude of examples of the Bush administrations subsequent ineptitude and incompetence a very strong argument can be made, on that basis, that they just plain got it wrong. Neither case paints a pretty picture of the Bush administration on the run up to the war in Iraq. They either purposefully mislead the American public or they were down right incompetent. Choose your poison.
 
Mottleydude said:
I don't know what you're on but would you share some with me so I can join you in La-La land? You have no basis in fact for making your statement. Most independents, if having to choose between Obama and a right wing conservative would choose Obama but again, keep telling your self that. Hell I don't want to see a far right wing political party with any real political power. So keep on telling yourself that, it's a tremendous help to us moderates. Like independants us moderates don't want a far right government either.
Click to expand...

I am not on anything, but appreciate you're making an ass out of yourself and thinking you are actually debating a fact or making a point. I posted a link about how independents are feeling about Obama. You want to make the choice as "between far right and Obama". The choice was and has not been that for several election cycles. Independents went with Obama, a socialist in democrat clothing, and are now moving away from that vote of confidence they gave him because they don't like the partisanship, that btw he promised to not practice, nor are they keen on his outrageous and dangerous spending experiments.

Like independents us conservatives don't want a large power grabbing, socialistic government.
 
It's the old cockup versus conspiracy theory, I veer towards a mixture of the two.

Mottleydude said:
Well Maine I'm a firm believer in Occum's razor and there appears to be only one of two choices here. Either Bush deliberately lied to us in order to rationalize his policy of pre-emption or he was badly mistaken. At first, and since I believe in Occum's razor, and that no one could be that inept, the obvious answer is that we were lied to. However, having seen a plentitude of examples of the Bush administrations subsequent ineptitude and incompetence a very strong argument can be made, on that basis, that they just plain got it wrong. Neither case paints a pretty picture of the Bush administration on the run up to the war in Iraq. They either purposefully mislead the American public or they were down right incompetent. Choose your poison.
Click to expand...
 
Mottleydude said:
Well Maine I'm a firm believer in Occum's razor and there appears to be only one of two choices here. Either Bush deliberately lied to us in order to rationalize his policy of pre-emption or he was badly mistaken. At first, and since I believe in Occum's razor, and that no one could be that inept, the obvious answer is that we were lied to. However, having seen a plentitude of examples of the Bush administrations subsequent ineptitude and incompetence a very strong argument can be made, on that basis, that they just plain got it wrong. Neither case paints a pretty picture of the Bush administration on the run up to the war in Iraq. They either purposefully mislead the American public or they were down right incompetent. Choose your poison.
Click to expand...

again... I think it can be a combination of both... I think he and his team could have been ineptly inarticulate, and made statements that were false when other statements could have been made that stated the same case nearly as strongly yet not falsely... and, at the same time, could have known that they were "sexing up" the intelligence to make a case for immediate war that uninflated intelligence would not have made.

America needed to be scared into thinking that not only were Saddam and Osama bin Laden working in cahoots with one another, but that Saddam had, at that very moment, stockpiles of WMD's that he could give to Osama - at that very moment - that Osama could and would use against America - at that very moment. That conflation of lies created the requisite level of paranoia - mixed with smoldering desire for 9/11 revenge - at the perfect time vis a vis midterm elections, that would create the groundswell of public support for the war and limit the willingness of the opposition to stand up against it. It was good political street fighting done with a sort of brutal finesse, but lacking in ethical grace.
 
He must have borrowed the razor from Occam. :)

Mottleydude said:
Well Maine I'm a firm believer in Occum's razor and there appears to be only one of two choices here. Either Bush deliberately lied to us in order to rationalize his policy of pre-emption or he was badly mistaken. At first, and since I believe in Occum's razor, and that no one could be that inept, the obvious answer is that we were lied to. However, having seen a plentitude of examples of the Bush administrations subsequent ineptitude and incompetence a very strong argument can be made, on that basis, that they just plain got it wrong. Neither case paints a pretty picture of the Bush administration on the run up to the war in Iraq. They either purposefully mislead the American public or they were down right incompetent. Choose your poison.
Click to expand...
 
ManU1959 said:
no i asked a simple question ..... you want to blame bush for everything an look no deeper.....

trust me if i wanted to insult you i would jump right to it.....
Click to expand...

And where are you at on Bush, he is innocent of all wrong doing, he was just a super duper President? I give Bush blame where it is due and there is a lot due!
 
bravo said:
and again....Bush could not have done anything without Congressional approval...and having a sufficient number of Democrats agreeing with the war resolution gave him that option....its still irrelevant if it was 5 or 50 Dems voting in agreement, so long as it was enough to pass the bill....\
I happen to find it relevant that some of the biggest and brightest stars in the Dim party agreed to the resolution...
and as a reminder to the open-minded readers of the post......
"IF you believe what you're saying, you CAN'T be accused of lying ... at least by rational, fair-minded people...."
Click to expand...

The went to war based on the crap and fear that if they didn't the American people would be angry because the Bush administration made them believe that a mushroom cloud was in their NEAR future. they were fooled, you were fooled and Bush was a fool, he believed Cheney. Do you think they have dinner together?
 
Mottleydude said:
I don't know what you're on but would you share some with me so I can join you in La-La land? You have no basis in fact for making your statement. Most independents, if having to choose between Obama and a right wing conservative would choose Obama but again, keep telling your self that. Hell I don't want to see a far right wing political party with any real political power. So keep on telling yourself that, it's a tremendous help to us moderates. Like independants us moderates don't want a far right government either.
Click to expand...


she's not far right, oh, excuse, I just threw up in my mouth a little.
This lady is a perfect example of the Christocrats that are pushing the WEDGE!
Not far right, then I guess that makes me a moderate! too.

I moderate, I didn't even laugh this hard at the joke she tried to make!

Not far right, he hooo hahahahaha
 
Mottleydude said:
I don't know what you're on but would you share some with me so I can join you in La-La land? You have no basis in fact for making your statement. Most independents, if having to choose between Obama and a right wing conservative would choose Obama but again, keep telling your self that. Hell I don't want to see a far right wing political party with any real political power. So keep on telling yourself that, it's a tremendous help to us moderates. Like independants us moderates don't want a far right government either.
Click to expand...


They choose him in the last election, and until the next election, she can state whatever nonsense she wishes, doesn't make it so.
 
maineman said:
again... I think it can be a combination of both... I think he and his team could have been ineptly inarticulate, and made statements that were false when other statements could have been made that stated the same case nearly as strongly yet not falsely... and, at the same time, could have known that they were "sexing up" the intelligence to make a case for immediate war that uninflated intelligence would not have made.

America needed to be scared into thinking that not only were Saddam and Osama bin Laden working in cahoots with one another, but that Saddam had, at that very moment, stockpiles of WMD's that he could give to Osama - at that very moment - that Osama could and would use against America - at that very moment. That conflation of lies created the requisite level of paranoia - mixed with smoldering desire for 9/11 revenge - at the perfect time vis a vis midterm elections, that would create the groundswell of public support for the war and limit the willingness of the opposition to stand up against it. It was good political street fighting done with a sort of brutal finesse, but lacking in ethical grace.
Click to expand...

America needs to be scared, it is the only way the government can continue their empire building, leave office to capitalize on it!
 
maineman said:
again... I think it can be a combination of both... I think he and his team could have been ineptly inarticulate, and made statements that were false when other statements could have been made that stated the same case nearly as strongly yet not falsely... and, at the same time, could have known that they were "sexing up" the intelligence to make a case for immediate war that uninflated intelligence would not have made.

America needed to be scared into thinking that not only were Saddam and Osama bin Laden working in cahoots with one another, but that Saddam had, at that very moment, stockpiles of WMD's that he could give to Osama - at that very moment - that Osama could and would use against America - at that very moment. That conflation of lies created the requisite level of paranoia - mixed with smoldering desire for 9/11 revenge - at the perfect time vis a vis midterm elections, that would create the groundswell of public support for the war and limit the willingness of the opposition to stand up against it. It was good political street fighting done with a sort of brutal finesse, but lacking in ethical grace.
Click to expand...

Well like I said, you can make a case that the Bush administration just simply were mistaken. I'm not that niave. Given that Iraq did not meet the "clear and present danger standard" I think the evidence is quite compelling that we were systematically mislead by the Bush administration.
 
froggie said:
she's not far right, oh, excuse, I just threw up in my mouth a little.
This lady is a perfect example of the Christocrats that are pushing the WEDGE!
Not far right, then I guess that makes me a moderate! too.

I moderate, I didn't even laugh this hard at the joke she tried to make!

Not far right, he hooo hahahahaha
Click to expand...

Your face looks like you throw up in your mouth all the time...so what! :)

I happen to know I am not far right. I also happen to know you categorize anyone of faith, who votes republican as "far right" you do this because you are an intellectually lazy and dishonest person. Did I mention a bit on the stupid side as well?
 
Mottleydude said:
Well like I said, you can make a case that the Bush administration just simply were mistaken. I'm not that niave. Given that Iraq did not meet the "clear and present danger standard" I think the evidence is quite compelling that we were systematically mislead by the Bush administration.
Click to expand...

what about the dems that also said saddam was a danger and supported bush's actions in iraq? are you really claiming that it was only bush that was talking up saddam's danger?

i will grant you as CIC he did, however, to say bush mislead everyone and/or lied is simply not true and ignores the numerous dems who also said what bush said about saddam and who did not talk negatively about iraq until closer to 2004 when elections were beginning to prime. you have been presented over and over with the dems own words....why do you insist on maintaining it was only bush who lied or was wrong.
 
Good Luck said:
Yea, right. The "basis" for going to war in Viet Nam was ungarnished truth?

Give it a rest.
Click to expand...

I said, "THOSE lies" . I am quite certain that we didn't go to war in Vietnam because someone lied about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's.

We DID go to war in Vietnam because someone in the government LIED about North Vietnamese gunboats shooting at the Maddox and the Turner Joy.

different lies.
 
maineman said:
I said, "THOSE lies" . I am quite certain that we didn't go to war in Vietnam because someone lied about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's.

We DID go to war in Vietnam because someone in the government LIED about North Vietnamese gunboats shooting at the Maddox and the Turner Joy.

different lies.
Click to expand...
Anyone who thinks Bush's lies had any significant impact on Congress is either hopelessly ignorant of the way our government works, or is deliberately delusional. Congress, to include both sides of the aisle, used and promoted those same lies for their own purposes. The rhetoric from republican and democrat alike is on record. Congress approved use of force in Iraq, and knew full well that force would be used forthwith.

I completely disagreed with invading Iraq, and am still angry that we did so. I also disagreed with the "what we're doing already is good enough" approach that seemd to be the only other significant alternative at the time. There were easier (politically) and far less costly (in lives, economically AND politically) ways to keep Saddam Hussein under a reasonable level of control that did not include relying on the already fail sanctions.

But I do not for one second delude myself about who are the responsible parties for making the decision to invade, or why they made it.
 
Good Luck said:
Anyone who thinks Bush's lies had any significant impact on Congress is either hopelessly ignorant of the way our government works, or is deliberately delusional. Congress, to include both sides of the aisle, used and promoted those same lies for their own purposes. The rhetoric from republican and democrat alike is on record. Congress approved use of force in Iraq, and knew full well that force would be used forthwith.
Click to expand...

exactly...

if bush lied, they all lied
 
Yurt said:
exactly...

if bush lied, they all lied
Click to expand...

Yeah, like I said, they didn't want to get voted out of office.

Remember how long those cowards in Congress were too afraid to speak up against the Bush administration until after 2004 and the house of cards began to fall?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top