Fogbuster

That's OK, Press, I really don't have inclination or time to go through this again. I went through it with a close friend of mine for almost three years. It got neither of us anywhere.

To me everything hinges on motivation. If a man steals a loaf of bread from a thriving shop-keeper to feed his hungry family, I'm inclined to go easy on him. In Bush's case he initiated this conflict sincerely believing it was best for America. And most of the Congress, both parties, who supported him did so because they believed sincerely the same thing.

But when things started to get messy, the allegations of Bush doing it for oil or other selfish motivations began to crop up. And when the war became *really* a quagmire, these charges escalated. I took many long looks at the man over the years and my conclusion, which I still have, is that he does not do things for a selfish reason, especially not something like war. That is not who he is. I feel it in my bones, and these bones haven't lied to me yet.

So when people go off with a gleeful abandon, ready to nail him to the nearest tree, well, it shows who is really wrong. And it ain't George. Maybe he made a bad choice of action, but, similar to so many other wars that presidents have had to call us into doing, JFK in Vietnam, Lincoln in the Civil War, and the founders in the Revolution, the price is bitter now, but I believe it will be better later. Just leaving the region without sound leadership is not a noble option; it's like abandoning a child on the street.

There's no need to make this a bitter personal thing about Bush, any more than it is to do it here on a discussion list. There are ways to talk with the man, noble and respectful ways, that do not force anyone to wallow in the gutter.

//

PressCoverage

you continue to ignore facts... things STARTED to get messy, and motivations BEGAN to crop up long before the first American soldier stepped foot in Iraq....

there was RAMPANT dissent from the start, and especially after his lie-laced Jan. 03 State of the Union Speech... the State Department had serious reservations, the CIA urged him not to hit on various points, the IAEA said there was no nuclear development, and on and on and on... Mr. Bush knew his intel was flawed and distorted, and pushed it through anyway... this isn't a man who "made a mistake"... this was a man who knowingly deceived his nation in order to fix an agenda... i see a HUGE DIFFERENCE there, why don't you?

Fogbuster

Because I am not convinced.

Why would Bush "knowingly deceive his nation" when it would cost untold lives and materiel?? It just does not make any sense whatsoever. Geo Bush does NOT look like a maniac. Nor does he look like a liar. Nor does he look he needs the money that cheaper Iraqi oil going into his back pocket -- like that could ever happen with every camera in the world focused on him. No, I smell something else here: vengeance for his two victories in '00 and '04.

//

PressCoverage

Wait... George Bush does not look like a liar??????????????????????????????

Anyhow, let's cover this one by one...

First, are you going to tell me the CIA did NOT urge him to remove the Niger claim from his State of the Union Speech in early 2003?

Fogbuster

Yes. He does NOT look like he's been lying. Sorry if that makes you apoplectic, but that's how I feel.

As for the yellow cake, so what if the CIA tried to nix that news from going out?? Maybe the CIA did not want the public to know it was investigating that, maybe they were still in the process and didn't want any agents put into jeopardy. What major bearing does it all have???


//

PressCoverage

it's hard debating against someone who doesn't know the facts behind topic at hand, and instead guesses toward what he feels and hopes...

the CIA wanted it aborted because they CONFIRMED it was FRAUDULENT!!!!! as did the State Department, and British Intelligence... Bush and Cheney KNEW this... and please don't cite factcheck.org's take, which has summarily been debunked...

read

anyhow, onto the next question... was Bush NOT informed BEFORE THE SPEECH that the IAEA, among others, concluded that the alluminum tubes found were in fact NOT for uranium enrichment at all?

Harry Boy

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

Fogbuster

So, if as you say, Bush and Cheney "knew this" -- that there "was no yellow-cake", then WHY did Bush say he believed there *was* an attempt on Saddam's part to obtain it??? Why say such a bold-faced "lie" in front of the whole world?? NOBODY would make such a mistake, unless it was a North Korean, or Soviet, or other communist, who lied through their teeth at every single opportunity.

Sorry, I don't see the motive here.

//

PressCoverage

you can't fathom motive? ok, clearly you're either in complete denial, or the very last to know...

so, you're seriously asking that? i am eternally grateful to you for serving up such a slowpitch softball in a fast pitch league... i'll now knock it out of the park for the walkoff win....

Here we go:

- because of the need to thwart the efforts of Congress and the UN to delay the start of the war
- because he was in a race to blow the doors down before the ongoing inspections concluded nothing about WMDs there...
- because of the PNAC; with Paul Wolfowicz whispering his ideology in his and Cheney's ear...
- because of this pathetic quote: "afterall, this is a man who tried to kill my daddy" (another lie)
- because, within hours of hijacked jets careening into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld was ordering his staff to find something that could be used to pin the blame on Iraq.
- because no one was buying Atta in Prague, nor the alluminum tubes
- because the mobile bioweapons lab claims went swirling down the toilet, after David Kay confirmed they had no drains ...
- because he knew his loyal Justice Dept. wouldn't squawk, nor the State Deparment
- because at the last second, he switched and pinned it on British Intelligence reports; which were also in the process of being debunked
- because, according to an NSC staff member, removing the claim would leave the British "flapping in the wind."

and my two favorites:

- because billions of dollars appropriated for Afghanistan were quite secretly diverted to prep for Iraq already, including air fields in Qatar
- because he had an election to win a year later, and painting Iraq as an "imminent threat" would cement the public in fear...

would you like me to continue for all the many reasons he had to lie? or shall we continue on to the next lie he was warned about before his speech, and before Powell's UN speech?

Fogbuster

No thanks, I'm in complete denial. You're making all this stuff up.

Just remember: "Sometimes when you win, you lose." -- wife of Robin Williams character, What Dreams May Come


//