Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by All_Around_Brown, Feb 12, 2007.
The administrations case for war against Iraq was MISLEADING.
Well, duh, of course it was. Was it INTENTIONALLY misleading is a more tricky question. And that is the difference between the administration lying vs. being wrong.
Congratulations. You've come so far...
...its only a matter of time. You already went from a supreme Bushy to a libertarian-leaning Republican, except they didn't want you either with your genocidal holocaust stance on the middle east, so you're now in acceptance that you were probably lied to...
...the next logical step is you admitting how wrong you have been throughout this fiasco. But your denial reinforced itself.
Now you ask yourself this: were they lying or being wrong?
Katrina is a strong case for the latter. But either way, what doesn it say about you????
Have a good day.
Most of that is garbage . . . as I would expect.
I apologize. You and I have something in common. We both think BB is the bomb.
Happy Darwin Day
Righties not participating are perhaps perturbed that the question was phrased unfairly... they apparently wanted the following:
"Was it not not untrue that the administration didn't not go on unmisleading intelligence in order to start the justification of the purpose for a war program?"
i got your meaning... but, one thing you missed on: you should have made the poll votes public...
It is now 9-3 with Yes far in the lead, so it must be the truth.. this poll proves it.
You must have PhD from MIT. In statistics.
Re your tag: I *distinctly* saw BB hug the neck off of Mangini, .... after we whupped 'em, of course.
So that *proves* Belichick is NOT without love.
Its a simple question. Can't we have a simple answer? Yes or No.
All the evidence points to Cheney. This man appears to be, for all intents and purposes, a criminal of the first degree. Suspected of high crimes and misdemeanors for his roles in manipulating intelligence, quashing dissents, condoning torture and illegal infringements on citizens rights to privacy, and for his role in outing a CIA agent..
In other words he's a good politician?
Among the most vile politicians I've ever come across. Bush will probably get a pass (out of sheer dumb luck) when historians reflect on his disastrous 8 years in office. Cheney won't be so lucky. He is, after all, pulling all the levers.
So did Roosevelt intentionally mislead the American public by securing a 3rd term by running on an anti-war platform even though he knew he were were going to join the war? Was he lying, or leading?
So Bush intentionally mislead us about the war, made us think they had WMD's, in order to... help the Iraqi's? That's the story, right?
You're comparing Bush to Roosevelt? :bricks:
I asked a specific question, care to answer it, or are you going to deflect by asking another question?
I've always maintained that it didn't matter whether Bush lied to the American people or was incompetent. Either one is bad. At any rate, did Roosevelt run on an anti-war platform? I believe he said he would do everything possible to keep us out of war, which is quite a bit different. In fact, we didn't get directly involved until quite late (a little too late, in my opinion).
you mean exactly how you just did?
He ran on an anti-war platform. Public opinion polls were completely one sided when it came to US involvement in WWII. He clearly stated to the American public that we weren't getting involved, when he was clearly positioning the us to the contrary. No one criticizes him for his actions because 99% of the public look back and agree that we did the right thing to get involved. I'm not using this as a justification for our action in IRaq, I'm merely trying to point out that there is a fine line between lying, and leading. It's similar to an ends means debate.
Who's on first?
I suspect that the Administration found the evidence that fitted their case, but genuinely believed that their mission was the right one. I also think that they saw the need to remove Saddam as being the end that justified the means. In their defence, Saddam DID have a history of using WMDS, had invaded Kuwait, attacked Iran and was clearly psychopathic. We will find out if they lied about WMDs but it won't be soon. None of that exonerates them, as a lot of people have died for little positive result. Government should be about doing the right thing, regardless of good intentions.
I believe that the Neo-cons really do think that the US is a force for good in the world and that Freedom, Democracy and the American Way can be sold easily to others. It sells really well in Mid America but can be seen as incredibly imposing, i.e. you can elect leaders, but not ones like Ahmedinejad, as much as I dislike the guy.
Separate names with a comma.