Iraq : A summary of the Bush Gov Lies

[davidmc]

This is worth note, inre: the ongoing iraqi problem.I refer to it as a "problem" because the "war" was over shortly after it started but, as the casualties continue to mount up & even surpass the losses entailed during the initial hostilities : The Hawks Loudly Express Their Second Thoughts
http://www.pnac.info/

 

[Saucy]

The Hawks Loudly Express Their Second Thoughts
http://www.pnac.info/

Thanks for pointing out that site. I was just about to make a post in the Kerry/Bush thread about this very topic. As the article states, even conservative columnists are now considering the war either a mistake in terms of foreign policy or at the very least, they now agree that the war plan was not executed properly or that it there wasn't even a proper plan in place.

I think these conservatives are coming to realize that if they continue to promote the idea that the invasion of Iraq was the correct decision, that they are damaging their own credibility. The average American, even those that support Bush, generally believes that the war was a mistake or have deep reservations about it.

When pundits disregard all the images and evidence about the situation in Iraq, it only makes their position weaker. People do not trust pundits who continue to spout lies in support of their party line in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

Personally, I find it refreshing that conservatives are acknowledging the truth of the situation. It makes me far more inclined to listen to whatever pro-Bush sentiment they are supporting if I think they are reasonable about the Iraq issue. I find Tucker Carlson and David Brooks (I mention them because I mostly watch PBS these days) more believable in other positions since they are at least offering an honest assessment about Iraq.

I think there are many reasons to be a Republican or to support conservative policies. But arguing that the invasion of Iraq is a reason to support this president is a terrible argument. I suspect that most pro-Bush supporters in this country are voting for him in spite of Iraq, not because of it.

That is why I find the pro-Iraq position by the posters on this site so so very laughable. Arguing that the invasion of Iraq was the correct decision simply undermines any other arguments they may have in support of Bush.

There are a lot of intelligent conservatives out there. I wish that some of that intelligence would make its way to our little Soapbox. Unfortunately we are inundated with the "nuke em", "france sucks" variety of nutter conservatives. Its too bad really. I was just looking at the horrendous RBR site (where the flaming is relentless) and even they had some conservative posters making some pretty compelling arguments about liberal vs. conservative policy. I have yet to see that here.

 

[Bikerman2004]

and even they had some conservative posters making some pretty compelling arguments about liberal vs. conservative policy. I have yet to see that here.

I haven't seen a compelling liberal argument on policy either. Maybe you can put up or shut up. Let's hear a compelling argument why liberalism is better than conservatism. Personally, I think combining the two philosophies is the best way to go, but please tell us why liberalism is better.

 

[darkboong]

I haven't seen a compelling liberal argument on policy either. Maybe you can put up or shut up. Let's hear a compelling argument why liberalism is better than conservatism. Personally, I think combining the two
philosophies is the best way to go, but please tell us why liberalism is better.

Well, to put it in a nutshell : Liberalism gives rights to the individual. Conservatism **** rapes the civilians until they bleed. A blend of both is required.

What the Republicans and Democrats are proposing for the next presidential term is neither conservatism or liberalism. On the one hand the supposedly more fiscally responsible Republicans have already hit the buffers on credit and are raiding pensions to make up the difference (not conservative)... Then on the other we have the Democrats failing to critique the PATRIOT act and in fact supporting it (not liberal).

Delluded souls might claim that the Republicans are still "conservative" and anything else is liberal. Two more words that are being twisted to breaking point by a pointless election campaign.

 

[Bikerman2004]

Well, to put it in a nutshell : Liberalism gives rights to the individual. Conservatism **** rapes the civilians until they bleed. A blend of both is required.

What the Republicans and Democrats are proposing for the next presidential term is neither conservatism or liberalism. On the one hand the supposedly more fiscally responsible Republicans have already hit the buffers on credit and are raiding pensions to make up the difference... Then on the other we have the Democrats failing to critique the PATRIOT act and in fact supporting it.

I morons might claim that the Republicans are still "conservative" and anything else is liberal. Two more words that are being twisted to breaking point by a pointless election campaign.

Still waiting for a compelling argument. There have to some liberal that can advance a good argument, unlike this moronic response.

 

[zapper]

She's working on her fathers campaign hence, "fair game"

???? You can't be serious here...

 

[zapper]

She's working on her fathers campaign hence, "fair game"

???? You can't be serious here... :confused Wasn't it Clinton that stated that "leave the kids out of it"?????

 

[zapper]

How would you characterize the republican smear campaign in the 2000 pres. campaign that contended that Sen. McCain fathered a black child out of wedlock & that McCain's wife was/is a drug addict. What kind of "shot" would that be The Repub's are notorious for smearing thier opponents. Need i remind you of the administrations "outing" of a cia operative due to a grudge ? That kind of "political shot" results in quite a bit more than just embarrassment. I just hope they nail the traitor & prosecute him/her w/ extreme prejudice. Thanks for refreshing my memory inre to that "mother of all cheap shots" zap

Funny, I don't recall the President or Vice presidential candidates or their wives uttering a word of what you bring up here...You need to some how defend the total lack of class exhibited by your two candidates and one whale of a wife!

 

[darkboong]

Still waiting for a compelling argument. There have to some liberal that can advance a good argument, unlike this moronic response.

The "moronic" response actually agreed with you on the key point you made.

However, let's try looking at the quest for a compelling argument. In order to hear a compelling argument at least two conditions have to apply. Firstly there needs to be a rational argument. Secondly you yourself have to be able to recognise it as such and accept it.

I very much doubt that the second condition exists or ever will exist. You use the word "liberal" as an expletive and as a label for stuff that you think is bad. Your challenge is simply not possible because you yourself are the biased and irrational arbiter of "compelling" and "good". That doesn't mean that there aren't perfectly valid arguments out there, it means that you won't accept them as such because you are judging them on the irrational and subjective notion of whether they are "compelling" or "good".

What I found particularly amusing about your choice of the word "moronic" is that you appear to have simply copied it from my post. It's a pattern I've noticed in many pro-war posters.

For example, "Revisionist history" is a favourite Whitehouse catch phrase, but many people don't understand what it means (for example nukes used on civilians by a democracy is actually true, not revisionist). The fulcrum that the charge of "Revisionist history" rested on was the word "Civilian". The word in itself does not have any notion of "innocence" or "guilt" about it at all according to the dictionary definitions that I have seen, yet we had someone swear blind that was the meaning. I suspect that the folks who think like this are confusing the word "civilian" with the popular Whitehouse catch phrase "innocent civilian".

It is a small part of a disturbing pattern that reveals that many people are simply accepting the Whitehouse spin as valid without questioning the inconsistencies within it. I suspect this is down to censorship going on within the mainstream media, downplay a story here, bury a story there. Don't show the flip side of the argument, don't subject the Whitehouse press-releases to analysis or critique. I saw a lot of that in the run up to the War, it was hard to believe that "Joe Public" of America lived in the same world when you looked at their mainstream media.

Take for example the oft repeated claim that the UN inspectors were kicked out of Iraq by Saddam in 1998. Actually that's not true. Saddam refused to co-operate with them, but they were in fact recalled as a result of a phone call from the Whitehouse. Subsequently the Whitehouse has told a different story without any evidence to support it and there is no shortage of suckers, desperate to justify the war of aggression on Iraq, who are falling for it hook line and sinker. There are plenty of others who aren't falling for it though.

 

[Saucy]

Well, to put it in a nutshell : Liberalism gives rights to the individual. Conservatism **** rapes the civilians until they bleed. A blend of both is required.

LOL. A blend of both? I could do without the ass raping, thanks. I like the individual rights thing, though.

What the Republicans and Democrats are proposing for the next presidential term is neither conservatism or liberalism. On the one hand the supposedly more fiscally responsible Republicans have already hit the buffers on credit and are raiding pensions to make up the difference (not conservative)... Then on the other we have the Democrats failing to critique the PATRIOT act and in fact supporting it (not liberal).

You are absolutely right. Calling the democratic party a bunch of "liberals" is completely ridiculous. Bush calling Kerry the "most liberal senator", what a joke. By the same token, Bush is a very poor representative for what I traditionally think of as "conservative". I suspect many liberals and conservatives are not happy with the choices their respective parties have made.

As far as debating liberal vs. conservative policy - well I should probably retract my earlier post. An internet forum is not a good place for a general discussion as the breadth and depth of that type of discussion is too far-ranging for this type of forum. I find that a good ideological discussion requires two people who have some common ground and mutual respect. Both of these things are lacking on this forum.

On the issue of Iraq, i have simply found that the Bushies here are continuing to blindly support this war like coked up cheerleaders ("rah rah rah"), and by disregarding evidence to the contrary they do a disservice to their own argument (not to mention their country).

And whenever you have to make comments about how the UN is corrupt, the French are pussies, Americans saved everyone from speaking German etc., in support of your position on Iraq, well THAT IS WEAK. Resorting to this juvenile rationale which is only tangentally related to the subject likely means that you have a poor argument and are side-tracking in order to distract everyone from the main issue.

As far as putting up or shutting up, I haven't felt the need to argue my viewpoint on Iraq as limerickman and other posters here have done a very good job of articulating their arguments about this war. They have made a very good case that the Bush administration has lied, distorted, misled and has been downright incompetent and misguided. All of the support for their arguments is corroborated by widely reported information from reputable news sources, even conservative sources. And has been mentioned, even sources within the administration have felt that mistakes were made in the conduct of this war.

 

[davidmc]

Funny, I don't recall the President or Vice presidential candidates or their wives uttering a word of what you bring up here...You need to some how defend the total lack of class exhibited by your two candidates and one whale of a wife!

Lack of class Pres. Cheney brought it up & he was thankful to edwards when he used this instance of cheney's daughter(political operative) in an analogy. For those of you who don't know, Coor's is trying to do a "makeover" from the 90's disaster when it was determined that they were/are homophobic. They're kinda' like Diebold when it comes to their political leanings & they have someone in the family running for office in this election cycle. As far as clinton goes, his daughter did not participate in any kind of "get the vote out" campaign as has Cheney's daughter(s) & Kerry's.http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/tmoran/tm17.htm

 

[davidmc]

I haven't seen a compelling liberal argument on policy either. Maybe you can put up or shut up. Let's hear a compelling argument why liberalism is better than conservatism. Personally, I think combining the two philosophies is the best way to go, but please tell us why liberalism is better.

Do you read the paper or listen to the news Kerry has gone over his platform in detail. You must not care enough or not want to hear it, I suspect it's the latter. Bush has guys, like you, "hoodwinked". He talks about religion & guns to distract you from the fact that his decisions on tax giveaway's to the already obscenely wealthy & instance after instance of foriegn policy blunders of proportions that defy the definition of neglect & fall into the category of "wreckless incompetence of a criminal nature. He was given all of the intelligence necessary to be on guard & ignored it. His attorney General said he did'nt want to hear anymore about it. If they were in the military, those chickenhawks, they would be court martialed w/ extreme prejudice. In a nutshell, "they blew it & bigtime"

 

[davidmc]

She's working on her fathers campaign hence, "fair game"

???? You can't be serious here...

http://www.anntelnaes.com/

 

[davidmc]

good page w/ reputable sources. Gen. Clark, for one.
http://www.udecide.org/iraq.php

 

[davidmc]

Unfortunately for Kerry, his campaign rep and his runningmates FAT assed wife decided to open enter the foray concerning this subject. But to give you a "fair and balanced" view instead of what franken spoon feeds you. Here are my thoughts and I might add my wife who is a registered democrat and a catholic agrees...

What I have a problem with is this...

#1 The question was..."Do homosexuals have a choice or do they choose to be gay" Kerry leads with an "opinion" of how **** Cheney's daughter feels. Oh, he knows how his daughter feels...Has he got the cheney household bugged? Now, Edwards had already mentioned her during the V.P. debate and I might even buy kerry slipping this one in if he was debating Cheney himself. But it is obvious to anyone who isn't sitting in front of a bong or has any common sense at all that it was POLITICALLY motivated and a cheap shot.

#2. Kerry's campaign advisor said herself that she is "fair game" which tells me it was scripted...Not right and underhanded I say. Leave the kids out of it.

#3. The final blow came when Edwards's wife, made her "classy" comment that Lynn is ashamed of her daughter. There is no excuse for that and...If you truly believe that there was nothing wrong with these events then.

a. You are truly a liberal as you claim not to be... b. Then you would have no problem with the president responding to a question on health care or the economy.. "Well, I think that if John Edwards fat assed wife would lay off the potato chips and her glutionous ways, it would lower the cost of health care and make available more food for our children not to mention that the massive amount of gasses coming out of her fat ass is contributing to global warming."

You see not only is kerry's wife a freak of nature as she acts like trailer park trash that has just happens to be filthy rich but it seems that edwards wife comes from the same neighborhood....

I did'nt say I'm not liberal, I said i'm not a member of any political party & please leave you're sophmoric discussions between you & you're spouse to yourself, thank you very much. So she's a catholic- whooptie-friggin-do Am i supposed to be impressed. The avg. person out on the street is'nt all that bright, look at how many undecided's there are right now. So, your contention that your spouse is a democrat does'nt send shivers up my spine. There's dumbasses in both parties. I'm not like you and walk lockstep behind bush & co. after the waterfall of blunders & cash-grabs they have orchestrated. Let's keep this thread on topic. Here's a well thought out thread that ties nicely into this one-George Bush: Former Drunkard, Cocaine-user, War-dodger becomes War President

 

[zapper]

I did'nt say I'm not liberal, I said i'm not a member of any political party & please leave you're sophmoric discussions between you & you're spouse to yourself, thank you very much. So she's a catholic- whooptie-friggin-do Am i supposed to be impressed. The avg. person out on the street is'nt all that bright, look at how many undecided's there are right now. So, your contention that your spouse is a democrat does'nt send shivers up my spine. There's dumbasses in both parties.

Hey professor, you have lowered yourself to assail my poor defenseless wife? If I didn't have a sense of humor I would be inclined to beat you to a pulp, but I know that you are one of those dumbasses that you refer to in your post. So, knowing that you are a limp wristed lib, I'll let you slide on your remark. Consider it a gift....

 

[Bikerman2004]

Do you read the paper or listen to the news Kerry has gone over his platform in detail. You must not care enough or not want to hear it, I suspect it's the latter. Bush has guys, like you, "hoodwinked". He talks about religion & guns to distract you from the fact that his decisions on tax giveaway's to the already obscenely wealthy & instance after instance of foriegn policy blunders of proportions that defy the definition of neglect & fall into the category of "wreckless incompetence of a criminal nature. He was given all of the intelligence necessary to be on guard & ignored it. His attorney General said he did'nt want to hear anymore about it. If they were in the military, those chickenhawks, they would be court martialed w/ extreme prejudice. In a nutshell, "they blew it & bigtime"

Is this supposed to be your argument for liberalism? You have stated in the past that Kerry isn't really a liberal. Now he's your champion of liberalism? Maybe there is an argument in your post but I refuse to be "hoodwinked" by your ideology.

 

[darkboong]

Hey professor, you have lowered yourself to assail my poor defenseless wife? If I didn't have a sense of humor I would be inclined to beat you to a pulp, but I know that you are one of those dumbasses that you refer to in your post. So, knowing that you are a limp wristed lib, I'll let you slide on your remark. Consider it a gift....

Yadda yadda yadda yadda. Yet more threats and insults from the man who "generously" will not back them up. If you want a fight, just ask for one. Calling people names and making threats on a message board makes you look like an ignorant *****.

 

[zapper]

Yadda yadda yadda yadda. Yet more threats and insults from the man who "generously" will not back them up. If you want a fight, just ask for one. Calling people names and making threats on a message board makes you look like an ignorant *****.

Look you dumbass, I thought I was dealing with men here not little sissies like you and peabody who whine about name calling. Further, I think I took it easy on peabody and his blatant attack on my wife. If you can read, you can clearly see I made no threats... However, I have never run from an opportunity to back up my opinion. So here is a challenge, not a threat...punk. If you would like to back up your accusation, feel free...Anytime you or the mutt with the glasses want to afford me an opportunity to back it up, please do so. If not, then I suggest you clean up your room or put away your toys or whatever else your mommy wants you to do..

BTW, just a note to you. You actively participate in the "name calling" action so by your own words you are a *****...You're words not mine.

 

[jhuskey]

Look you dumbass, I thought I was dealing with men here not little sissies like you and peabody who whine about name calling. Further, I think I took it easy on peabody and his blatant attack on my wife. If you can read, you can clearly see I made no threats... However, I have never run from an opportunity to back up my opinion. So here is a challenge, not a threat...punk. If you would like to back up your accusation, feel free...Anytime you or the mutt with the glasses want to afford me an opportunity to back it up, please do so. If not, then I suggest you clean up your room or put away your toys or whatever else your mommy wants you to do..

BTW, just a note to you. You actively participate in the "name calling" action so by your own words you are a *****...You're words not mine.

You are correct you did not make a direct threat. You did post the conditions by which a threat or retaliation would result. As in if you lost your sense of humor.
Just a note. Carry on!