Well, not much point in debunking Starving’s steaming pile (and to think these are the same people that had a field day with the infamous “depends on what the meaning of is, is.”), for it has been done quite throughly already. Never mind that all he had to do was click on the link to the NYT article linked by yours truly on the first page. Nope, evidently, many Bushoviks have a built-in aversion for reality and need to be spoon-fed the truth quote by quote.
None the less I do thank him for unabashedly providing The Ignorance I wrote about in the OP. Would that the other, more stablished True Believers, were as brazen as he. A certain disingenously ‘polite’ Canadian comes to mind – he was only good for a lame drive by. And of course, we have this gem coming to us by the priviledged intellect of New Isk:
[Joe Pesci/Goodfellas]
:::I’m funny how? I mean funny like I’m a clown, I amuse you?..Funny how? How am I funny?:::
[/Joe Pesci]
In that vein, I leave The Lemmings with the following quotes – for amusement purposes of course:
Nope, no lies or fearmongering there. None at all. Then again , when you’re done spinning those, I’m fairly sure I can come up with a few more.
Bottom line: hard as it might be to accept, the verdict’s been in for quite some time. When you vote for BushCo, you’re voting for demonstrable liers. Live with it.
When Red Fury decides to get down on his knees before Mr. Svinlesha and proceeds to to do it - of all possible forums - in the Pit, what can be funnier?
Don’t get sidetracked. Your stated intention for opening this thread was to fellate MrS, so please stick to the subject. Most entertaining.
There’s that famed Wingnut Ignorance I keep referring to. Because if Isk had actually bothered to read the OP (what a concept, I know) he would have realized that the ‘fellatio’ was restricted to a sentence or two. The rest – and main thrust of same – was actually directed at people just like him. To wit:
So here’s a very personal FUCK YOU for my dear friend – and fan – New Iskander.
Hardly. A pick-and-choose attempt at refutation was made by blowhard, er, uh…blowero, but it was more of the same old blinders-on bullshit he was spouting previously and I thought I’d just let his post stand as its own refutation. One can’t teach a pig to sing; it only frustrates you and annoys the pig. It’s not surprising that a like-minded lackey such as yourself would view his post as the final word on the subject, but such is hardly the case.
I have no desire to “spin” anything because in principle I might agree with you (correcting for all the important qualifications advanced by Starving Artist and others): Bush may have Lied. I can’t dispute your premise, because I have my own geo-political super-duper-conspiratorial theory base on the same premise. So every time I hear someone say, “Bush Lied”, I prick my ears and ask, “Why?”, hoping for a chance to exchange opinions. But here comes the trouble: there never follows any development to the original statement; no hidden reasons exposed, no prescient analysis proferred, nothing that would help to understand anything. It always goes something like this: Bush Lied!
Yes?
Bush Lied!
So?
Bush Lied!
And?
Bush Lied!
Don’t hold back now…
Bush Lied!
Please do go on…
Bush Lied!
Out with it!
Bush Bad!
Oh! Why?
Bush Lied!
It’s like talking to a bird… So please forgive me for getting irritable.
Well, you know why this is? It’s because no one can prove anything! No one here truly knows that Bush lied…they only believe he did, even though they are certain of that belief and feel they have evidence to support that belief; those on the opposite side don’t know for certain that he didn’t lie…but we are certain in our belief. Each side knows the other can’t possibly know for sure what they’re claiming, and therefore neither side has credibility with the other. Pull out all the so-called facts, quotes and official opinions you want on either side, and the other side either refuses to believe them, or they think that other factors enter into it to support their own side.
Thus you get little but “did too,” “did not,” arguments as to whether Bush actually lied or not.
Well, I’m sorry. This is the Pit you know, and you’ve hardly been gracious in your estimation of me. However, you truly do sound wounded. I had expected you would just snort and blow it off. If you have taken my little insult to heart, I apologize. (I really do!)
Are you high? You haven’t provided one iota of evidence, while Mr. S had inundated you with it. While I disagree with Airman, Sam Stone, etc., at least they bring something to the table. All you’ve got are strawmen and name-calling. You say “Pull out all the so-called facts, quotes and official opinions you want on either side”. Problem is, you haven’t done ANY of that.
Doesn’t bother me; just makes you look like a jackass.
And for the reason I just said. Your quotes (nor Mr. S.’) don’t convice me; none of mine would convince you. Fighting ignorance is all well and good when conclusive and incontrovertible proof can be brought to bear on the issue in question; it cannot be said the ignorance is being fought when it’s just a pissing contest between who can come up with the best quotes to bolster their own side. The bottom line is no one knows what Bush’s thoughts were because we’re not inside his head, therefore all we can do is try to figure it out, thus we have these arguments.
I hate to break in on such a lovely post-modernist “There ain’t no good guy, there ain’t no bad guy, there’s only you and me and we just disagree” moment, but there are actually facts to be presented. Several posters, notably SimonX, have extensively researched the process used by the Pentagon Office of Special Plans to justify the war in Iraq. If you haven’t read those threads I linked to one of them just a few posts ago.
In the meantime please feel free to continue to assert that no one KNOWS anything. It is true of at least one person in the discussion.
I agree with you in that it is dishonest to blame a man for acting on information everybody else accepted as Holy Truth. There was no dissenting opinion about Saddam and his dirty tricks anywhere in the whole world before Bush invaded Iraq. Not a single person ever said, “That Hussy, he’s all show and no threat, let’s cut him loose”, for 10 years. Why, if Bush didn’t act, same people would castigate him for doing nothing about Saddam.
Exactly, New Iskander. A very good point…and very well said.
I recall during the period of time following 9/11 and during the early days of the Iraqi war when everyone on the Democrat side was wringing their hands over how to oppose Bush. He had huge support and his approval rating was very high. They weren’t concerned so much about what was wrong with Bush, just how to oppose him. In other words, it didn’t really matter whether Bush was doing the right thing or not, it just mattered that a way be found to oppose him.
This POV, which seems to exist primarily among the Democrat party is exactly, what caused me to align myself with the Republicans some 35 years ago. Republicans seem to do what they think is right; Democrats seem to be guided only by the need to oppose them. It also means that on those occaisions when Republicans are right, Democrats are by definition wrong.
Such is the case now. Once upon a time, everyone thought Hussein was a threat. The appropriate action was taken, and now that a chink has appeared in the form of no WMD, the Democrats have found what they perceive as a safe way to lambaste the president. And one of the ways they do this is by trying to portray him as a liar.
And by the same token, if no action had been taken he would have been castigated for that, just as you said. Again, it’s simply a case of oppose the president regardless of the position he takes.
Seems to me that this exact paragraph (barring your particular 35 year alignment) could be written, exchanging the words “Democrat” and “Republican” and carry exactly the same value of truth. I clearly remember Gingrich and company lining up to oppose Clinton at every step of every policy he advocated. On health care, they were natural opponents, but on issues of national security, trade agreements, and other ssues, I received a lot of RNC literature explaining how “we” had to oppose Clinton from the get go and I recall seeing the same stuff against Carter in my Mom’s house when I visited. (Regardless how one feels about Carter and Clinton, they each advocated some policies that were in line with Republican goals and they were as fiercely opposed (for the purpose of making them fail) as Reagan and the Bushes ever were by the Democrats.)
We’re back to gored oxen and silly claims that only “the other guy” behaves “that way.”
