Try handwaving away the “Don’t know” numbers and you’re there. But you’re right, he will.
Uncommonyou’re still looking for something to get me with, aren’t you? Grow the fuck up, kid.
Am I the only person to see the irony in that statement?
The difference here is not the burden of proof. It is the standard. Evidence from defectors who claim to have knowledge of WMD was accepted as gospel, even after it was shown to be inaccurate by inspections. Forged documents, about which flags had already been raised, was not re-examined. Unverified, or even substantiated, reports about the actions of Mohammad Atta and Iraqi Intelligence in Prague was given full creedence.
Now that the proposition has shifted from Saddam being deceitful to Bush being deceitful the standard has gone up substantially. Official state records of cabinet-level meetings are being considered “totem pole hearsay”.
One may argue that the character of the two individuals, Hussein vs. Bush, should be enough to justify these varying standards. After all, Hussein is a proven liar and the benefit of the doubt is hard to grant in his case. I would agree with this arguement, however I would say there is another dimension here as well. The costs of the consequences of the lie. If we believe Bush then a war starts. These severe consequences mean the standard of evidence should be strict. Far more strict than it was.
Enjoy,
Steven
Personally I think coldly referring to it as a “management failure” seriously demeans all the consequences the war in Iraq has caused. I have no love for Bush, and I have no love for Kerry either, but what Bush has done to this country is criminal. I voted for Kerry because I thought he would screw the country up less then Bush. But you’re right, the system from top to bottom is totally broken. Apathetic Americans who don’t question the spin and half truths, politicians employing whatever scummy tactics necessary to gain office, and infotainment media that doesn’t care about facts or accountability, or even being objective. We are living the fall of the Roman empire.
I am said poster. And basically everything you’ve written in this thread vindicates what I said. In fact, your semi-direct reply to my post was a virtual lesson in political cock-sucking.
Don’t like it? Simple really. Take Dubya’s virtual penis out of your piehole. In the meantime I feel nothing but disgust for you and the rest of your mindless fellow fellators.
“In effect?” Where, precisely, did I say something that gave this “effect?”
Nice try. But I’m not the proponent of the claim. I’m reacting to the proponent of the claim. My mere participation in a debate does not magically shift the burden of proof to me.
Hard though it may be to believe, I do not read every thread in GD. I’ll accept responsibility for every thread in which I have participated – and if you will direct my attention to such a thread containing this compelling evidence, please do so. Also, if you wish me to review a thread that you believe supports your cause, I’ll do that. But you can’t merely refer to some thread in GD, as though it was on the syllabus and I’m at fault for not having covered it by quiz time.
50-48-2, with a margin of error of 5 percent? And even that question asks if “the Bush administration” deliberately misled the public. I might answer “yes” to that question, myself. Did the President lie? No. Did someone in the executive branch deliberately skew intel info? Yes, I think so. So I’d probably answer ‘yes.’
But the practice here has been to assert that Mr. Bush, personally, based on his animus towards Saddam Hussein, lied. I don’t believe that.
Wow! That’s even better than I had expected. Not only do we get handwaving about the numbers, but we get a parsing of Bush versus his administration. The standard has become “Did Bush himself lie about Hussein out of personal animus?” Holy shit. I think excusing Bush for the actions of his administration (er even distinguishing between them vis a vis the concerted effort put forward to lead to the war) comes pretty much as close to a figurate fellating as can be. “His administration may have lied, but he didn’t!! Leave him alone so he can nut in my eye!”
Well, then we can put this debate to a close.
I acknowledge that the Bush administration was deceptive about the presence of WMD in Iraq.
I deny that Mr. Bush, himself, was deceptive.
Sounds like you agree. End of story, fellating or otherwise.
The question to me is why you do not hold Bush personally responsible for the failures of his administration?
I woke up at 5 this morning, cut me some slack on the grammar.
Heh. I wake up at 5 every morning, and I are able writing just finely.
Hmm, the suggestion again that President Bush did not personally engage the in orchestrated campaign of deceit and lies to promote the war.
Yes, well one response to that might be; Just Fuck Off Bricker, yes just Fuck Right Off, go on do so.
Secondly, this notion, that good or evil stands or falls by the will of the population expressed at elections. It is a remarkably flexible moral standard, but it further ignores both the evidence and the probability that a significant slice of the voting public, certainly enough to sway an election, are evil and approve of that in a leader.
I think we can agree that Wars of agression commenced deceitfully and bringing torture routinely into the body politic are fairly easily bought within “evil”. And many Americans positively approve of both these things. Is that so difficult to face?
:rolleyes:
december used to try that shit too. Didn’t work for him, either, though.
So you’d rather not discuss the topic now? No wonder.
Hentor, you were right. Is that breeze cooling you off any?
PS: Hentor TB It’s likely a pre-emptive “avoid impeachment debate” move.
Why do you say that? I would only agree that if one excludes the lies of the administration apart from Bush, there is quite a bit less left to work with. He still lied about the 16 words, about the non-existant report, about “We’ve found the WMD,” and a few other things, but he says so little that, as you well know. And, having lowered the bar to whether he was deceptive, I am sure that you would agree that Bush was deceptive on many, many more occasions, including his manner of deceptively linking Hussein and al Queda.
In conjunction with World Eater’s question, I would ask what information you think Bush conveys that doesn’t come from his administration? At which points do you think members of his administration were saying things Bush did not agree with? Why were they allowed to do so, or why didn’t Bush make any corrective statements regarding the deception carried out by his administration against his will?
It’s not true.
You get to define “evil.” As long as you’re defining it, without regard for anyone else, then sure, “evil” is whatever you say it is.
I keep bringing up the will of the majority because you refuse to accept that your defintion is not universally held. You insisit that you get to define it, not me.
Well, I say I get to define it, not you.
So how do we decide?
I agree with this simple statement. I even take it a step further by saying that most of his administration thought they were acting on the truth - the idea that the president lied to the American people hinges on this one fact: that George W. Bush knew for certain that the intelligence agencies of America, Britain, France, Germany, Israel and Australia, as well as the United Nations and countless independent experts were all wrong.
Or to quote David Limbaugh;
*"Most other major nations, including France, Germany, and Russia, also believed Saddam had WMD. And, the 9-11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee, based on hundreds of interviews, concluded, in effect, that Bush did not lie about the intelligence.
President Bush couldn’t possibly have lied about WMD unless he miraculously knew something that neither the CIA nor all the other world’s intelligence agencies knew: that Saddam didn’t have WMD. Now how could he have known that? Did he hire his own private investigators to dispatch some Farsi-speaking, cowboy hat-wearing paragon of erudition to comb its entire landmass to confirm there were no WMD? "*
Go right ahead and give us your definition, then.
Go Chewie!
Here you go, supply the post where I called you a coward.
See how this works?
-JOe
Blah blah blah. By your definition the actual “will of the majority” can be summarized as “I don’t give a fuck, I’m not going to bother voting”.
So, I guess the true vindication goes to apathy.
Want to try redefining it again? You’re so good at moving goalposts.
-Joe