What a positively odd response. I thought it was understood that America does not use a popular vote in its presidential elections. My deepest apologies for not explaining that to you.
If you knew the electoral college was the relevant measure why did you cite the popular vote for why Bush won?
Sigh. I already explained that to you. See, even in an electoral college system, people have to vote. The number I cited is the number of reasons Bush won, assuming each person who voted for him had their own reason for doing so (much like Ghandi said the number of religions in the world equals the number of people in the world.)
Admit it, Cisco, you gave a bullshit answer and got called on it. It’s okay to make mistakes or to misspeak. It’s okay to apologize for being misleading.
Or must all Republican backers fight every statement to the death and insult the naysayers? “I’m sorry I didn’t explain it to you” indeed. How patronizing.
Just apologize and move on.
Except I didn’t make a mistake or misspeak, nor was I misleading. I said exactly what I meant to say and I stand by it. You, on the other hand, have no logic behind what you’re saying, except . . .
GROAN :rolleyes: How did I know this was coming? Only on the SDMB must you be a rabid, in-your-face, non-stop shouting from the soapbox Democrat lapdog in order to not be a Republican. It couldn’t be that I never voted for Bush, and plan on voting for Obama, but I’ve accepted that Bush won in 2000 and got on with my life, could it? No, that couldn’t be it at all. It’s way too level-headed for this board.
(Not that I expect a rational response out of you, but out of curiosity, and for fun’s sake: what bullshit answer did I give?)
Actually, it would be actually more relevent to cite the number of molecules that made up the republicans who voted. Cause, you know, they were all involved, and it’s more relevent because it’s a larger number.
Since you’re obviously throwing out all consideration for how much influence every contributant had in creating the result, in order to use the largest number you can (despite the fact that Gore’s even larger number proves that Bush’s large humber of supportive voters had essentially squat to do with his final selection as president).
Tell you what. By similarly meaningful logic, everyone on earth is responsible for Bush’s ascendency, since they each didn’t go strangle him in his infancy. See? Everybody is a reason for Bush! And all their molecules too! Hard to beat that, huh?
Saw an interview with Suskind today. He was very careful to say that the order to forge the letter came from “the Whitehouse”, and not any particular person at said house. I might have been reading more into it than he meant, but it seemed to me he wanted to finger Cheney. But the odd thing is there was supposedly an order issued on WH stationary-- something Cheney is notorious for not doing. Anyway, this is going to get a lot of play in the coming weeks, so it will be interesting to see how it escalates, and if we get to hear the tapes where the CIA guys tell him what they did.
The mind boggles at how straight dopers are able to take the most clear and concise, and perfectly reasonable statement, and nitpick it into oblivion through partisan bickering.
Nice debate. Personal insults?
Cisco, this statement is as clear as mud. It seems as if you are throwing around the total number of votes that he accumulated as the reason he won.
It is far from clear that what you probably meant was that “each of the 50 million voters had a different reason, and it’s foolish to oversimplify the election down to a single hot-button issue.”
It looks for all the world like “Bush got 50 million votes, that’s why he won.”
The problem is back on you. Please apologize for being misleading; your statement requires clarity.
As opposed to the benevolence and erudition you expressed in post #104 :rolleyes:
Why don’t you apologize or simply just acknowledge that you misunderstood what I wrote? Or better yet just drop it. It wasn’t difficult, and you seem to get it now, so move on with your life buddy.
And calling people immature after you have initiated a hijack of ythis thread is putting a toe over the line of propriety in GD.
Back off.
begbert2, Cisco, Fish, Whack-a-Mole, and anyone else who has a need to review the 2000 election, (one. more. time.), go start your own thread and stop hijacking this one.
[ /Moderating ]
This is interesting . . . A writer for the paleocon American Conservative, quoting an anonymous source, says the Habbush letter was forged not by the CIA, but by Dick Cheney and Douglas Feith.
OK, so Suskind was making it all up, but by pure coincidence, the letter was a forgery anyway? :dubious:
From Salon:
Where are you getting that? The linked article alleges not that Suskind made anything up, but that he got some details wrong. The AC version makes more sense, since we now know Cheney and Feith were gung-ho for the invasion while the CIA was hesitant.
The article you linked to said that Robert Richer and John Maguire, who Suskind says told him took care of that forgery on orders of Tenet, were not involved, nor was Tenet, and that they’re all telling the truth when they deny involvement; instead, the forgery was done by the VP and the letter was found in Iraq. That would mean that Suskind was making up what he claims to be the contents of all of his interviews, that there was no CIA forgery and that the media actually found the letter in Iraq. I don’t see how else you can interpret the AC article.
ETA: Am I crazy or missing something?
The VP apparently used the Pentagon to create his forgery according to the AC article.