Do you still believe Bush’s claim that Iraq was a “direct threat” to America? Y / N
Before Bush launched Operation Iraqi Freedom, did you ever say, “You know, honey, we really need to free those poor people in Iraq?” Y / N
With anti-Saddam Shi’ites now joining Sunnis in fighting U.S.-led occupation forces, do you still believe Bush when he says “terrorists” and “Saddam loyalists” are behind the resistance, and not nationalists? Y / N
With Iraqis now attacking Americans at a rate of 60 ambushes a day, do you still buy Bush’s argument that Americans have to stay in Iraq to protect Iraqis, that we’re the answer to the security problem and not the source of it? Y / N
Were any “terrorists” killing Americans in Iraq before Bush invaded Iraq? Y / N
Was capturing Saddam more urgent to the war on terrorism than capturing Osama bin Laden, as the president sold it? Y / N *"
Pretty durned funny. Thought that you might enjoy the coumn.
I assumed treis was making a joke, since the article is about dismissing all criticism as partisan. Especially since the author is a conservative Republican.
Apparently I have. Remove “partisan” from my previous statement
Its bullshit becuase he basically says that the only right way to look at the current situation is to conclude that Bush lied and he needs to be voted out. It implies that anyone who supports Bush is too stupid to see the lies. He also spouts off that Bush lied about Iraq as though it is an undeniable truth despite the fact that the Clinton administration along with a good deal of the rest of the world thought Saddam had WMDs. I have yet to see a logical explanation why Bush would lie or how he convinced the rest of the world of his lie. Saying Bush said there were WMDs and there weren’t WMDs therefore he lied is not acceptable. To me personally it matters very little becuase nether scenario is acceptable and like I’ve said before Bush lost my vote a long time ago. That doesn’t mean that I think all Bush supporters are idiots that have bought into lies.
You’re very right that this unacceptable. I find it to be an unfounded case myself.
Unfortunately, the bit about the existence of the WMDs isn’t an integral part of the charge of mendacity made against the WH. It was the threat from Hussein’s WMDs that was at issue. The threat from Hussein’s WMDs was ‘mispoken’, ‘imprecise’ and involved ‘mistatements.’ Use of this denial, (that everybody thought Hussein had WMDs), by the WH and other vocal supporters as a defense against the charges of mendacity, however, can be easily seen as another example of mendacity.
That the WH has been incompetent prevents these various ‘mis-communications’ form being lies.
Before Bush launched Operation Iraqi Freedom, did you ever say, “You know, honey, we really need to free those poor people in Iraq?” Y / N
… If you answered Yes to all of the above, you support the war simply to support Bush.
This question makes no sense no matter how it’s parsed. If you did, in fact, state that the Iraqis needed to be freed before Bush mentioned it, then that clearly proves that you don’t just support Bush to be supporting him. It negates the very point Sperry is trying to prove.
On the other hand, if you never said it before “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” that doesn’t prove anything either. There are millions upon millions of statements, thoughts, and ideas I’ve never expressed merely because it’s not on my mind to say it. If, before 2002, I never once said to myself “Iraqi citizens need freedom” that doesn’t mean they don’t.
I’m not arguing for or against the truth of the statement. I am, however, blaming Sperry for condemning the ignorant for the crime of being ignorant.
Well, it’s quite obvious Bush lied, isn’t it? Whether Bush needs to be voted out because of his lies is a matter of opinion, and the author has stated his. You’re more than free to vote for Bush again (it’s not like he’s the first president that ever lied), but condemning the author for putting forth the point that Bush lied seems to be exactly what Sperry is talking about: sticking your head in the sand.
I find it quite telling that an erstwhile raging critic of Clinton now drops Bush like a bad habit. Note that this doesn’t make the man any less conservative - he just thinks Bush needs to be voted out, and is willing to face the facts, to admit that he voted for the wrong guy. With the US electoral system as it is, the best strategy for getting rid of Bush, is voting for Kerry. I’d take about .4 seconds filling out that voting form, provided I had a vote in the US of course. Give me a president who lies about blowjobs again, please.
Quite obvious that the WH said things that weren’t true, anyway. They still have the,(nearly), plausible deniability that comes with an assumption of their incompetence.
Eh, I’m not sure if it would have turned into a flamewar. I prefer that when a thread is STARTED in the Pit, that it be genuinely Pit material. I think that the OP could have framed this as a debate, or beefed it up (and I DON’T mean just sprinkling some cuss words into it) to put it in the Pit.
But it’s here now, and I don’t feel like moving it.
Wasn’t the threat ‘mispoken’ becuase Bush said Saddam had WMDs that could through an intermediary attack the United States. If we knew Saddam had no WMD’s there would be no way you could argue this war was justifiable by self-defense.
I don’t think its obvious that Bush lied. The only obvious thing is that he made claims that turned out to be 100% completely false but my argument is that he wasn’t the only one making these claims. Either way a cluster fuck like Iraq in my opinion shows that Bush is not competent enough to be president.
Lotsa countries have WMDs. Not all of them are presented as threat to the US. The NIE said that Iraq was unlikely to attack the US.
Just having WMDs does not mean that a country presents a threat to the US.
The mendacity was that the threat from Iraq, (and its WMDs) was such that it would be ‘irresponsible’ to wait any longer to deal with it.
Exactly. Mendacity or incompetence. I’m not sure which is the more charitable conclusion.
