Anything else to add or nipping at my ankles like a bitch as usual?
Of course - no one is saying that. You were the one that started us down the “costs lives = bad” inference, not I. Certainly “costing lives” is not a sine qua non of a good decision or a bad one. Obviously, if lives are at stake, then the stakes are very high – but there are some things worth sending our soldiers to die for.
Well, again I agree. I’m not calling the Iraq campaign an unqualified success yet, because it’s not done. But I’m not calling it an abject failure either, because it’s not done. Are we agreed?
Bricker, for your own edification, read Colin Powells presentation to the UN. That was our admins prime case, they said it all. Now, memory is a bit thin, but so far as I recall, not one…not one!..of the accusations Colin Powell leveled on that occassion proved to be true. Not even the Mobile Nuclear Anthrax Trailers of Death. Not the Intercontinental Drones of Doom. None of it. Not one fucking word.
Didn’t he catch even a hint when his African uranium crap turned out to be…crap? Didn’t he have even a moment of doubt when the inspectors asked for locations to search, we gave it to them and they found diddly squat? When the alulminum tube fiasco proved groundless, he still didn’t have the least inkling of doubt?
Wouldn’t you? Before you send other peoples kids off to kill and die, wouldn’t you? I am sure you would. At the very least, I wouldn’t presume to insult you by suggesting otherwise.
Well, since we’re in a thread entitled “Repub Ideas did NOT win, LIES did,” I would gently suggest to you that there is some relevance to that determination - don’t you agree?
I’m sorry. I meant no real offense. It’s just that the sentiment “Remember, killing people is not always good” was something I couldn’t resist.
It is kind of obvious, isn’t it?
No hard feelings? Please?
I agree with this. I think the individual conflict has to be measured on it’s own merits.
Yep we’re agreed. It’s not a failure, but things aren’t looking too good these days. There will be a civil war as soon as we pull out as well.
- I do not watch telivision on anything resembling a regular basis. I don’t know what ads you’re talking about.
- If I was aware of them, I would have condemned them.
- Kerry was not elected, as such, I don’t feel an obligation to spend nearly as much time going over his failings. Had he won, I’d hold his feet to the fire too.
- And I will say it now, in bold To the degree that the Kerry campaign used lies, they are scum
Fair enough, I will semantically mince my earlier statement:
On the issues covered, which were major, Bush supporters were far more clueless than Kerry supporters. Perhaps there were other issues on which Kerry supporters were equally clueless, or even more clueless.
But I have not seen any evidence to support that claim, and you know about the fallacy of proving the negative I’m sure.
I’m not going to get into who lied first…
I just am saddened that you are here supporting lying as a necessary facet of politics.
Fear and loathing… is this what our nation has become? The pride of Jefferson and Franklin?
A den of liars?
Maybe.
And they too will be morally wrong.
I don’t know that it ever has, does that mean we should accept it?
Nope.
I love my country with all my heart.
I’m staying, fighting, slogging it out, and we’ll see.
Thank you!
(or are those thanks premature?)
Oh, no, wait…
You’re embarrased and ashamed in rhetoric, but you support their actions in practice…
How far does that shame actually translate then?
Are you really embarrased and ashamed if you support their actions?
The conclusion we reached was that there was no clear evidence.
Am I to assume you’re suggestiong MI6 had the same conclusion?
Would you care to put a timeline by these various events, so we can see how they fit into the invasion of Iraq?
No hard feelings. 
Yes I agree, but I’m not letting you off the hook with regards to my point.
He’s either a liar or incompetent. Neither of these is a quality I want in a CIC
But you already know all this. And wouldn’t the salient fact be that they preceded the invasion? Whether by an hour or a year what difference does it make?
Just a big oopsy, huh? Drat the luck, swing and a miss. Ah, heck, a thousand of our kids, God alone knows how many of thiers, 200 billion dollars and counting. Give the guy a do-over, he means well, and he’s getting the hang of this “President” stuff! He’ll do much better this time!
Kind of reminds me of JFK, and that speech he gave apologizing for the failures of the Bay of Pigs, accepting the responsibility. Was GeeDubya’s speech as good as that? I don’t recall, can you cite it for me?
FinnAgain wrote
I guess I thought we were having a different discussion. I thought we were talking about Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry, and who would be the better President, and whether one side told substantially more lies than the other side.
But I guess we’re not. We’re talking about pure truth, and whether every statement ever uttered by a politician was fact.
Friend, I didn’t need you to tell me that politicians lie. But I guess I don’t get what your real point is. Some here have stated that Mr. Bush should be removed because of his lies. You seem to be saying that all politicians should be removed. or Nader should hold a post. or something, honestly, I don’t know what your point is.
And shame, I actually read several of your cites, and was ready to counter about how Mr. Kerry was no better. But such as it is.
When the Republicans talked about the bible being banned, that was bad. And when the Democrats talked about a Draft in the works, well that was bad too. For every Republican claim, there’s a Democrat claim of Social Security cuts, or encouragement of off-shoring, or how about that special olympics thing saying of Bush “even if you win, you’re still retarded”?
There’s plenty of wickedness in this game, and I too am against it. But for ninnies like our OP and her clan to claim that only the Republicans lied, and this was the sole reason for their win, well, that’s just silly. and arrogant. and wrong.
I am unaware that was the discussion.
Could’ve sworn that the OP is about how the Bush campaign ran on deception (which ever bricker admits)
Indeed, I could’ve sworn that when confronted with one of my posts on Bush’s lies, you suggested that I was wrong.
So, which is it?
Is it untrue that Bush’s campaign was full of lies, or is it true and Kerry did it too?
Or are you just trying to argue both sides?
We are?
Mind quoting where I said that?
Has the country really fallen that far?
That folks can’t grok the simple point that winning a campaign based on fear and lies is wrong?
Again, quote me where I say that all politicians should be removed, or that I support Nader.
Is it really so hard to find my point?
Lying. Is. Wrong.
Lying in a political campaign in order to get elected is also wrong.
Actually, there is a good bit of evidence that a draft is at least possible.
Selective service has been ramping up, but we don’t need to debate that here unless you really want.
The point is, lying is wrong.
Politicians should be elected based on what they’ll actually do, have actually done, and who they actually are.
Otherwise we are electing illusions and distortions, and we deserve far better.
Is this really so radical?
No, it’s not silly, not arrogant, and not wrong.
It is probably not the sole reason, but it may very well be.
Since such a large percentage of republican voters voted out of ignorance, it is only logical to assume that their votes helped win the election, and thus, votes cast out of ignorance won the election.
QED.
I’m not convinced we deserve better.
Nope. I’m here, outraged because the Democrats lost by telling the TRUTH.
"On Social Security, Bush was just as evasive. Here, again, the tiny minority of people who closely follow this understood his code words. He wants to divert Social Security taxes into private accounts. Because those taxes pay for the benefits of current retirees, his plan would require cutting benefits or driving the national debt even higher.
Bush, of course, went to great pains to distance himself from these unpleasant facts. In 2001, he appointed a commission that proposed three plans to partly privatize Social Security, but he declined to embrace the panel’s findings. A few weeks before the election, a New York Times Magazine story reported that Bush told GOP donors he planned to push privatization after the election. John Kerry’s campaign circulated a nonpartisan study showing what the benefit cuts in one of the commission’s plans would entail. Bush’s spokesman dismissed the charge that he favored privatization or benefit-cutting as a “false, baseless attack.”
Here’s what Bush said Thursday: “I had asked [Daniel Patrick Moynihan], prior to his passing, to chair a committee of notable Americans to come up with some ideas on Social Security, and they did so. And it’s a good place for members of Congress to start.”
Got that? Last week, if you had described Bush as advocating the commission’s plans, he would have denounced you for promoting a hysterical lie. Now they are at the top of the list of things he’s saying he was elected specifically to enact."
If you go to the White house website and read the transcript just to make sure you there was no mistake, you see…
" And so the answer to your second question is, we’ll start on Social Security now. We’ll start bringing together those in Congress who agree with my assessment that we need to work together. We’ve got a good blueprint, a good go-by. You mentioned Senator Moynihan. I had asked him prior to his – to his passing, to chair a committee of notable Americans to come up with some ideas on Social Security. And they did so. And it’s a good place for members of Congress to start.
The President must have the will to take on the issue – not only in the campaign, but now that I’m elected. And this will – reforming Social Security will be a priority of my administration."
That Mr. Chiat was absolutely correct. Because if we go to your cite that supposedly reveals how Kerry lied, they say this exactly:
“Furthermore, Bush hasn’t proposed any specific plan as yet. The “cut” the ad refers to is an estimate by the Congressional Budget Office of the effect of holding starting benefit levels at current levels adjusted only for inflation, rather than pushing them up each year in line with wages as has been done since 1977. For persons born in this decade – most of whom haven’t yet been born – the CBO figured starting benefits at retirement could be as much as 45% less than under the current formula. Furthermore, doing away with wage-indexing could be done with or without private accounts. It was just one feature of one of three “model” plans put forth by a bipartisan commission Bush set up. Bush hasn’t endorsed any of the model plans”
George Bush and his administration are lying, manipulative scum that make all the administrations they went before them, even Nixon’s, look positively angelic.
Really?
How sad…
Well actually that’s not true. Us Dems deserve better. 
D&R
Yes, but IN THIS THREAD, we are discussing the claim that lies won the election. Thank you for your agreement, and I’ll be happy to discuss the incompetence claim with you in another thread. But we’ve eliminated the certainty of “lies,” with you. Now, on to the next person.
Y’all remember that *Star Trek * episode where the the 2 guys, who looked exactly alike but one was matter and the other anti-matter or something like that, and they ended up trapped in a constant battle with each other that would last until time itself stopped…
Stoid, I’m upset about this too. But I’m gonna stay out of this thing for two reasons.
-
No good can from it at this time because, as much as we don’t like it, Bush has the job for the next 4 years, which makes this particular battle pointless, and
-
I value my sanity and my blood pressure.
So, for your own piece of mind, I think you should back off this, just for a while, before you and** Bill H** are trapped in another plane of existence, at each other’s throats for all eternity…**Finnagain ** and Bricker might be there, too.
You’re reading too much into it. I don’t hate you, and no-one I know does either.