It’s only a center of terrorism because we made it that way; by your logic, we should invade ourselves.
No it’s not. Bush and friends have never treated the “War on Terror” as anything other than a political tool; they have not hesitated to ignore or sabotage it when politically convenient. They obviously aren’t seriously trying to stop terrorism. Given how they use it ( especially 9-11 ) as a political prop, I expect the Bushites are actually rooting for Al-Quaeda to manage another dramatic strike in America.
Oh, come on now. The White House spokesman said Helen Thomas is opposed to the broader war on terrorism. He didn’t say that she supports Osama bin Laden, he didn’t say she hates America, he didn’t say she’s a nutjob reporter far past her prime. Helen Thomas has been asking tough questions of the White House – there’s some questions that are probably more on the lines of harassment of a White House flak than of trying to pry news out of him – and good on her.
But the idea that a spinmeister in Washington DC can’t ever lay gloves on a reporter in a little verbal repartee is pretty fucking stupid. As far as politics goes, this barb doesn’t even rate a bloody nose. In other news, various press secretaries in the White House have been openly making fun of nutjob journalist Les Kinsolving for many years, and yet there’s no pit threads about that “unfair” treatment of another journalist.
For the record, I view the war on terrorism as being the war on Al Qaeda. If the Administration wants to say that the “broader war on terrorism” includes things like the war in Iraq; unprovoked, preventive war; or interrogation techniques that cross the line into torture, then sign me up right below Helen Thomas on those that oppose the broader war on terrorism. It seems quite evident to me that the phrase “broader war on terrorism” as Scott McClellan used it encompasses all of these damned fool things that have nothing to do with actually making our country safer, and I’ll damned well be proud of wearing that opposition on my sleeve.
You know, I knew as I ws hitting the submit button that someone would cry “foul”. But there was a larger point being made. It was not about what Clinton did, but about the libs’ reaction to it. Surely, you can see the difference.
Then again, probably not. :rolleyes:
Again, what would the lies be? Specifically.
And not that it matters, I have complained to congressmern—and The White House—about Bush (who I am no fan of and never voted for). Just not about imaginary lies.
You might want to read furt’s posts in this thread over again. He has it exactly right. It is completely possible to be against the war, hate Bush, and for his posts to be 100% correct. Can you not see that? Seriously.
So if we withdraw from Iraq, are we running from the terrorists? Does this mean that the majority of Americans want to run from the terrorists? Does this mean that the majority of Americans think it was a bad idea to fight the war on terror?
Oh, my. Where to start? Do you want them by term, alphabetically, or in order of importance?
We never had any proof that Saddam had WMD. That was a lie. The “yellow cake uranium letter” was a fabrication. Cheney lied to congress. Bush lied the country.
Saddam didn’t have WMD. No. He really, really didn’t. He wasn’t hiding them in milk factories, and to date we have found precisely 6 rusted shell casings that may, at one time, have contained biological weapons that we sold him.
Bush never gave a good god damn about OBL. No, really. He doesn’t. He even came out and said so after we were committed to that drain called Afghanistan. Christ, do you honestly think the Soviet Union couldn’t have spent all their money and time and resources there if they really wanted to? They just weren’t that stupid.
He lied to the country about nailling the assholes responsible for 9/11. He hasn’t run them to the ground, and I for one want them nailed. It was one of the few things I supported his silly ass on.
He lied when he said that he would fire anyone who would give up a government operative in the field.
He lied about his service record.
…really, how long have you got?
That’s the crux of the problem, and the crux of why we’re losing this fight. We need to set realistic goals for success. Saying “We will prevail in this war on terror” is not realistic by a long shot, and by saying this, they’re giving people false expectations that this indeed will happen. The war on terror is some vague bullshit term, and we’re only fooling ourselves in assigning such an ambigous phrase to such an important mission.
Call it what it is, the war against Al Qaeda. At least defeating them is tangible.
A theory? Is that what they’re calling that stuff that comes out of your ass now?
If you seriously believe that Helen Thomas’s level of credibility places her on a level with Ann Coulter, you must be on crack or something. Sure, she is opposed to many of the actions of this administration, but at least her opposition is based on some basic knowledge, evidence, and analysis.
Excuse me, i’m going to the bathroom to take a “theory.”
Surely, this hijack will change no one’s mind. But I’ll just address these few.
Oh, I see. Intelligence that turns out to be wrong = lie. Okay.
Not sure what the “lie” is. But it must be nice to be able to read minds.
I can only assume you are referring to his claim that he was going to do that. In which case I guess you are referring top OBL specifically. Well, he’s one person. You might think it is wise to devote the entire military of the U.S., or some great part of it, to achieve this one goal, a few military strategists might disagree. Do you deny that the vast majority of his organization has been pummeled and blown to shit?
You do know that there is an investigation going on, right? You do know that no one knows all the facts yet, right? Or do the facts and the whole innocent until proven guilty thing not matter when it comes to those you dislike?
Nice decalration from you. But you haven’t told me what this lie is.
Look, this will be a fruitless effort for both you and I. Basically we disagree on what the word “lie” means. There have been other threads on this. You are, of course free to start another one, but let’s keep this thread on topic.
No. Stating an un-truth as truth is a lie. Stating that untruth to congress when asking for a declaration of war is a contemptible lie that gets people killed. Twist it as many different ways as you’d like. It’s still a lie. Thanks for playing jingo with us, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.
I have ignored Al-qaeda’s cries that the letter is a forgery, but I remember seeing an analysis on the greetings that puts in doubt that Zarwahiri made the letter (IIRC the religious greetings were wrong for the kind of fellow Zarwahiri is), knowing the location, we should not forget that convenient letters appeared before that then supported what Bush said regarding the close relationship with Saddam and Al-qaeda, only for the letters to turn to be fakes later… Yes, after all that, I don’t thrust the intelligence that gave us this letter.
After years of seeing the evidence, it is your side that is unreasonable. After years of ignoring the evidence, one can indeed say that it is now a big lie to continue equivocating the Iraq war with the war against terror.
I learned from **december ** that being polite while polishing a turd, does not mean you will make it shine.
THE WHOLE WORLD does see the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan.
For example, it was reported recently that French troops got close to catching Osama in Afghanistan.
The only conclusion I get from this exchange in the white house, is that this administration still expects that pea brains (a minority now in the USA) will continue to support the equivocation of Afghanistan=Iraq on the war against terror, can your simple brain don’t see the difference when even last month soldiers from Spain continued to die in Afghanistan because they do see the difference? And they and the French continue fighting the war against terror; Only Bush (and the shrinking coalition of the willing) continues the dishonorable deception regarding Iraq.
And when did you stop beating YOUR wife?
An untruth is a lie. Does it make it more true just because you believe it to be? I know plenty of people would very dearly like to believe that’s the case. It isn’t, though. A lie is a lie is a lie. Or, as my father the cop was so fond of saying “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
Dubya’s ignorance of that lie is no excuse for all the people who’ve wound up dead because of it. And how much worse for them that they died for a lie.
Well if what had happened was that you had these 4 reports all saying “he’s got WMD” and only that, then found out that it wasn’t true, then you’d have a point.
However, the sequence wasn’t nearly that. There were many disclaimers, many questions, many, many refutations (yellow cake anyone?) that suggested that the report making the claim wasn’t necessarily true. And yet, it (and only that) was presented as the truth - I believe some words like “Slam dunk” were used. Props were used Colin Powell w/satelitte photos “We know these things are here, here and here”.
No, they didn’t “know” stuff was here, here and here.
As a matter of fact since their attack plan failed to include any fucking attempt to protect/guard/safeguard those sites during their march to Bagdad, I’d say that was evidence that they “knew” it was false.
If they “knew” the stuff was there (and even if they only really, really strongly suspected it), it was criminally stupid to not plan to safeguard those sites. They did, in fact, fail to safeguard those sites. So, either they knew the claim was untrue, or they simply didn’t give a shit about the potential for the WMD stuff to fall into enemy hands. (which of course was one of the original claims to justify the invasion).