1-Fact NOT in dispute by anyone in the reality-based community = Bush and key members of his Administration* lied repeatedly* in order to invade Iraq.
2-Fact NOT in dispute by anyone in the reality-based community = Bush apologist will go to any lenght in order to deny Fact number one.
Evidence if more was needed: this very thread. Cognitive dissonance rears its ugly head yet again.
QED
Ah, you announce that Bush lied, and your proof is… that this thread has people defintively announcing that Bush lied.
Bush didn’t lie. Period.
Now, how many of the people that voted for Bush think he lied?
What percentage of this country is not in the “reality-based community?”
Gods, another BUSHLIEDBUSHLIEDBUSHLIED rant fest. :rolleyes: If I had a dollar for every thread like this on the board…
The problem here is that, while its obvious that Bush, as well as every other politician living and dead, has in fact lied, you have yet to prove that he lied about the really big things…like getting us into this stupid war in Iraq. In YOUR mind you may think its a slam dunk…but you are obviously biased. Its not a problem…we all are biased in one way or another. But it calls into question your judgement on this issue when there is no proof, only speculation…yet you act like its a proved case.
I think the OP has been answered admirably already by BrotherCadfael. From day one the left/Dems have been crying wolf about Bush. I remember the ranting going on BEFORE he became president. However, if you cry wolf too often people stop listening…you become annoying background noise. Then if something REAL happens…well, no one is listening anymore except the already converted chanting the same mantra as you and being ignored in the same way.
The sad fact is, Bush really HASN’T lied about everything, and everything out of his mouth hasn’t been a lie. He certainly HAS lied or exaggerated on occation…what president hasn’t? And he’s been wrong…he’s been wrong a WHOLE lot. Its amazing that a president who has been wrong on so many things still managed to get re-elected. Its an article of faith on the board that this is due to the superior Republican spin machine and the unbelievable stupidity of the American electorate. I won’t get into my own theories as to the why of this here…I’ve said them before and will probably say them again.
You know, I never really thought of it that way…but this is perhaps the best analogy to Bush I’ve ever seen. The more I think of it the more Harry S Truman I see in ole GW.
-XT
The quotes I used were to indicate you said it, not Blix. Sorry for the confusion. And I actually found a
[quote]
(In Blix's Words) for you date Dec 19, 2002 that is perhaps better than your own. It doesn’t say “at every turn”, but it’s pretty close. So, I’ll agree with you that Blix was saying he was getting very good cooperation from S.H.
A follow-on question for [b[Red Fury**:
What percentage of the voting populace of this country being outside the “reality-based community” would cause you to re-examine your concept of what constitutes “reality?”
1-The Truth shall set you free. Follow the links provided throughout this very thread, grasshopper.
2-I suspect that as many mindless Bushbots are out threre, there’s also a fair number that know perfectly weel he did, in fact, lie. But they still feel he was "justified"in doing so. For a quick example, check Martin Hyde’s so-called "argument in this very thread.
3-Too many. Obviously. Then again, reality has a way of coming back and biting you right in the ass.
Emjoy…while you still can.
Facts are facts, pal. Percentage of True Believers notwithstanding. But since turn-about is fair play:
The great majority of the WORLD is part of the reality-based community. Of course, that means nothing at all to the Bushbot’s faith-based-make-our-reality community.
And some of you still wonder why your current Administration and its cheerleaders are so hated throughout the world…
.
They don’t live here. Much as I personally dislike Bush, the opinions of The World™ about him or this nation are fairly irrelevent…they neither live here nor are they particulary well informed about the internal working of this nation. Having traveled extensively throughout the world I can state this with fairly solide conviction…at least anecdotally.
I seriously doubt whether most of them think much of our opinions of THIER leaders…in fact, again anecdotally, I can say this is also pretty accurate. They DON’T care what we think of their leaders. To expand, I seriously doubt most people in other countries care what ANYONE outside thinks of their leaders.
-XT
Bricker, if most of the country believed the Earth was flat, would that make it reality?
Jacques Chirac isn’t really popular in America. Neither is Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
Do you think the people of Venezuela or France care that this is so, RedFury?
In answer to the OP, it’s fairly simple. Many Bush supporters believe that the terrorists will wreck our country, or some other hideous consequence will come to pass, if Bush doesn’t stay in power and push his agenda through. Once you have a mindset like that, your brain simply refuses to acknowledge anything bad about Bush regardless of how many clear cases you get of Bush saying things that are totally untrue.
As for why we care, because Bush’s lies have significance. On Iraq, they have sent world opinion of America plummeting and made it harder to achieve our aims in every area of international negotiating. Bush’s lies* about taxes, spending, and the deficit tricked Congress into passing more tax cuts and spending increases than they could reasonably afford, leading to higher interest rates and looming financial disaster down the road. You can stand around insisting that only “hysterical” far leftists fail to realize that Bush is a paragon of honesty (in which case the majority of Americans are far leftists … when did this sea change in american politics take place?), but that doesn’t get us more credibility internationally, or a balanced budget.
*Here’s another one just for fun: before Congress voted on the prescription drug bill in November of 2003, the Bush Administration sent them a report stating that the cost would be 400 billion over ten years. The Administration, at the time, had a report stating that the cost would be 540 billion over ten years. They withheld that second report and threatened to fire anybody within the administration who gave the second report to Congress. Four months later, the Bush administration admitted that the 540 billion figure was the correct one. cite
How many illegal invasions based on lies and deceptions have either of those two engaged in? Point being, NO ONE would give much of a shit outside of the US if Bush&Co limited his lying to matters inside his country.
You are asserting is that many (perhaps a majority) believe he lied and are OK with that.
This assertion is not necessarily valid.
As many posters in this thread have stated, many (perhaps a majority) do not believe that, for example, BUSH LIED! about WMDs; they accept the possibility that he may have been mistaken.
You reject this possibility, but clearly, many do not.
Then, given the basics, which have been summarized once again in this thread, how do you maintain that there is still a possibility he might have been simply mistaken?
You *know * he lied. People who don’t know that might have the excuse you describe. What is yours?
In the case of Chirac, the comparison seems apt.
The UN had imposed a cease fire in the Ivory Coast, but they could not enforce it. As it broke down, and the UN resolutions imposing it became mere artifacts on paper, France sent troops in to protect its citizens and impose order.
Chirac is committed to removing the regime of Laurant Gbagbo.
I’m on the Left (but not the far left). I haven’t voted for a Republican since… uh… ever? I oppose Bush, think he is awful for the country and the world, and rue the day that the Americans were sent overseas for an unnecessary and mistaken war. For all the “evidence” of lies, 99% of it is better explained as Bush being wrong or mistaken. It puzzles me why so many liberals would rather say that it is impossible that Bush could have been fooled about the existence of Iraqi WMD (therefore he must have lied); rather than stick with the more plausible story that the Administration is filled with dolts who fool themselves by only listening to what they want to hear, and then parrot the same crap out to the public.
I do not believe that Bush lied to get us into a war with Iraq. He was warmongering and wrong. Here is one Kerry voter – who really wished that Dean had gotten the nomination – who doesn’t believe that Bush lied to start a war.
So, am I now excluded from the reality-based community?
No, you’re in the subset that says he’s so uninterested in reality that he actually believed all of it. That isn’t exactly an absolution you’re granting him.
You seem determined to a very nice definition of “lie”, as if it matters. “Ooopsy” is perhaps acceptable for less stringent job descriptions, such as brain surgeon, where only one life is forfeit at a time. The job of POTUS does not permit such. Is that strict, perhaps unfair? Perhaps, but it is what it is, he wasn’t drafted, he campaigned for the job, if he cannot stand the heat, he should never have asked for the job.
He said he was certain, that we were in desperate peril, that nothing would answer but immediate war. This was not true. The distinction between this and a “lie” is sheer sophistry.
Not sure why you are still willing to give him/them the benefit of the doubt against piles upon piles of evidence to the contrary, but to answer your question, from my POV, you’re straddling the reality fence.
Rather (too) kind of you to think they are all merely incompetent…
I agree with this. The question is: Why would self-described Conservatives defend incompetency?
Forget about whether or not he lied. He was wrong. Again and again. He fucked up, big time. Cost the US money, goodwill, and the lives of US troops. Why wasn’t that a good enough reason to fire his ass? Not talking about nailing him to a cross - just firing him. A practical and pragmatic business decision.
I can’t imagine that any Conservative on this board would not have fired Bush long ago, if he had been running your business the way he has run the US. And yet, you signed him up for another 4 year contract, and you’re bragging about it. How the hell can you defend that?
Is there anyone here who can make a case as to why he should have been kept on after being wrong, after fucking up, so often? I imagine if I were your business partner you’d be the one telling me we had to sack him, pronto.
And you know, it’s not even like you would have had to worry about what would happen to him if you’d let him go. Anyone who has ever had to fire someone knows what I’m saying here: This firing would have been a piece of cake. No worries where George Bush’s next meal would come from, right? Hell, even a bleeding heart like me could do it, without losing sleep.
For me, the saddest thing is that so many have invested themselves into defending this man against their own principles. Madness.
Thinking that should be enough. Remember what Joseph Welch said to Senator McCarthy? The fact that it’s not enough is what points to madness…