It’s not just my link that says that, it was my first post on the subject and one of key points I was trying to make. Not only is the “Bush lied about an imminent threat” meme an error, it obscures the ***bigger ***problem of the Bush policy itself, as I outlined it. I disagree with that policy, as I always have, and that was the main reason Bush didn’t get my vote this time.
And yes, that is worse, although I doubt I mean the same thing by that as you do.
Just so, Elvis! How extremely lazy, stupid and gullible of you to accept information at face value from people with an obvious agenda!
Whatsamatta you?
That wasn’t my only cite , or the only lie covered on the commondreams site - if you’re so sure you’re right on every subject maybe you should do some research too - there are plenty of sources - over 2 million, as I pointed out before.
I see you continue to ignore my question, too, about whether Bush’s policy in Iraq has made americans safer?
You should be careful calling me a liar on the basis of your post above. You have shown no proof of this other than your own biased opinion.
Ah, okay, so many people to keep track of here. Good on yer, mite.
And you’re just going to stop there? What *do * you mean by worse, then, and how does it differ from what you think I mean?
Given that I know you’re not Australian, I’m not so sure that’s a compliment. 
I don’t want to send this thread off on that tangent. Let’s just say that I wouldn’t suggest that Bush should be executed for what he did and leave it at that.
[Moderator Hat ON]
Ok, I think I’ve had enough of “extremely lazy, stupid and gullible”. Either cool it or take it to the Pit.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
The answer to the OPs question is: Iokiyar*
“It’s OK if you’re a Republican.”
May not be the answer you want, but put it in the context of everything Republican and well, there ya have it.
For the more international crowd, a more appropo word is kotonakare-shugi.
I don’t advocate that either, I simply mentioned precedent by way of showing how seriously anti-American and anti-civilization his actions have been.
?
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed
Much more at source.
So you see, as I’ve already pointed out to you in my earlier post, all you’ve done is unearth more lies.
How can so many people remain so wilfully ignorant? Is there really a Kool-Aid like potion that you guys are required to drink?
You know, whether he lied or not probably isn’t the point. It’s unlikely we’ll ever find out if he intentionally misled us and the rest of the world, or if he himself was misled, or was just mistaken. (Personally, I vote for “lied”- I think he knew exactly what he was doing, every step of the way.)
The point is, though, he’s The Guy. There is no higher authority in the free world than him (although, he claims there Is). When the buck gets passed, he’s the one who’s supposed to catch it. Responsibility doesn’t flow downward.
At this point, he should either be impeached for lying, or impeached for screwing up so badly. At the very least, he should take responsibility for taking us to war and killing thousands for no good reason, and try to rebuild the trust that the rest of the world has lost in the US. War should be the absolute LAST choice anyone can make, but he leapt into it like a swimmin’ hole on a hot Crawford day- and he needs to admit that he made a mistake.
Wanna bet he won’t, though? After all, this is a man who can’t think of any mistakes he’s made. :rolleyes:
BTW, here’s a little something about the áccuracy’ of the pre-invasion US intel:
Inspectors Call U.S. Tips ‘Garbage’
Guess ‘garbage’ is good enough to go to war over amongst members of The Faith-based Community. Because if that Jesus guy could turn water into wine, surely Fearless Misleader can turn garbage into “evidence.”
(emphasis added)
So it’s ok for you to protest cites to Fox News because they are a “source not aligned with your political beliefs” and therefore not credible, but I can’t do the same?
And let’s take a look at your source. The titles and opening paragraphs of the most recent “columns” by Capital Hill Blue’s founder:
[I’ve left out a story about whether we should care about Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt’s breakup]
Yes, that’s quite a credible source you’ve got there. No agenda at all.
No, it doesn’t. In fact, the article says very few of those things. Since you appear to be incapable or unwilling to either read the article or accurately discuss its contents, I’ll try to clear up the record (again). [deep breath]
First, if you know the “definite, true budget figures,” then you are the only person in the world that does. For example, the CBO – a nonpartisan, Congressional organization – still thinks their $395b figure is correct. As made clear in the WaPo article I linked, there are numerous reasons that there could be a wide range of reasonable estimates. Nobody knows what the “definite, true budget figures” are or will be. Certainly not the White House, and definitely not you. Your assertions otherwise are false.
If they are not false, you need to provide some backup for your assertion that the CBO’s numbers are so woefully wrong and the White House’s numbers are correct. Please discuss.
Second, a “report” didn’t exist until after the bill was passed. You can’t release something that doesn’t yet exist. So it would be illogical to condemn the White House for failing to release something that didn’t exist yet.
Third, the White House’s budget estimates were not “withheld.” They were released. As my Washington Post article makes clear, the Dems knew about them, some Republicans knew about them, they were an “open secret” in Washington.
Fourth, despite the fact that the figures were widely known, the actuary was not fired. In fact, the actuary’s boss (who told him not to talk to Dems on at least one occasion) appears to be the only one that was conveniently been excused from his responsibilities with the Welfare Office. That indicates that the actuary would not have been fired for speaking out, no matter what threats (real or imagined) he heard.
Fifth, the WaPo article does not even suggest that the White House lied about anything. At most, it suggests that there the White House might not have shared all possible information with everybody. But that’s not the same thing as lying.
Sixth, you have yet to find me a credible source for that quote. Call me a cynic, but I find it hard to believe that Republicans would make such a quote to a “news” organization that calls the right wing “brain dead,” “rabid,” and “unwashed” “idiots” and “ignorant louts” who believe in “bigotry, fear and regressive thinking.” Or, even if they did make that quote, why would Republicans give such a quote only to that organization, and not the WaPo or NYT? What purpose could that possibly serve?
And I don’t think Bush is infallibly honest. But I think he’s a bit more honest than you’ve been in this thread.
How does your link or quote prove false that there were training camps in northern Iraq? Im afraid that alot of you people do not know what a lie is. Kind of like not knowing what “is” is right?
This is sad. You have no proof of lying. You link to biased sorces that are domonstrably (in this thread mind you) full of misleading innuendo’s and stick your chest out and and proclaim your righteousness. The sad part is that I don’t think you see anything wrong with that.
Here is the problem, friends; everything this Administration says is, first, agenda driven, and secondly, carefully crafted. Any reasonable person might well think that the President, his henchmen and spokesmen represented that Iraq presented a clear and present danger to the United States. That certainly was the import of all the stuff we were deluged with in the months leading up to the invasion. If however we go back and parse and annotate and collate the public statements nobody really unequivocally said that. They didn’t say Iraq is a clear and present danger. They did not say that Iraq was an immanent danger. They just worked there butts off to create that impression. It’s like the old time stripper who makes you think that she has shown you the whole thing but really managed to cover the important parts while creating the impression that she had flashed a couple nipples. It’s like the auto sales man who diverts your attention to the upholstery when you really want to listen to the transmission. You leave with the impression that the transmission was represented as good but in reality you were just told that there was a transmission. It’s smoke and mirrors. It’s a shell game.
The same thing is going on with Social Security. Social Security is in crisis. Yea? When? Now? Next year? In ten years? In fifty years? When? The Administration will not tell you when but will beat you over the head with the idea that radical and drastic measures need to be taken now. Just like we had to invade Iraq right now.
It is worth noting that according to this evening news it has been announced that, one, the search for WMDs has been officially completed and abandon, and two, it’s not important because the invasion was a good thing anyway. Balderdash!
Spavined Gelding, I think you may have fallen into the trap that many conservatives fell into when Clinton was in office – you think that everything the guy in office does is both wrong, and uniquely wrong.
I don’t think an agenda driven, carefully crafted message is either unique to the Bush admin, nor is it inherently bad. It’s what Presidential administrations do. It’s what good Presidential administrations have always done. It’s what good Presidential administrations will always do.
According to this LA Times article, the “Social Security trustees” say that Social Security will run out in 2042 (37 years). So they’ve been a little more detailed than you give them credit for.
And while the state of Social Security is a different debate, it should probably be pointed out that the idea of a crisis in Social Security didn’t come from Bush, Jr.:
In fact, I’d be willing to bet that it started before Clinton. I first heard about it in college … over a decade ago. According to this article, the rhetoric about a Social Security crisis has been around since at least Reagan.
Little tip – if you want to appear reasonable, you might want to drop the “henchmen” from future posts. It reveals a bit of bias.
But as to your larger point, I don’t think it’s fair to blame the Bush administration for what you thought they said, but they didn’t say. For one, you are responsible for listening more carefully. If Bush didn’t say something, but you thought he did, then you are the one at fault because you added meaning to his statement.
Second, politicians have always danced around the truth (i.e., “It depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”; “Read my lips: No new taxes.”). They get their jobs by appealing to broad swaths of people who have few interests in common. If you and your political opposite walk out of one of their speeches, and you both think that the politician stands for what you believe in, the politician has done his job. If you’re surprised by that, then I’d suggest that you haven’t been around politics very long.
Age, it seems to me that henchmen is just the right word for the officials, aids, hangers on, under-secretaries, deputy assistant secretaries for God knows what, PR flacks and assorted mouth pieces, spear carriers and spin masters that seem to make up a modern national government, and ours in particular.
If seems passing strange to blame the audience for hearing precisely what the President et. al. intended the audience to hear and understand – that there was not a moment to lose in attacking Iraq. There was no time to study the information that suggested that Saddam had WMDs. That there was no time to let the UN inspectors finish their work. There was no time to sit down and figure out if this was a necessary or smart thing to do. Hurry, hurry, hurry. No time to ask why the hurry.
I’ve never regarderd George W. Bush and all his works as error. The are some big ones, however, that in my judgment are ill advised and mistaken. These include the invasion of Iraq, the dogged insistence that we can reduce income taxes and engage in a major military effort at the same time and the present effort to deny full compensation to people injured by medical negligence and to reform Social Security out of existence.
Your link to the L A Times doesn’t work for me. I am willing to assume that the SS trustees say that in 35 or 40 years, if nothing else changes, the SS Trust Fund will be empty and the payroll and employer payments will cover only 3/4 of the benefits. The key is “if nothing else changes.” there are all sorts of things that can change. The retirement and eligibility ages can be raised. The threshold for contribution exemption can be increased. How removing 1/3 of the employee contribution and a corresponding 1/3 from the employer contribution and a corresponding 1/3 reduction in self employment tax NOW will solve the potential 35 or 40 year off insolvency of SS is beyond my comprehention. You would think that measues like that would guarantee that the whole thing slips down the drain even faster. It also escapes me as to why 1/3 of the SS system’s income has to be released NOW. Surely we have a while to study the problem to see if there may not be some other solution on the order of the 1988 changes?
As far as being naive about politics is concerned I can only say that I’ve tried to keep up since 1951 when I trooped around Central Ohio wearing a Bob Taft button. I don’t think I’m naive, just sad and disillusioned.
I didn’t mean to imply that you’re not entitled to your opinion. Although I disagree with you here, you’ve shown yourself to be reasonable. Please carry on.
Although I’ve always sort of disagreed with the idea that we rushed to war (I believe the build up and debate took over a year), I can’t disagree with your point in general. Bush, et al., were certainly arguing that we shouldn’t wait any longer; Saddam had to be dealt with now.
So I think you’re right that that was generally the administration’s message. Obviously, I can’t blame you for coming away with the intended message. My point was just that if we’re going to parse phrases – “growing and grave threat” is not as much as an “imminent threat” – it’s not really fair to put words in Bush’s mouth. But it sounds like we don’t really disagree on the general point here.
Believe it or not, we agree on a couple of these points. I think Bush has screwed up lots of things, including the budget and tort reform (and those aren’t small things). And it certainly sounds like you’ve got a reasonable interpretation of events. Sorry if I appeared to insinuate otherwise. That was not my intention.
D’oh! I must have entered it incorrectly. [insert self-slap and self-wally] Try this one. You actually might want to check it out because it provides support for your point that Social Security is not in crisis. Pretty informative stuff.
I agree. I’ve always looked at the “crisis” talk as hyperbole. I think the hyperbole is present because Social Security has been thought of as the third rail of politics – you’re going to get killed (politically) if you touch it. So the only way politicians can make even minor changes is to convince the public that it’s on the verge of disaster.
And I think the rush to do something now is so that any savings now will earn benefits in the future. So to create an example that none of us wants, if the system is 15% short in the year 2050, we can either cut benefits 15% in the year 2050, or we can cut benefits less than 1% per year for 15 years.
I see I was wrong again. And I can’t really argue that sad and disillusioned is an inappropriate response to modern politics.
If you are going to underline a snippet of what I write without even bothering to read the five words that come before that snippet, I will take that as a declaration that you are not in the least bit interested in having a serious debate, but are only trying to misrepresent what I say in order to lob juvenile insults at me. In which case, good day.
Just reading the last few posts about Bush’s economic ploys, I was reminded of a news report in the “Washington Times”…
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040701-024236-4063r.htm
I do agree that the vast sums of money being poured into Iraq and Dept. of Homeland Security at the cost of domestic and other international programs is sad.