Bush Lied?

[Falloutboy]

Ok bush had shittty data. the CIA dropped the ball. maybe saddam did get his stuff out of the country who the f*ck cares. Were in it now till its fixed. The worlds better anyway without saddam in power. Maybe we'll actually comeout of this with another somewhat stable country in the middle east.

 

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: Codec
Just show where I said all WMD, or chemical, nuclear, and biological WMD, and so on, when quoting Powell. If you can't (and I know you can't, because I didn't), then you mischaracterized what I said, and are guilty of the very "liberalism" you so decry. Good luck with this.

Oh trust me, you didn't mention the "all" word. What you said was:

Powell has recently stated that the intelligence on WMDs was deliberately misleading.

Now, you tell me what that statement says? Does it say that he thinks that "some" of the intel on the WMD's was deliberately misleading? No! Now, what do you (and anyone else that may have gotten past the third grade) think that means. It's not even a stretch. You don't even have to look for what you meant and you know damned well what you meant/quoted out of context here. No one's pulling conspiracies out of the woodwork here either. Out of context is just that, unless you are looking through Carville's liberal colored glasses.
Like I said earlier, either come up with newer/better arguments or get over it because this is rapidly becoming a waste of time. I enjoy a good intellectual argument but this just isn't happening in this thread.

 

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: Falloutboy525
Ok bush had shittty data. the CIA dropped the ball. maybe saddam did get his stuff out of the country who the f*ck cares. Were in it now till its fixed. The worlds better anyway without saddam in power. Maybe we'll actually comeout of this with another somewhat stable country in the middle east.

You know, I don't actually disagree here. Nice thought.

 

[Codec]

Buz,

Do a search for "Powell" in this forum. You'll find another post on this exact topic that I started earlier today. This might give you a better idea of where I stand on this. Time to stop reading in what you "think" I meant. I would not try to mischaracterize Powell -- he is one of the good guys, rep or dem.

 

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: Codec
Buz,

Do a search for "Powell" in this forum. You'll find another post on this exact topic that I started earlier today. This might give you a better idea of where I stand on this. Time to stop reading in what you "think" I meant. I would not try to mischaracterize Powell -- he is one of the good guys, rep or dem.

Codec, I don't need to do that (as you said, "reading into what you "think" I meant). I have not read your thread started today but will do so soon. However, I've seen the other threads and they are filled with the same out of context and misquoted lines. Look, perhaps like you, I view Powell as an "even-minded" and intellegent individual and even perhaps as "one of the good guys, rep or dem." What I don't condone is exactly what has been done with his public remarks. Just as here, they try to take them out of context to use his "popularity" with the public to cause problems. Please remember that he is still a part of this administration and as such (even if you really think he would attempt to badmouth Bush in public) he would NOT undermine the President's views. Pretty much fantasy on your part. Perhaps this is stilll a factor of the stinging effect that swept through the Dems when Powell accepted the position in the current administration. Again, get over it and move on (Gee, just like the current "Hate Bush" organization of Soft Money titles itself-(free plug for you guys) moveon.org).
Please, let's either make this a more intelligent and accurate view of the facts, or just let it go, because it does neither side any good.

 

[Codec]

Buz, from my perspective, Powell did not attempt to undermine Bush. Powell simply explained that lies were stated about Iraqi WMD from a source that we now know is questionable, and that he regrets using the bad intel. No sidestepping, no excuses, no denials, and no spin. Which I think helps explain why Powell is so popular with the public.

I certainly share your concern about misquoting or quoting out of context. From my perspective, it damages one's argument, ultimately cannot be sustained, and is thus worthless. Is it done by Dems? Yes. By Repubs? Yes, as well.

 

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: Codec
Buz, from my perspective, Powell did not attempt to undermine Bush. Powell simply explained that lies were stated about Iraqi WMD from a source that we now know is questionable, and that he regrets using the bad intel. No sidestepping, no excuses, no denials, and no spin. Which I think helps explain why Powell is so popular with the public.

I certainly share your concern about misquoting or quoting out of context. From my perspective, it damages one's argument, ultimately cannot be sustained, and is thus worthless. Is it done by Dems? Yes. By Repubs? Yes, as well.

Whether or not I agree with all your comments, I agree with the overall theme of them in your last post. If we can say that he found fault with some sources of intel, was disappointed with THOSE sources and regretted using it, Let's leave it at that. That is what I have been trying to point out. It was NOT A BLANKET STATEMENT about all of the Intel. I have no problem with that because it is closer to the truth of the matter, if not the actual truth. I think that is the best position for both of us. If you disagree, please let me know and I would not hesitate to answer. This is more along the lines of what I posted earlier; an intelligent discussion of the facts.

 

[Codec]

Agreed. I think you've explained the details of this issue exactly as they should be explained.

 

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: Codec
Agreed. I think you've explained the details of this issue exactly as they should be explained.

Maybe we should have some angelic music playing in the background but I agree also. Thank you. I had some more "enlightened comments" saved up but there is no longer a need for that type of debate here. We agree on the facts and that is what is important. Psssst, don't tell conjur or CkG we did that though; they might be upset.
(I would hope neither of them would be upset as this is supposed to be about the truth. ) Time and posts will tell. :thumbsup:

 

[Format C:]

nm

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: Codec
Agreed. I think you've explained the details of this issue exactly as they should be explained.

Maybe we should have some angelic music playing in the background but I agree also. Thank you. I had some more "enlightened comments" saved up but there is no longer a need for that type of debate here. We agree on the facts and that is what is important. Psssst, don't tell conjur or CkG we did that though; they might be upset.
(I would hope neither of them would be upset as this is supposed to be about the truth. ) Time and posts will tell. :thumbsup:

Nope- no problem with agreeing with the other side. I do it on rare occasions too. There was a time once where even Perknose and I agreed on an issue!!:Q:Q:Q


I also agree with your statements regarding this Powell statement.

CkG

 

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: Codec
Agreed. I think you've explained the details of this issue exactly as they should be explained.

Maybe we should have some angelic music playing in the background but I agree also. Thank you. I had some more "enlightened comments" saved up but there is no longer a need for that type of debate here. We agree on the facts and that is what is important. Psssst, don't tell conjur or CkG we did that though; they might be upset.
(I would hope neither of them would be upset as this is supposed to be about the truth. ) Time and posts will tell. :thumbsup:

Nope- no problem with agreeing with the other side. I do it on rare occasions too. There was a time once where even Perknose and I agreed on an issue!!:Q:Q:Q


I also agree with your statements regarding this Powell statement.

CkG

Trust me CkG, I had a "really good" feeling you would agree with us coming to an agreement on the true facts of the statements. Of course that is not to say that conjur would have not agreed also. Hmmmmm, unfortunately we haven't heard from him on this though. Perhaps he might chime in and add to the (trust me I am not being sarcastic here) temporary "love-fest" we have. Hopefully we can all agree on the facts and just (oh god, here we go again) "move on". LOL!! That ws just too good to exclude! Sorry!

 

[dbk]

But who waged the war??? BUSH

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: bykim5
But who waged the war??? BUSH

define "war"

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: Codec
Agreed. I think you've explained the details of this issue exactly as they should be explained.

Maybe we should have some angelic music playing in the background but I agree also. Thank you. I had some more "enlightened comments" saved up but there is no longer a need for that type of debate here. We agree on the facts and that is what is important. Psssst, don't tell conjur or CkG we did that though; they might be upset.
(I would hope neither of them would be upset as this is supposed to be about the truth. ) Time and posts will tell. :thumbsup:

Nope- no problem with agreeing with the other side. I do it on rare occasions too. There was a time once where even Perknose and I agreed on an issue!!:Q:Q:Q


I also agree with your statements regarding this Powell statement.

CkG

Trust me CkG, I had a "really good" feeling you would agree with us coming to an agreement on the true facts of the statements. Of course that is not to say that conjur would have not agreed also. Hmmmmm, unfortunately we haven't heard from him on this though. Perhaps he might chime in and add to the (trust me I am not being sarcastic here) temporary "love-fest" we have. Hopefully we can all agree on the facts and just (oh god, here we go again) "move on". LOL!! That ws just too good to exclude! Sorry!

:beer::beer:

CkG

 

[rickn]

the last time I checked, the invasion of iraq was not done on Clinton's watch. Your arguement is null n' void. One would hope the leaders of our country have their opinions. Bush is responsible for the invasion of Iraq, nobody else. It's his administration, his policy.

 

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: rickn
the last time I checked, the invasion of iraq was not done on Clinton's watch. Your arguement is null n' void. One would hope the leaders of our country have their opinions. Bush is responsible for the invasion of Iraq, nobody else. It's his administration, his policy.

Ok, I'll bite. Your point is??? (My wife really wants me out of this P & N BS but I'm willling to stretch for one or two posts)

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: rickn
the last time I checked, the invasion of iraq was not done on Clinton's watch. Your arguement is null n' void. One would hope the leaders of our country have their opinions. Bush is responsible for the invasion of Iraq, nobody else. It's his administration, his policy.

Ok, I'll bite. Your point is??? (My wife really wants me out of this P & N BS but I'm willling to stretch for one or two posts)

can't blame clinton, unless conversatives can admit Bush really cannot think for himself.

 

[Format C:]

The point was just what has been beautifully demonstrated by so many of you here. Everyone else gets a pass, but BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! (fillintheblank) IS ALL HIS FAULT! You've demonstrated perfectly that you are NOT interested in the truth nor are your "principles" applied to everyone equally. Your "views" are based solely on petty partisan politics, nothing more.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Format C:
The point was just what has been beautifully demonstrated by so many of you here. Everyone else gets a pass, but BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! (fillintheblank) IS ALL HIS FAULT! You've demonstrated perfectly that you are NOT interested in the truth nor are your "principles" applied to everyone equally. Your "views" are based solely on petty partisan politics, nothing more.

Our views eh? ok.

 

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: rickn
the last time I checked, the invasion of iraq was not done on Clinton's watch. Your arguement is null n' void. One would hope the leaders of our country have their opinions. Bush is responsible for the invasion of Iraq, nobody else. It's his administration, his policy.

Ok, I'll bite. Your point is??? (My wife really wants me out of this P & N BS but I'm willling to stretch for one or two posts)

can't blame clinton, unless conversatives can admit Bush really cannot think for himself.

No, you can't blame Clinton for the Iraq invasion but you can blame him for not taking more aggressive actions against terror supporting countries; possibly making our jobs easier in the current war on terror. And I mean something more than lobbing a few cruise missiles at an aspirin factory and one single, alleged active, terrorist camp. Besides, your use of the term "blame"" is silly; no one need "blame" a President for trying to enforce international law and protect the world from people like Saddam and bin Laden. Nope, you can't "blame" Clinton for that. Instead he was too busy trying desperately to shore up some remnants of a reasonable legacy; while hosting Monica, "you wanna do what with that cigar??", in the oral office.

In retrospect, the wife was right; it is an exercise in futility to get these kinds of folks to actually use their own brains and not their spout their talking points and play the blame game. Do you folks remember September 11th?? Do you remember the 3000 lives that were lost?? Compare that to Pearl Harbor. On that December 7th we "only" lost 2500 people yet we went to war where millions died; over 116,000 of those were Americans. Do we "blame" President Roosevelt for that?? By your line of reasoning, we would.
The wife wins; this is nuts and all it does is raise my blood pressure. Have fun kiddies, you will never see the forest for the trees.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: rickn
the last time I checked, the invasion of iraq was not done on Clinton's watch. Your arguement is null n' void. One would hope the leaders of our country have their opinions. Bush is responsible for the invasion of Iraq, nobody else. It's his administration, his policy.

Ok, I'll bite. Your point is??? (My wife really wants me out of this P & N BS but I'm willling to stretch for one or two posts)

can't blame clinton, unless conversatives can admit Bush really cannot think for himself.

No, you can't blame Clinton for the Iraq invasion but you can blame him for not taking more aggressive actions against terror supporting countries; possibly making our jobs easier in the current war on terror. And I mean something more than lobbing a few cruise missiles at an aspirin factory and one single, alleged active, terrorist camp. Besides, your use of the term "blame"" is silly; no one need "blame" a President for trying to enforce international law and protect the world from people like Saddam and bin Laden. Nope, you can't "blame" Clinton for that. Instead he was too busy trying desperately to shore up some remnants of a reasonable legacy; while hosting Monica, "you wanna do what with that cigar??", in the oral office.

In retrospect, the wife was right; it is an exercise in futility to get these kinds of folks to actually use their own brains and not their spout their talking points and play the blame game. Do you folks remember September 11th?? Do you remember the 3000 lives that were lost?? Compare that to Pearl Harbor. On that December 7th we "only" lost 2500 people yet we went to war where millions died; over 116,000 of those were Americans. Do we "blame" President Roosevelt for that?? By your line of reasoning, we would.
The wife wins; this is nuts and all it does is raise my blood pressure. Have fun kiddies, you will never see the forest for the trees.

the policy of containment with regards to Iraq was not an american policy, it was a world policy. The WORLD failed Iraq, Clinton didn't

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: rickn
the policy of containment with regards to Iraq was not an american policy, it was a world policy. The WORLD failed Iraq, Clinton didn't

But...but...but....

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: rickn
the last time I checked, the invasion of iraq was not done on Clinton's watch. Your arguement is null n' void. One would hope the leaders of our country have their opinions. Bush is responsible for the invasion of Iraq, nobody else. It's his administration, his policy.

Ok, I'll bite. Your point is??? (My wife really wants me out of this P & N BS but I'm willling to stretch for one or two posts)

can't blame clinton, unless conversatives can admit Bush really cannot think for himself.

No, you can't blame Clinton for the Iraq invasion but you can blame him for not taking more aggressive actions against terror supporting countries; possibly making our jobs easier in the current war on terror. And I mean something more than lobbing a few cruise missiles at an aspirin factory and one single, alleged active, terrorist camp. Besides, your use of the term "blame"" is silly; no one need "blame" a President for trying to enforce international law and protect the world from people like Saddam and bin Laden. Nope, you can't "blame" Clinton for that. Instead he was too busy trying desperately to shore up some remnants of a reasonable legacy; while hosting Monica, "you wanna do what with that cigar??", in the oral office.

In retrospect, the wife was right; it is an exercise in futility to get these kinds of folks to actually use their own brains and not their spout their talking points and play the blame game. Do you folks remember September 11th?? Do you remember the 3000 lives that were lost?? Compare that to Pearl Harbor. On that December 7th we "only" lost 2500 people yet we went to war where millions died; over 116,000 of those were Americans. Do we "blame" President Roosevelt for that?? By your line of reasoning, we would.
The wife wins; this is nuts and all it does is raise my blood pressure. Have fun kiddies, you will never see the forest for the trees.

:roll:

 

[chess9]

Buzz2B:

Actually, yes, my father (and many Americans) blamed Roosevelt for getting us into WWII, or, at least the war in Europe. (no one blamed him for Pearl Harbor until later) We had a strong isolationist sentiment in this country in the '30's and early '40's.

So, while your underlying point has merit, I'm not so sure about the quality of the example.

-Robert