Cindy Sheehan Resigns...

[dannubis]

[Drake Tungsten]

Like I said, higher ethical standards.

It's fine to have higher ethical standards, but you have to apply them equally if you expect anyone to take you seriously. I haven't noticed you jumping on the media and other politicians as much as you jump on Bush, so color me skeptical of your moral righteousness...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Gibsie
Judges and Jurors are the ones who decide what they're presented and get to tell others what they want to see ahead of time?

Care to try again?

No they get decide what is and what isn't relevant. Tuning out crap they think as unreliable.

[SlowwHand]

Put the blame where it belongs. Squarely on the U.N., and Bush Sr. for deferring to their judgement, as well as Clinton for letting it go on 8 more years.

I'm so tired of convenient memories. Either that, or some simply don't know WTF it's all about. If you don't know, can't remember, can't be arsed to learn by reading, stfu.

25 January 1999
ZINNI SAYS IRAQ VIOLATES NO-FLY ZONES FIVE TIMES IN ONE DAY
(U.S. responds against Iraqi air defense system) (970)
By Susan Ellis and Jacqui Porth
USIA Security Affairs Writers

Washington -- The military commander of the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) says Iraq is carrying out "a coordinated, centralized effort" in both northern and southern Iraq to threaten coalition enforcement of the no-fly zones.

ONE day, and during a cease fire, like it or not.

[dannubis]

And the US population didn't care back then. They only started caring after 9/11 after the campain of fear mongering.

The reports that said that Iraq was no treath to you were ignored. The ones that did were completely taken out of context. This selective reporting provided the administration with all the support it needed for their own little war. Hence, they lied to get the US population to accept the war.

Has the train arrived yet ?

[Drake Tungsten]

And the US population didn't care back then

You need to get your facts straight...

[dannubis]

hm...

1999...

nope, no invasion of Iraq. No huge public outcry from the US to go to war...

[Drake Tungsten]

You might want to read about Clinton's conflicts with Iraq.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by dannubis
hm...

1999...

nope, no invasion of Iraq. No huge public outcry from the US to go to war...

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

technically correct it wasn't 1999.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you really think that the US population cares about every issue that becomes a subject of a bill?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

No but apparently the Executive and legislative did who direct foreign policy despite the strawman idea that foreign policy requires public support.

OTOH, I suppose if we were so outraged at the needless picking on Sadaam back then we would have voted out da bum's in 2000 vs. 2006.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
It's fine to have higher ethical standards, but you have to apply them equally if you expect anyone to take you seriously. I haven't noticed you jumping on the media and other politicians as much as you jump on Bush, so color me skeptical of your moral righteousness...

Let me get this straight: on the one hand, you have George Bush, who took the country into war based on false premises in a manner that at best can be described as "dishonest". Then you have the media, who report on the war, and do so in a manner that at best can be described as "one-sided". And I am the one at fault because I don't criticise them equally? If only I could be fair and balanced like FOX news, eh? You'll remember that I commented of Bush' honesty saying that "he is a politican", suggesting that actually I do try and keep my criticism fair towards both sides. I criticise all politicans who took us into any war that were dishonest in order to convince us!

I've got to say this is one of the most fun threads I've taken part in on Poly in a long while!

So here's something for you Drake, to show how fair and balanced I can be. If you've watched Michael Moore's movie Farenheit 911 (Thank you MRT!), you might recall a scene where the filmmaker portrays pre-war Iraq as a wonderful place, where people are free, women have rights; prosperous and happy! No indication whatsoever is given that the place is run by a tyrant and the people opressed. I will readily say that Michael Moore was extremely dishonest when he used the information he had to portray Iraq like this. But will you say the same about how Bush and co. convinced us to invade the same place? Can you bring yourself to say it?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I don't remember having a vote on whether we went to war.

I remember bein agin' it but didn't have a vote. I blame Bush for not giving me all the info AND on top of it an opportuntity to vote. (friggin dictator) Maybe if he hadn't made all the intel classified and given all the intel to congress I would have had a chance. Damn him to hell.

[MRT144]

gibsie, check the moore movie title. i hope this is a metric conversion error.

[Drake Tungsten]

Let me get this straight: on the one hand, you have George Bush, who took the country into war based on false premises in a manner that at best can be described as "dishonest". Then you have the media, who report on the war, and do so in a manner that at best can be described as "one-sided". And I am the one at fault because I don't criticise them equally? If only I could be fair and balanced like FOX news, eh? You'll remember that I commented of Bush' honesty saying that "he is a politican", suggesting that actually I do try and keep my criticism fair towards both sides. I criticise all politicans who took us into any war that were dishonest in order to convince us!

You've been criticizing Bush for focusing on the facts and intelligence that helped him make his argument. You said this was "every bit as dishonest as lying". My point was that this is how the game is played; the media and other politicians do the same thing every day, on myriad different subjects, not just the war. Spinning facts is viewed as acceptable behavior, while outright lying isn't. It's fine if you view spin as just as dishonest as lying, but you're out of the mainstream on that. By blaming individuals, you're also not placing blame where it is warranted. It's the system that's broken; Bush was just playing by the rules the broken system created. If you were perceptive, you would criticize the system that forces Bush and others to cherrypick and spin facts to be successful at their jobs.

But will you say the same about how Bush and co. convinced us to invade the same place? Can you bring yourself to say it?

I already said that they argued in bad faith on the subject. I'm just not outraged like you are, because I didn't expect any different. Almost no one argues in good faith these day; only the naive think otherwise.