Cindy Sheehan Resigns...

[Dinner]

The argument is that he totally ignored many valid facts he didn't like and only publicized the opinions/facts he did like. Doing that is considered dishonest/untruthful.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm not talking to you. Drogue told me it was a bad idea...

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
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.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone justify Bush's dishonesty by saying he's the victim of a political reality that encourages politicans to lie at all costs. Your argument, clearly and admirably invented on the spot, is obviously wrong though, as the public knows that Bush was, is and will remain utterly dishonest, and the American people don't appreicate that, going by the polls.

Only the die-hards who ignore his deceit remain loyal to him... if the political system forces politicians to fool people, maybe they could do something revolutionary and start telling the truth? Perhaps Bush's approval rating might soar above 50%.

[Drake Tungsten]

Your argument, clearly and admirably invented on the spot, is obviously wrong though

Hardly obvious, innit? I think you're just saying that so you don't have to demonstrate how I'm wrong...

I don't think I've ever seen anyone justify Bush's dishonesty by saying he's the victim of a political reality that encourages politicans to lie at all costs.

He's hardly a "victim". He's obviously good at playing by the rules; you don't get to be president if you aren't.

if the political system forces politicians to fool people, maybe they could do something revolutionary and start telling the truth?

A politician that did that would quickly be out of a job. The media would eat them alive.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Hardly obvious, innit? I think you're just saying that so you don't have to demonstrate how I'm wrong...

And you're just saying that because I do demonstrate that your assertion that Bush's trickery has benefited him (Unless we take "benefited him" as being in the eyes of his true masters who I'm sure will lavish him with many lucrative positions when he finally leaves office) is false in the same very line...

He's hardly a "victim". He's obviously good at playing by the rules; you don't get to be president if you aren't.

Yes, the victim is the American population. Glad you agree.

A politician that did that would quickly be out of a job. The media would eat them alive.

I thought the media already were eating him alive, according to the right-wingers? They never give the poor man a break! Yet he's surviving that.

[Drake Tungsten]

Let's be honest; Bush's real crime is that he made a mistake in deciding to wage a war of choice in Iraq. Many people hate Bush and want to be outraged by this, but it's pretty hard to crucify a guy for making an honest mistake. So, those people pretend that the spin Bush and his adminstration used to build suppport for the war was an unprecedented act of deceit, instead of business as usual in politics. Framing the Iraq war as the result of dishonesty and lies gives opponents of Bush a moral high ground that they wouldn't have if they just claimed that Bush made a mistake. This manufactured moral high ground allows them to be OUTRAGED!!! (which is what they really wanted in the first place) and also allows them to treat people who rightly view Bush's mistake as the result of poor intelligence and Washington groupthink like morally bankrupt whackos. It's a pretty effective tactic, which is why I'm not surprised to see it in use here...

[Berzerker]

Let's be honest; Bush's real crime is that he made a mistake in deciding to wage a war of choice in Iraq.

while telling us it was necessary

and inventing "facts" to scare us into thinking it was necessary

it's pretty hard to crucify a guy for making an honest mistake.

Honest? Was he honest when he told us about aluminum tubes for enriching uranium? Was that an honest mistake? Then explain where he got that from, why he never corrected himself, why no one was publicly reprimanded, and why our own experts said the tubes were not for enriching uranium at the time he was claiming they were? And how about that Nigerian yellowcake? That was the only "evidence" Saddam had reconstituted WMD and Bush relied on "British Intel" for that while the CIA was telling him not to use it in his SoU speech. Then there's the mobile weapons labs and drones. Thats just a few, shall we go on to all that BS about Atta meeting with Iraqis in Prague? The lies are too numerous to list here...

And gee whiz, people hate Bush and "want" to be outraged by this? Is that Cindy's problem? She just wants to be outraged?

[DinoDoc]

Weren't you the one telling us the war was necessary to payback the Kurds and Shia for selling them out or some such nonsense, Berz?

[Berzerker]

I don't think Bush lied, Gibsie. The Iraq still had WMD meme spanned more than just the Bush admin. So it strains credulity to assume that admins from different parties were lieing about the samething. I just think it was foolish to invade over it.

Thats the Repub spin Dino, that since Clinton and others have made comments in the past claiming Saddam had WMD, Bush didn't lie. Of course he had them, thats what the weapons inspectors were destroying. The point is Bush and his cronies made all sorts of claims, including that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD program. Citing claims from the 90s about what Saddam had is irrelevant to what he had and what he was doing in 2002 after the inspectors destroyed what he had. Scott Ritter was smeared for speaking up, Wilson was attacked and his words twisted to accuse him of lying, all by Honest George and his propaganda machine.

Now, did George know the "facts" he was giving us were bogus? Obviously George doesn't know one aluminum tube from the next, so maybe he's the victim of liars. His advisers lied, the CIA screwed up, Poor LIttle George is honest. Bu****, he never corrected his "honest mistakes", kinda important if you tell Americans an aluminum tube is proof Saddam is enriching uranium and then you find out you were wrong because your own experts are refuting the claim. Repeat that over and over for all the false claims he made and never corrected.

Who was fired? I'm assuming Honest George was OUTRAGED to find out his subordinates were using him to spread their lies. So who did he fire? With all the lies that were flying around how could it be not one person in the Bush administration was fired for making false claims or feeding false information to Bush. When Cheney said we know where the WMD are hidden, was anyone canned for telling him to say that? Nope, in this administration you get medals for lying. How about another George? George Tenet said long after the fact that he never meant "slam dunk" to mean Saddam had WMD, but he kept quiet while Bush and his people ran around claiming it was a slam dunk.

[Berzerker]

Weren't you the one telling us the war was necessary to payback the Kurds and Shia for selling them out or some such nonsense, Berz?

Nope, I said it was a good thing the Iraqi people would be free from Saddam. That aint "necessary"...and it has nothing to do with the lies we were told. But if you can find a quote of me saying we have to invade Iraq to free Iraqis, lay it on me.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

technically correct it wasn't 1999.

nope, still waiting for the train i see. There wasn't a huge popular demand for action because simply the population didn't care.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Let's be honest; Bush's real crime is that he made a mistake in deciding to wage a war of choice in Iraq. Many people hate Bush and want to be outraged by this, but it's pretty hard to crucify a guy for making an honest mistake. So, those people pretend that the spin Bush and his adminstration used to build suppport for the war was an unprecedented act of deceit, instead of business as usual in politics. Framing the Iraq war as the result of dishonesty and lies gives opponents of Bush a moral high ground that they wouldn't have if they just claimed that Bush made a mistake. This manufactured moral high ground allows them to be OUTRAGED!!! (which is what they really wanted in the first place) and also allows them to treat people who rightly view Bush's mistake as the result of poor intelligence and Washington groupthink like morally bankrupt whackos. It's a pretty effective tactic, which is why I'm not surprised to see it in use here...

I'm so glad Berzerker stepped in here, because you are just talking pure crap here. You really do think Bush was making an honest mistake, you finally admit it! A victim of coicumstance, eh? Poor Mister Bush!

You are demonstrating Creationist levels of denial, well done

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by dannubis


nope, still waiting for the train i see. There wasn't a huge popular demand for action because simply the population didn't care.

I reference again for the thrid time in this thread who cares what the public at large wants? The population doesn't matter 'cept to the point that they decide who the congresscritters are.

All this hullaballoo that Bush lied to the public is so much pablum. If he lied to congress who actually made the decision that is quite another kettle of fish. And as far as I can tell no reputable source claims so. In fact much of Congress was remiss in doing their due dilligence in actually reading the reports provided to them.



Factcheck.org What Congress Knew and When

[Drake Tungsten]

You really do think Bush was making an honest mistake, you finally admit it!

In his initial decision to go to war in Iraq, yes; to believe otherwise requires a Berzerker-like conspiratorial mindset that I simply don't have. It doesn't make any sense for Bush to want to invade Iraq unless he really thought Saddam's regime posed a threat and needed to removed. In fact, given the prevalence of that viewpoint in Washington and the media both before and during Bush's time in office, he was firmly in the majority in holding that view. He certainly used spin to sell the war after he decided it was necessary, but I have little doubt the initial decision was a sincere one.

[Flhaus]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

You really do think Bush was making an honest mistake, you finally admit it!

In his initial decision to go to war in Iraq, yes; to believe otherwise requires a Berzerker-like conspiratorial mindset that I simply don't have. It doesn't make any sense for Bush to want to invade Iraq unless he really thought Saddam's regime posed a threat and needed to removed. In fact, given the prevalence of that viewpoint in Washington and the media both before and during Bush's time in office, he was firmly in the majority in holding that view. He certainly used spin to sell the war after he decided it was necessary, but I have little doubt the initial decision was a sincere one.

Very Succinctly put.