BS: Proof that Bush lied

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 01:22 PM

And now we have the same phenomenon, from the other side. Like Bushites tar anybody who disagrees with them with the brush of lack of patriotism, the critics of fundamentalism seem to delight in lumping all religious people in with a few crackpots of the Falwell stripe.

Doesn't anybody believe in shades of gray around here?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 01:17 PM

I'm agree Kendall! Let's orginize! HeHeHe

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Cod Fiddler
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 11:24 AM

I agree with that too. The tone is smug and sloppy and it is certainly not a particularly philosohpical work. However, "there is lots of good, hard-hitting stuff about the imbecilities of religious fanatics and frauds of all stripes", which is just what we need.

His sloppy tone is directed entirely at the sloppy insults levelled at him by people who have been the snotty playground brat for decades. Its about time they are put in their place.

Here is a typical "spoiled playground brat" ranting at the creators of the magnifcent Flying Spaghetti Monster:

"You Atheists are so arrogant. Don't you ever consider that you're wrong about this whole 'There's no god and 90% of the world's population are just dumber than us.' thing, and admit you havn't even considered christianity to be what it is, the truth? Don't you realize why everyone hates you? Beecuase you're ignorant+arrogant, not a nice combo.Oh well….you'll have your time to pay. Unfortunately it lasts an eternity and consists of a lake of fire, a guy in red with a pitchfork, and a few pineapples (Don't act like you don't know what they are for).

As for me, i'll be chillin with Jesus. Have fun for the rest of your godless, pointless lives…cuz that's the last bit of joy you'll ever have."

How do you get through to someone like this? Philosphy doesn't work. Can't blame him for being smug when dealing with such loonies. Shouldn't people question their beliefs? Religious indoctrination is no better than Socialist, Nazi or any other sort of indoctrination.

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about Bush? Where's a sniper when you need one? Sadly, Bush wouldn't be seen anywhere near a Book Depository...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 10:19 AM

NYT Review of the God Delusion Banned nowhere.

"...What Dawkins brings to this approach is a couple of fresh arguments — no mean achievement, considering how thoroughly these issues have been debated over the centuries — and a great deal of passion. The book fairly crackles with brio. Yet reading it can feel a little like watching a Michael Moore movie. There is lots of good, hard-hitting stuff about the imbecilities of religious fanatics and frauds of all stripes, but the tone is smug and the logic occasionally sloppy. Dawkins fans accustomed to his elegant prose might be surprised to come across such vulgarisms as "sucking up to God" and "Nur Nurny Nur Nur" (here the author, in a dubious polemical ploy, is imagining his theological adversary as a snotty playground brat). It's all in good fun when Dawkins mocks a buffoon like Pat Robertson and fundamentalist pastors like the one who created "Hell Houses" to frighten sin-prone children at Halloween. But it is less edifying when he questions the sincerity of serious thinkers who disagree with him, like the late Stephen Jay Gould, or insinuates that recipients of the million-dollar-plus Templeton Prize, awarded for work reconciling science and spirituality, are intellectually dishonest (and presumably venal to boot). In a particularly low blow, he accuses Richard Swinburne, a philosopher of religion and science at Oxford, of attempting to "justify the Holocaust," when Swinburne was struggling to square such monumental evils with the existence of a loving God. Perhaps all is fair in consciousness-raising. But Dawkins's avowed hostility can make for scattershot reasoning as well as for rhetorical excess. Moreover, in training his Darwinian guns on religion, he risks destroying a larger target than he intends..."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Cod Fiddler
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 08:17 AM

I'm glad some of you agree. May I recommend "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. It has probbly been banned in some states of the USA, but it really is enlightning. A great book that blows fundamentalists of all types away.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 08:13 AM

Propaganda is a useful tool for organizations like ANSWER, an offshoot of the communist WWP and PSL. RD is particularly suceptable to this sort of brainwashing.

These socialist organizations tout freedom and human rights when in truth socialisim leads to less freedom and human rights.

They defend dictators like Saddam and Milosevic.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: kendall
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 07:37 AM

If I could do away with one thing, it would be organized religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 07:25 AM

God preserve me from Religious Fanatics....

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 07:22 AM

If you answer 'yes' - then you have confirmed that you are a heretic and must be destroyed 'for your own good' - something which has been espoused by fundamentalists of both Islam and Christianity...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Cod Fiddler
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 06:36 AM

"God" told Bush to invade Iraq. If the WMDs existed "God" would have told him where to find them. Ergo, they don't exist.

"God" has "told" so many despots and lunatics what to do throughout history, causing so much misery. Not least al-Qaeda today. Doesn't this make Bush as extreme as them?

Religion is a great thing, but in the wrong hands it's a disaster. People will always exploit it and interpret it to suit their agenda. Wouldn't we all be better off without it?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 04:18 AM

McGrath of Harlow, your post of 16 Feb 07 - 02:19 PM. Have you got any facts at all that back up this preposterous statement:

"...and of course the same was true for Uncle Sam and Uncle Saddam before and during the war upon Iran. Though maybe "blood brothers" might be a better term for the relationship."

Perhaps you can provide a list of those who held the post of US Ambassador to Iraq in the years 1967 to 1985 (By the bye Kevin, Saddam came to power in Iraq in 1979).

Face it Kevin, what you are producing is just another example of a popular left-wing, anti-war, anti-Bush myth/lie/misrepresentation.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 10:56 PM

But Kendall, you know that's how propaganda works. Insinuation, selective information, juxtaposition. Not likely there'd be obvious lies. And in propaganda, lies aren't necessary to achieve your desired result.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: kendall
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 09:46 PM

Ok, so the original question has not been answered. No smoking gun, just some evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 05:37 PM

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 02:19 PM

How about "Uncle Sam and Osama Bin Laden were colleagues"; and of course the same was true for Uncle Sam and Uncle Saddam before and during the war upon Iran. Though maybe "blood brothers" might be a better term for the relationship.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 10:10 AM

"If anybody used the US to get rid of Saddam, it was Iran."

Dead right Dickey.

Uncle Sam worked for the Mullahs.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 09:28 AM

"He couldn't get rid of Saddam"

How did UBL try to get rid of Saddam?

If anybody used the US to get rid of Saddam, it was Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 08:39 AM

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Now just which old culture came up with that one?

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 01:19 AM

The radical Sunnis hate the Shiites and the radical Shiites hate the Sunnis but they both hate the U.S. even more.

Thats why the U.S. has no business there.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: 282RA
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 12:44 AM

Bush is still convincing himself that his lies are fact. Now he is saying that he is certain that Iran is arming Iraq. How likely is this to be true? Very unlikely.

The explosives were looted from ammo dumps just days after the invasion while American soldiers watched helplessly. Barrels of powerful explosives had been loaded onto pickups and stolen. As for the knowledge of how to build armor-piercing bombs, you can find that info anywhere. Hell, I designed my own bombs after reading the Anarchist's Cookbook when I was still in my teens. I never built them, I just wanted to see what I could design on my own. And if I could get hold of that kind of information at 15, certainly Islamic guerilla cells can get info on armor-piercing IEDs anywhere. I don't see that they would be dependent on Iran for this info. I really doubt they're that stupid and unresourceful.

Bush is trying to create a new enemy over there to deflect the heat he's feeling but he's really merely putting the finishing touches on the grave he began digging for himself starting in March of 2003.

Iran is certainly not arming the Sunnis whom they hate. They passionately loathed Saddam. So Iran is arming the Shiites. And if I ran is responsible for most the deaths of Americans in Iraq then the worst enemy Americans have there are the Shia. Now, didn't Bush put intentionally put the Shia in power? Doesn't that mean he should never have invaded Iraq? Doesn't it mean Both Sunni and Shiite are killing Americans and that we therefore better get the fuck outta there?

But if it's still true that the majority of American deaths come at the hands of the Sunnis, then Iran's contribution is not significant and Bush's threat assessment not credible. Nobody's falling for it either. He's not believable.

But why would the Shia want to kill us when we put them in power? That's really the toughest question to answer if it is true that Iran is arming and abetting the Shiite insurgents. Apparently Bush doesn't understand he can't win anything this way.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 12:29 AM

Dickey -

Yes, I would agree that Uncle Sam, Osama and the Mujahideen expelled the anti clerical Russians from Afghanistan.

The U.S. thought they were using Osama but in fact, Osama was using the U.S.

The U.S. continues to play into the hands of Osama. He couldn't get rid of Saddam to make way for the clerics so he devised a plan to get the U.S. to do it for him. Now Iran is poised to take over where the U.S. leaves off. Osama is laughing.

Thats one way of looking at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 10:44 PM

The person that claimed "Osama used to work for Uncle Sam" has it backwards.

Uncle Sam (Carter Administration) assisted OBL and the Mujahideen repell the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 09:23 PM

Teribus--

Gee, I was holding back, waiting for you to reply to Capt. Ginger's queries. Looks like it may be a while.



So I suppose I may as well respond to your posting to me.

Well, it appears I've struck a nerve. As the Pope would say, I'm so sorry you were offended.

I'm especially sorry for having said "You never expect to have your leaders justify their positions. They know more than you. And you know your place."

Thank you for your reply: "It depends on the leader and on the situation". Perhaps you can explain why the Iraq war doesn't make the cut of issues on which you expect your leaders to justify their positions. If you don't expect them to do so in a matter of life and death, exactly when do you expect them to do so? Inquiring minds want to know.

I think I'm starting to understand your view. It's only in a matter of life and death that you know your place--you know your leaders don't want or expect any second-guessing from you---after all you're a mere citizen. So, obligingly, you decline to do any research to try to divine if your leaders are correct. Or do you perhaps accept what you read in the Sun--that's good enough for you?

In this regard, I, like Capt. Ginger, was hoping for your answer on the "45 minutes from doom" idea. But we'll just keep waiting.



So, the words used to describe the threat by Saddam were "current and serious". Wow, I'm impressed. Not only that, I'm IMPRESSED (just to make it easier for you to identify with).

1) "current" but not "imminent". That makes it all better. But the attack by Bush, supported by Blair, turned out to be "imminent". Wonder how that happened.

2) Clinton did it. Sorry, this is a rather tired excuse. Can't you try a little harder? Your fans expect better. Uh, who was it who invaded Iraq with "shock and awe"? Clinton?

3) "Going on the information at the time". And why do you suppose "the information at the time" supported the invasion? Could it be that Bush made it blazingly clear that he only wanted evidence that supported his planned invasion? Nah, not a chance.



And it sure is puzzling that many people, including many Mudcatters, with far fewer sources of information than Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, were able to tell clearly that the case for war had not been made.

But somehow you were not able to see that the case had not been made. Another mystery. Wonder if we'll ever know why.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 05:53 PM

Dickey - Please explain what you mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey - PM
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 12:35 AM

"Osama used to work for Uncle Sam"

That's bass akwards.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 09:51 AM

Flawed as it was, the Russian backed regime was a far better one than any that have succeeded it. Women in particular had far more freedom and influence, and drug production was much lower.

USA intervention helped create a monster that virtually destroyed Afghanistan and has gone on to bring about the current nightmare that faces us.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 09:39 AM

RE: the ongoing BuShite mendacity campaign now focusing on Iran-

How's that old saying go again? Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice......

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 08:58 AM

WTF?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 08:51 AM

The inverse of "Osama used to work for Uncle Sam"
is "Uncle Sam used to work for Osama"

How did you interpret my statement into
"it is Uncle Sam who works for Osama"?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 02:41 AM

Dickey -

The Mujahideen in Afghanistan were trained by the U.S. and financed by Osama. It was the Mujahideen who drove the Soviets from Afghanistan in 1989.

Are you saying it is Uncle Sam who works for Osama?

I hope not but anything is possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 12:35 AM

"Osama used to work for Uncle Sam"

That's bass akwards. The US. under the Mr Peanut administration helped the Afghans defeat the Soviets [commies that LH roots for] that were trying to take over the country.

"As part of a Cold War strategy, in 1979 the United States government under President Jimmy Carter and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski began to covertly fund and train anti-government Mujahideen forces through the Pakistani secret service agency known as Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), who were derived from discontented Muslims in the country that opposed the official atheism of the Marxist regime. In order to bolster the local Communist forces, the Soviet Unionâ€"citing the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness that had been signed between the two countries â€"intervened on December 24, 1979. According to media and official government sources, between 110,000 to 150,000 Soviet troops, assisted by another 100,000 or so pro-communist Afghan troops, were present in Afghanistan. The Soviet occupation resulted in a mass exodus of over 5 million Afghans that moved into refugee camps in neighboring Pakistan, Iran and other countries. More than 3 million settled in Pakistan, over a million in Iran and many others in different countries of the world. Faced with mounting international pressure and the loss of over 15,000 Soviet soldiers as a result of Mujahideen opposition forces trained by the United States, Pakistan, and other foreign governments, the Soviets withdrew ten years later, in 1989."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 10:35 PM

And the past is the future....

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 10:04 PM

Because even as we speak, Grasshopper, the present has become the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 10:01 PM

I take serious issue with the title of this thread.

Why is the verb in the past rather than in the present tense?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Bush lied, Clinton lied
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 09:47 PM

Well, this lady has constructed an indictmentment against Bush, et al. There should be hundreds of these already proceeding through the courts, but we get one, in 'hypothetical' form. And the same ol' crew is using the same ol' template to launch a war against Iran.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=143205

D. On September 7, 2002, appearing publicly with Blair, BUSH claimed a recent IAEA report stated that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon" and "I don't know what more evidence we need," which statements were made without basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) the IAEA had not even been present in Iraq since 1998; and (2) the report the IAEA did write in 1998 had concluded there was no indication that Iraq had the physical capacity to produce weapons-usable nuclear material or that it had attempted to obtain such material.

I. On October 7, 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio, BUSH made numerous deliberately misleading statements to the nation, including stating that in comparison to Iran and North Korea, Iraq posed a uniquely serious threat, which statement BUSH well knew was false and fraudulent in that it omitted to state the material fact that a State Department representative had been informed just three days previously that North Korea had actually already produced nuclear weapons. The defendants continued to conceal this information until after Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force against Iraq.

K. In his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address, BUSH announced that the "British have recently learned that Iraq was seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa" which statement was fraudulent and misleading and made with reckless disregard for the truth, in that it falsely implied that the information was true, when the CIA had advised the administration more than once that the allegation was unsupported by available intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 04:29 AM

Er, Terry, have you forgotten me? You seem very keen to whirl around like a dust devil, pouring scorn on Ron, but you haven't answered any of my posts for a while. Come on laddie, let's see a bit of multi-tasking! What are your thoughts on the BBC document I linked to above?
And, as a matelot, I'd love to hear you thoughts on Geoff Hoon's admissions. Just think, had you stayed in the service, he would have been your boss. Not exactly a thought to make the chest swell with pride, is it?

But I digress. Surely there has to come a point where you have to stand back and actually ask yourself what it is you are trying to defend and why.
Do you honestly believe that our role has been played honourably and decently throughout? Your cut'n'paste trumpetings of 'reconstruction' aren't exactly a modern Marshall Plan, are they? And the corruption, back-handing and general sleaze involved make the world of the Third Man seem like Little Women.
Afghanistan I can understand. Iraq I can't. And yet our ability to deal effectively in one theatre is being hamstrung by our commitment to the other. If you want confirmation of that from all corps and ranks, just look at the current affairs section of ARRSE (I presume you already look at the Rum Ration board). You'll find that your view is very, very much the minority view.
Face it, Terry, two nations which liked to claim the moral high ground and present themselves as the successors of Greece and Rome have f*cked up.
In Bush and Blair we have two very different but equally arrogant leaders who have embarked on an illegal war for reasons which were trumped up and spun. Whether or not Bush actually, personally lied is a sideshow.
That war has happened - it can't be undone and the genie can't be put back in the bottle. As a result Iraq is tearing itself apart. British and US forces cannot stop this, and can only delay the carnage. Yet we can't pull them out because that would cause an instant and devastating loss of stability. Thus the poor sods have to hang on as a long as is decent, doing a job to the best of their abilities.
Unless, that is, there is a huge volte face on the part of the US and things do start to change in the wider Middle East. Then, perhaps, one could imagine scope for longer-term optimism. Sadly I don't see anyone with the balls to do that.

It's interesting and instructive looking back over old postings to see how things have played out. One on the "Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?" thread was perhaps prescient, and - from the same poster - now apparently no longer here - there was this on the same thread.
Not much has changed to make me disagree with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 03:02 AM

Ron Davies - 13 Feb 07 - 05:50 PM

"Teribus--

You assure us that Tony never described Saddam as an "imminent" threat. Whatever you say.

Therefore, he misled the UK electorate by suckering them into a war he never told them was necessary. He never credibly justified the war in terms of Britain's national security. But he dragged Britain into it anyway."

If that is an example of your reasoning Ron, then it is little wonder that you think the way you do. If memory serves me correctly Ron the matter was debated fully in Parliament before the decision to use force was made.

As for:

"As I said, you never expect your leaders to justify their positions. After all, they always know more than you. And you know your place."

First Part:
"...you never expect your leaders to justify their positions".

Not true. It depends totally on the leader and on the situation.

Second Part:
"After all, they always know more than you."

If you are talking about National leaders here, what you state above is generally the case in any given situation. Main difference between you and me Ron is that I actually read and listen to what they say, whereas you read and listen to people who tell you what they said (Foolstroupe's - "Send three and fourpence...").

Third Part:
"And you know your place."

The usual superior, patronising insult which has become the hallmark of your contributions due mainly to the fact that as you do not have the capacity for independent thought you have very little to say after your instructed beliefs are demolished.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 01:47 AM

Let me put it to you simply, Dickey. A country with the world's largest military, the world's largest GNP, the world's largest navy and air force, the word's most aggressive national policy, and many thousands of nuclear weapons is a dire threat to many smaller nations.

Al Queda would never even have come into existence without all the insane stuff the USA has done since 1945 to provoke and oppress people in the Muslim World. Besides, the USA basically trained, armed, and funded the people who later became Al Queda. They did that to kill Russians in Afghanistan back in the 80's. Have you forgotten? Osama used to work for Uncle Sam.

Read John Perkins' book, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". It was on the New York Times bestseller list in 2004. You can find it in any large bookstore. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 12:17 AM

Fuckin' right. So watch out.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:56 PM

"You simply accuse the OTHER guy (your next chosen target) of being exactly what you are....a dire threat. And then you attack him."

So THAT's why Al Qaeda claimed the US was a dire threat and attacked.

It all makes sense now. Iran and Israel, Chavez and the US. Yess.

Why are Canadians claiming the US is a dire threat? Are we about to be set upon with harpoons and oosiks?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 09:33 PM

Actually I was wrong when I said that nobody shares Teribus' supine position. In the US, quite a few did (and some still do). They're called Bush voters.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 07:04 PM

"And you know your place"

And thus he seems to think that it is his rightful job to tell everybody else what their place is.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:55 PM

A lot of all this reminds me of

"Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance"

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:45 PM

Simply read John Perkin's book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" and you will know exactly why the USA decided by the time of the first Gulf War in '91 to label Saddam's Iraq a "threat" to the USA....which it most certainly was not. Never at any time was Iraq a credible threat to the USA. The USA was a totally credible threat to Iraq, however, from the moment that the USA decide to be, and they decided that because Saddam wouldn't play ball with the USA's larger corporate and strategic plans for that region.

It was the old tactic of the Big Lie, practiced with much success by Adolf Hitler's regime. You simply accuse the OTHER guy (your next chosen target) of being exactly what you are....a dire threat. And then you attack him.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:22 PM

Teribus--


As I said, you never expect your leaders to justify their positions. After all, they always know more than you. And you know your place.

QED

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:14 PM

Ron, I shall adopt the position that I will refuse to discuss the contents of a Report to Parliament (image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2003/07/07/WMD_report.pdf - ) unless the person I am discussing the subject with actually reads it.

By the bye, the actual words used to describe the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq were "current and serious" - i.e. much in line with what US President Bill Clinton stated four years previously. Bill Clinton and the American Government believed that to be the case to the extent that removal of Saddam Hussein from power became official US Foreign Policy and a unilateral bombing campaign was launched against Iraq. Bill Clinton was correct on the information and assessment made at that time, and Tony Blair and George W Bush were correct in March 2003, going on the information and the assessment made at that time.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 05:50 PM

Teribus--

You assure us that Tony never described Saddam as an "imminent" threat. Whatever you say.

Therefore, he misled the UK electorate by suckering them into a war he never told them was necessary. He never credibly justified the war in terms of Britain's national security. But he dragged Britain into it anyway.

And that's just fine with you. Because you never expect to have your leaders justify their positions.

They know more than you. And you know your place. Like a good little matelot.

The overwhelming vast majority of the UK electorate, however, doesn't share your supine stance--based on what I've read, nobody does.

But if you're comfortable in that position, that's all that matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 05:18 PM

Probably true, Dickey, just as it was probably true that in Northern Ireland throughout the Eighties, there were a lot a US weapons kicking around the paramilitaries. And there were Americans collecting money for the IRA.
Tell me, Dickey, old son, what's the difference?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 03:20 PM

Is this a lie, propaganda, a falsehood or a true statement:

    [S]peaking on ABC's "This Week" television programme, Senator John Kerry said he has no doubt that "there are weapons flowing across the border" from Iran.

    "Nobody questions, those of us who have been to Iraq and in the region know that there are Iranian instigators, agents in Iraq, and that's happening, there's no question," Kerry said.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 02:29 PM

"And there is the situation where they set out to mislead, and succeed in misleading, but take care to avoid telling any direct falsehoods, or to correct (intended?) misinterpretations..."

Gee, I am having that same problem in my workplace at this very moment. I think its a sign of the times.

Is this how people convince themselves that they are justified in making decisions that would otherwise be considered unethical?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 02:21 PM

a. There is a situation where someone tells a lie, which means they say something which they know is untrue.

b. There is the situation where they say something which they believe to be true, with the intention of telling the truth, but in fact what they are saying is not true.

c. And there is the situation where they set out to mislead, and succeed in misleading, but take care to avoid telling any direct falsehoods, or to correct (intended?) misinterpretations by the media etc.

Whether or not there were actual direct lies is hard to pin down. It's not too easy to tell what is in the mind of a politician saying something that turns out not to be true. But I think most people - and not just those on "the left" either, unless, for example, Kenneth Clark is counted as "on the left" - would agree there was intent to deceive in some of the speeches and statement that carefully trod the line of ambiguity.

For example where Bush repeatedly juxtaposed comments about Iraq and 911 in such a way as to invite listeners to understand the existence of a link between the two.

Or, for another example, the "45 minutes" allegation, arising Tony Blair's carefully crafted written comment that Saddam's "military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them." Which in tabloid newspapers became "Brits 45 Mins from Doom", and ""Mad Saddam Ready to Attack: 45 Minutes from a Chemical War". Blair made no effort whatsoever at the time, either himself or through his subordinates, to correct these exaggerated and misleading claims. (Which he subsequently distanced himself from, well aftern teybn ahd achieved their effect at the time.)