Trapped in a Hall of Mirrors?
- Thread starter resinate
- Start date
Only the most gullible apologist for Bush/Israel believes that peace loving Muslims would be involved in such a plot.
World governments have long manufactured "incidents" and then blamed the docile followers of Allah. Lockerbie, Buenos Aires, 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali, Chechnya, the U.S. embassy in Beirut (1983), "Achille Lauro", Nairobi, and the HUNDREDS of fatal acts in media ignored Africa. All a whitewash!!! You're SO RIGHT Res, SA, LoZZZer!!! I'm on board with you. Bush=Hitler. Blair=Hitler. Carter=Hitler. Reagan=Hitler. Thatcher=Hitler. Putin=Hitler. Clinton (particularly Hillary)=Hitler. I don't know who's PM of Sudan but he's Hitler also. Long live Islam!!!!
Death to Infidels!
P.S. Merciful Allah will exact vengeance towards those evil Canadians for arresting our freedom fighters in Toronto!
World governments have long manufactured "incidents" and then blamed the docile followers of Allah. Lockerbie, Buenos Aires, 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali, Chechnya, the U.S. embassy in Beirut (1983), "Achille Lauro", Nairobi, and the HUNDREDS of fatal acts in media ignored Africa. All a whitewash!!! You're SO RIGHT Res, SA, LoZZZer!!! I'm on board with you. Bush=Hitler. Blair=Hitler. Carter=Hitler. Reagan=Hitler. Thatcher=Hitler. Putin=Hitler. Clinton (particularly Hillary)=Hitler. I don't know who's PM of Sudan but he's Hitler also. Long live Islam!!!!
Death to Infidels!
P.S. Merciful Allah will exact vengeance towards those evil Canadians for arresting our freedom fighters in Toronto!
Correct. Dems lie about about security threats too. Ok.
I have very little doubt Clinton bombed Iraq a # of times to distract from Monica. Does Clinton's and other Dems unprosecuted war crimes justify and or excuse Blair and Bush's lies and manipulation of 9/11 based fears to lead us into an illegal war?
neophyte321
Guest
What were their "Lies" exactly?
v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies
v. intr.
To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
"Saddam has WMD's" ... ? I think they believed that.
"Iraq poses a serious threat to the US" ... ? I think they believed that.
What else was there?
Res,
Obviously those claims (of WMD's) were either wrongly construed or exaggerated. But if there were an ironclad case to be made that Bush & Blair had deliberately "lied about security threats for ulterior motives", the New York Times and every democratic in Congress would be making that case daily, and calling for immediate impeachment proceedings.
That isn't happening. And I don't think it is because that newspaper and those congressmen are afraid of Bush. It is simply because an ironclad case cannot be made.
Isn't that a logical conclusion to draw?
I suppose you could view the below as sincere, but....
Bush 2/8/2003: "And we have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030208.html
Bush 5/24/2005: "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
from: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/georgebushpropaganda.wma
neophyte321
Guest
I won't disagree, the facts have been misrepresented. Probably due more to incomptence than some sort of vast conspiracy. "catapult the propaganda", do you really think he meant to say that!?
Look, I'd very much like the Democratic party to return to some sort of semblence of sanity. A one party system has proven to be a very bad thing. Throwing out every crackpot theory under the sun hoping one will stick is not working toward that goal.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
Unfortunately, your party is being fronted by the lunatic-fringe...
Quote from neophyte321:
I won't disagree, the facts have been misrepresented. Probably due more to incomptence than some sort of vast conspiracy. "catapult the propaganda", do you really think he meant to say that!?
Look, I'd very much like the Democratic party to return to some sort of semblence of sanity. A one party system has proven to be a very bad thing. Throwing out every crackpot theory under the sun hoping one will stick is not working toward that goal.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
Unfortunately, your party is being fronted by the lunatic-fringe...
Nothing against Resinate (he would AGREE with this statement) but Res REPRESENTS the lunatic fringe. He's the one who started this thread. Res would admit without hesitation that he's a Marxist. He's still a nice guy though....
Quote from neophyte321:
"catapult the propaganda", do you really think he meant to say that!?
I wondered about that, too. Here is the quote in context...from the transcript posted on the White House website:
President Participates in Social Security Conversation in New York
Now, a personal savings account would be a part of a Social Security retirement system. It would be a part of what you would have to retire when you reach retirement age. As you -- as I mentioned to you earlier, we're going to redesign the current system. If you've retired, you don't have anything to worry about -- third time I've said that. (Laughter.) I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)
really now, res...
"Wrongly construed" or "Exaggerated."
Is that not a form of lying, depending on the intention of the person who is wrongly construing or exaggerating?
The issue really boils down to either trusting leadership, or questioning them.
Tell me sax, has history shown that people in very powerful positions, nearly absolute in nature, tend to do the right thing for people, or is there a tendency to abuse the power?
What would it mean if Bush did in fact "wrongly construe" or "exaggerate" with intent to lead people into a war of his choosing?
It really comes down to thinking that Bush is on the side of the people, or if he is on the side of the military industrial complex, the wealthy, the oilmen, etc.
I don't understand how someone as bright as you, who can read about the inner workings of the Bush administration, the knowledge of the neocons agenda, etc. can show such blind loyalty, and not even intellectually question what Bush is/has been doing.
Is that not a form of lying, depending on the intention of the person who is wrongly construing or exaggerating?
The issue really boils down to either trusting leadership, or questioning them.
Tell me sax, has history shown that people in very powerful positions, nearly absolute in nature, tend to do the right thing for people, or is there a tendency to abuse the power?
What would it mean if Bush did in fact "wrongly construe" or "exaggerate" with intent to lead people into a war of his choosing?
It really comes down to thinking that Bush is on the side of the people, or if he is on the side of the military industrial complex, the wealthy, the oilmen, etc.
I don't understand how someone as bright as you, who can read about the inner workings of the Bush administration, the knowledge of the neocons agenda, etc. can show such blind loyalty, and not even intellectually question what Bush is/has been doing.