You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Trapped in a Hall of Mirrors?
- Thread starter resinate
- Start date
Of course, Bush manipulated us into Iraq. No doubt they construed ambiguous intelligence in the most negative way and downplayed other data that undermined the case. But Presidents always do that.
FDR clearly wanted the US in WW II and did his best to make it happen. Clinton was not exactly truthful about what was happening in Kosovo and Serbia, when he was trying to manipulate public opinion to justify that war. The Spanish-American War was undertaken under dubious justification, as I recall.
But there is a vast difference between marshalling evidence in a way that supports your case and lying. There is a strong case to be made that Bush made a big mistake and that he misconstrued the evidence. History will judge him harshly for that, no doubt. What turns a lot of people off however, is the constant refrain that "Bush lied", when there is zero evidence to support that charge.
FDR clearly wanted the US in WW II and did his best to make it happen. Clinton was not exactly truthful about what was happening in Kosovo and Serbia, when he was trying to manipulate public opinion to justify that war. The Spanish-American War was undertaken under dubious justification, as I recall.
But there is a vast difference between marshalling evidence in a way that supports your case and lying. There is a strong case to be made that Bush made a big mistake and that he misconstrued the evidence. History will judge him harshly for that, no doubt. What turns a lot of people off however, is the constant refrain that "Bush lied", when there is zero evidence to support that charge.
Was Clinton lying when he said "I did not have sex with that woman" from a technical perspective, if sex is defined as intercourse?
Half truths are not lies?
You help make the case for Bush's manipulating the situation to fulfil his own agenda by referencing other presidents...
Half truths are not lies?
You help make the case for Bush's manipulating the situation to fulfil his own agenda by referencing other presidents...
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Of course, Bush manipulated us into Iraq. No doubt they construed ambiguous intelligence in the most negative way and downplayed other data that undermined the case. But Presidents always do that.
FDR clearly wanted the US in WW II and did his best to make it happen. Clinton was not exactly truthful about what was happening in Kosovo and Serbia, when he was trying to manipulate public opinion to justify that war. The Spanish-American War was undertaken under dubious justification, as I recall.
But there is a vast difference between marshalling evidence in a way that supports your case and lying. There is a strong case to be made that Bush made a big mistake and that he misconstrued the evidence. History will judge him harshly for that, no doubt. What turns a lot of people off however, is the constant refrain that "Bush lied", when there is zero evidence to support that charge.
I'd be worried if the government didn't raise the terror alert when these recent arrests were made in Britain.
The possibility that the alert could politically benefit the party in power is something that we just have to live with. Ultimately, people have to judge collectively what is important to them. If they decide that their fear overides everything else including the deteriating international standing of the US and lives of our soldiers, then that's their choice.
I don't think we should be quick to blame the government for issuing these alerts.
The possibility that the alert could politically benefit the party in power is something that we just have to live with. Ultimately, people have to judge collectively what is important to them. If they decide that their fear overides everything else including the deteriating international standing of the US and lives of our soldiers, then that's their choice.
I don't think we should be quick to blame the government for issuing these alerts.
In this situation, the moment the story broke to the public, what is the point of raising the threat level?
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
I'd be worried if the government didn't raise the terror alert when these recent arrests were made in Britain.
The possibility that the alert could politically benefit the party in power is something that we just have to live with. Ultimately, people have to judge collectively what is important to them. If they decide that their fear overides everything else including the deteriating international standing of the US and lives of our soldiers, then that's their choice.
I don't think we should be quick to blame the government for issuing these alerts.
It's a precautionary measure. You're never sure that you've got everyone of them.Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
In this situation, the moment the story broke to the public, what is the point of raising the threat level?
Even if it is indeed to buy political capital, I'd give them that. I think they're so scr***d at this point, the little capital they get from this is not going to make much difference.
None of the handful of Republican Congressmen I spoke to in 2004 felt that Iraq had posed an imminent danger to the U.S. vis a vis WMD's. Yet they all voted for war. I'm quite sure that Hillary Clinton had intelligence second only to the White House yet she also voted for war.
It appears Congress felt there were just enough WMD's lying around for the U.S. to plausibly remove Saddam for violations of the 1991 U.N. Resolution. IMO his financial support of Hamas was enough for action. To a man though, each congressmen I spoke with thought our military endeavor in Iraq would be over quickly.
I never disliked Saddam. What's the worst thing one can say about him? That he was jailing, torturing and killing fanatical Muslims? Bravo! However I truly think that the admin, neo-cons and Israel have a more ambitious agenda in the ME than merely toppling Saddam. We see those seeds at work in Lebanon. IF we do indeed engage Syria and Iran would we rather do it with Iraq in military shambles or run the risk of Saddam having joined forces with other nations in a Pan-Arab war?
Saddam wasn't going to be around forever. Iraq was going to implode into "civil war" with or without a U.S. invasion. Israel and the administration are dead set on eliminating the forces in the ME that are causing long term instability. Unfortunately the Shiites who Israel loathes most are the classiest of the bunch. It's no coincidence that these Western terrorists are all sunni's. It's quite a confusing, sickening mess. However we must be resolved to a permanent solution.
It appears Congress felt there were just enough WMD's lying around for the U.S. to plausibly remove Saddam for violations of the 1991 U.N. Resolution. IMO his financial support of Hamas was enough for action. To a man though, each congressmen I spoke with thought our military endeavor in Iraq would be over quickly.
I never disliked Saddam. What's the worst thing one can say about him? That he was jailing, torturing and killing fanatical Muslims? Bravo! However I truly think that the admin, neo-cons and Israel have a more ambitious agenda in the ME than merely toppling Saddam. We see those seeds at work in Lebanon. IF we do indeed engage Syria and Iran would we rather do it with Iraq in military shambles or run the risk of Saddam having joined forces with other nations in a Pan-Arab war?
Saddam wasn't going to be around forever. Iraq was going to implode into "civil war" with or without a U.S. invasion. Israel and the administration are dead set on eliminating the forces in the ME that are causing long term instability. Unfortunately the Shiites who Israel loathes most are the classiest of the bunch. It's no coincidence that these Western terrorists are all sunni's. It's quite a confusing, sickening mess. However we must be resolved to a permanent solution.
It is not really the job of the public to "get them" is it?
Isn't that the job of law enforcement and TSA?
Isn't that the job of law enforcement and TSA?
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
It's a precautionary measure. You're never sure that you've got everyone of them.
Even if it is indeed to buy political capital, I'd give them that. I think they're so scr***d at this point, the little capital they get from this is not going to make much difference.
If my theories hold true and Osama Bin Laden is the proxy foriegn policy of Saudi Arabia and hence GWB's step brother, then ole Brother Bin created these sacrificial lambs in such a way that it gave Bro W and Cuz Tony both a PR opp! Makes perfect sense. Damn I am looking for something to convince me otherwise but everything that happens just fits.