|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
 Posted - 11/11/2005 : 21:56:50 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by vrwc
... I'm going to invite you to bring up these alleged lies, one at a time so we can examine ...
I'll go with vrwc... let's look at what's known at present. Smear abounds in politics. |
Ron White |
 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2005 : 22:50:02 [Permalink]
|
This is the truth behind the lie.
Inserted wrong url, that and I'm tired and typing things that aren't related to the one peice I picked from the USC. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
| Edited by - Trish on 11/11/2005 22:57:57 |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2005 : 04:32:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by vrwc
filty
Again with the "mendatious".I'm going to assume that's mendacious,NEW WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY=untruthful.Again I'm going to invite you to bring up these alleged lies, one at a time so we can examine whether they are what you allege. vrwc
Your assumption is correct.
Here's a general rundown on specifics and methods he and his administration have employed; stating the case far batter than I could:
quote:
Lying Us Into War:
Exposing Bush and His "Techniques of Deceit"
By Dennis HansPresident George W. Bush and his foreign-policy team have systematically and knowingly deceived the American people in order to gain support for an unprovoked attack on Iraq.
Before I catalog the Bush administration's “Techniques of Deceit,” let me acknowledge that no U.N. resolution requires the president to be honest with the American people. The fine print of Resolution 1441 imposes no obligation to treat Americans as citizens to be informed rather than suckers to be conned. He may mislead, distort, suppress, exaggerate and lie to his heart's content without violating a single sentence in 1441.
So if compliance with 1441 is all that matters to you, read no further. Turn on the TV and tune in Brokaw, Rather, Jennings, Blitzer or Lehrer, to name five of the journalistic imposters who control what you hear and see, who seem psychologically incapable of conceiving of Bush as a liar, and who wouldn't have the guts to call him one even if they reached that conclusion.
But if you are an American citizen who believes in the bedrock democratic principle of “the informed consent of the governed,” read on.
I am reminded of the great to-do made over the "mobile chemical warfare labs" some little while ago, that turned out to be hydrogen generators for artillery practice balloons. I recall seeing images of them on the idiot box, a couple of beat-up looking trucks, and hearing breathless commentators parroting the official line.
Then there's the whole "yellowcake" booshwah, the phony aluminum tubes claim, the al Q'aida in cahoots with Saddam nonsense, the Italian letter forgery produced by the Brits and used as an excuse for this needless war, telling us that things are going great and we are making progress in Iraq when anyone paying attention can see that quite the opposite is true, and on and on, ad nauseum.
Further, the "poor intellegence" claim leading up to 9/11 is at least partly, probably mostly, from the whole cloth. The administration was informed beforehand that bin Laden wanted to mount an attack, and chose to ignore it. They've been in CYA mode ever since.
And then there's "Saddam can hit us with 45 minutes notice!" (paraphrasing.) Anyone who believed that turkey needs to quit snorting that stuff.
And so forth.
Bush is the worst example of national leadership I have seen in all of my days. All things taken into consideration, he should pose for his next photo op in the dock answering for war-crimes; for attacking a sovern nation that posed no threat to us, or really, much of anyone else. Saddam is a dreadful person and I'm glad he's out, but I'm convinced that time and sanctions would have worked. Bush should have listened to Blix, but in his arrogance and desire to invade, chose not to. Indeed, he all but shelved Afganistan and completely forgot bin Laden in pursuit of Iraq -- some say Iraq's oil. If that last is true, that makes him a thief with a no-class grift as well.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he once |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2005 : 13:19:40 [Permalink]
|
And he's still at it:
quote:
Analysis
Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument
By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 12, 2005; Page A01
President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.
Neither assertion is wholly accurate.
The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.
But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.
But this is from the liberal media, the liberal media that recoiled in shock and horror, and unbridled glee over Clinton's lying about a blowjob.
Requires registration; -- go here to get a password, save some time and aggravation, and still keep your name off their lists.
Edited to add this. It's looking more like a dry version of Vietnam, another useless war, every day thanks to the criminal ambitions of an all but obvious sociopath.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 11/12/2005 13:34:01 |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2005 : 16:17:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
... have employed; stating the case far batter than I could: Lying Us Into War: Exposing Bush and His "Techniques of Deceit" ...
Seeing General Custer isn't back yet, and the rest here aren't exactly "tripping all over each other" in a scramble to defend Bush, I'll play "Angel's Advocate" (W's definately on the "side of the angels") by starting to scrutinize this article. After reading it and starting, I see that I can go through the whole thing as follows... one-sentence-at-a-time... but I'll never get to eat lunch if I do. Apologies, but getting hungry. This is why I hate politics...
ARTICLE BEGINS-
President George W. Bush and his foreign-policy team have systematically and knowingly deceived the American people...
OK,THEY'VE STARTED BY STATING A CONCLUSION THAT'S EXTREMELY BIASED UNLESS IT'S DAMN-WELL SUBSTANTIATED... SO, WHAT HAVE THEY GOT?
... So if compliance with 1441 is all that matters to you ...
INDIRECTLY IMPLYING THAT IF READER DOESN'T AGREE, THEIR JUDGMENT IS TWISTED. MORE EXTREME BIAS DISPLAYED, WITH NO FACTS THUS FAR.
Why lie? The president and many of his top advisers have wanted to invade and overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein for a long time...
THAT'S PURE SPECULATION, AND HE'S IMPLYING THAT IF THEY DID WANT TO, THERE AREN'T GOOD REASONS WHICH THE PUBLIC MIGHT NOT BE AWARE OF- THERE COULD BE. AND WHAT'S WEIRD ABOUT THIS IS THAT HERE'S A GUY ABOUT TO MAKE A BUNCH OF ARGUMENTS THAT BUSH AND ASSOCIATES PRESENT "WHAT IS BELIEVED OR SPECULATED" AS "WHAT IS KNOWN" IN CALCULATED WAYS, AND HE'S ALREADY DOING THE SAME THING!
... Yes, two-thirds of Americans had come to believe a horrible thing about Saddam that the Bush administration knew for a fact was false ...
IMPLYING THAT THE MEDIA AND THE CITIZEN'S OWN JUDGEMENT WASN'T WHY THEY CONCLUDED THIS- AND MORE STATEMENT OF "WHAT BUSH KNEW" AS FACT WHEN IT, TOO, IS PURE SPECULATION. IS THIS GUY CLAIMING TO BE A MIND-READER?
... percent of us believe Iraq has a nuclear weapon RIGHT NOW and another 35 percent are unsure or refused to answer the question. Only 24 percent know what Bush knows for an absolute fact: Iraq has no nukes.
YEA, NOW HE'S BLAMING THE PUBLIC'S LACK OF BEING INFORMED ON BUSH- WHAT'S NEXT ON HIS BLAME LIST? LOUSY SURFING CONDITIONS? AND JUST LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE- "KNOWS FOR AN ABSOLUTE FACT"... MORE MIND-READING... MORE OUTRAGEOUS SPECULATION. THIS GUY HAS NO CREDIBILITY AT ALL, HIS M.O. BEING SIMILAR TO MOST OTHER DEMOCRATIC MOUTHPIECES.
... How do people get such ridiculous thoughts in their head? A dishonest administration plants them there...
GEEZ, WHAT WAS I JUST SAYING... IT'S NOT THE MEDIA, IT'S NOT THE PUBLIC'S JUDGEMENT... IT'S BUSH. HOW CAN THE DEMOCRATS POSSIBLY TALK ABOUT A REPUBLICAN BIASED MEDIA WHEN THEIR MOUTHPIECES SOUND LIKE THIS GUY??? HOW CAN THEY MENTION THE WORD "HIPPOCRACY" WITH A STRAIGHT FACE??? |
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 11/12/2005 16:26:38 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2005 : 17:42:23 [Permalink]
|
You're scaring me Ron… LOL
Anyhow:
quote:
Why lie? The president and many of his top advisers have wanted to invade and overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein for a long time...
THAT'S PURE SPECULATION, AND HE'S IMPLYING THAT IF THEY DID WANT TO, THERE AREN'T GOOD REASONS WHICH THE PUBLIC MIGHT NOT BE AWARE OF- THERE COULD BE. AND WHAT'S WEIRD ABOUT THIS IS THAT HERE'S A GUY ABOUT TO MAKE A BUNCH OF ARGUMENTS THAT BUSH AND ASSOCIATES PRESENT "WHAT IS BELIEVED OR SPECULATED" AS "WHAT IS KNOWN" IN CALCULATED WAYS, AND HE'S ALREADY DOING THE SAME THING!
All sourced from Wikipedia:
Pax Americanaquote:
The term Pax Americana is used by critics of U.S. policy to describe an effort they allege is made by the U.S. to suppress countries that do not cooperate with U.S. policy, but some supporters of American foreign policy also use the term, so it is not necessarily derogatory. For example, it appears repeatedly in a September 2000 document, Rebuilding America's Defenses, by the Project for the New American Century, widely regarded as a neoconservative think tank.
Bolding mine.
Project for the New American Century
quote:
The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington, DC based think tank. The group was established in spring 1997 as a non-profit organization with the goal of promoting "American global leadership". The chairman is William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and FOX News regular. The group is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project, a non-profit 501c3 organization that is funded by the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation and the Bradley Foundation. [1]
Present and former members include several prominent members of the Republican Party and Bush Administration, including Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Ellen Bork (the wife of Robert Bork), Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. A large number of its ideas and its members are associated with the neoconservative movement. PNAC has seven full-time staff members, in addition to its board of directors.
quote:
Position on Iraq
The 2000 Rebuilding America's Defenses report recommends improved planning and deployment in order to reduce the strain caused by enforcing the No Fly Zones and to free up an aircraft carrier. It uses the U.S.'s Gulf War success as an example of why the world requires American military might. Looking ahead, the report states "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region".
Bolding mine.
Edited to add:
Seems to m |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2005 : 22:30:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
quote:
Originally posted by Trish
Inserted wrong url, that and I'm tired...
No problem, Trish, get some sleep... You must have meant this one :)
http://www.spectator.org/util/print.asp?art_id=8955
Actually Ron, I was looking for the USC. It's part of the concern that I've had with the deliberate misunderstanding of scientific terminology as a point of attack by the Republican Party. They use the idea of a probability as not a certainty. Since when is anything in science certain? It's not. Because the NAS is unwilling to state unequivocally that X is accurate, the Republicans then construe that to mean, well, they ain't got a clue.
It's the same problem with the arguments seen here at SFN about evolution. 'Well, scientists disagree about the cause of speciation.' Referring to Punctuated Equilibria and Gradual Change Over Time concepts. See, there's disagreement. Well, yes, but not about evolution, just the process that evolution takes. Or the, 'It's only a theory.' Unfortunately, without unbiased explaination, law makers can't make informed decisions. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2005 : 03:27:37 [Permalink]
|
Slightly off topic, but interesting anyway..
Remembering that popularity does not mean much in the the often futile search for Truth and Justice, there seems to be a growing, popular movement favoring impeachment of Bush and Cheney. With this comes certain speculations and not a few political pitfalls.
quote:
Politically Strategic Impeachment
Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2005-11-11 02:09. Activism
By David Swanson
While it would of course be good for the world for Bush and Cheney to be impeached, convicted, and sent packing, would it be politically advantageous for a Congress Member to introduce articles of impeachment? And would it benefit the Democratic Party for some or all of the Democrats to push for impeachment at this time? Or should they do it later? Or is there another way?
The facts that would seem to argue in favor of pushing impeachment include an NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll released November 10th showing 57 percent of Americans believe Bush deliberately misled them in making his case for war, while 35 percent think he provided accurate information. And a Zogby International poll released November 4th found that 53 percent of Americans want Congress to consider impeaching Bush if he did not tell the truth about the reasons for war.
An Ipsos Public Affairs poll released on October 11 found 50 percent favoring impeachment if Bush lied about the war. The poll also broke the results down by political party. A full 72 percent of Democrats and those leaning Democrat, a month ago, favored impeachment.
If you subscribe to the view that the Republicans have done a better job of appealing to their own base, you'll want the Democrats to take into consideration the opinions of the 72 percent among the ranks of their voters and potential voters who want Bush impeached.
Further weighing on the side of pushing impeachment forward is the level of energy waiting to be tapped. Many of those who want impeachment of Bush and Cheney are passionate about it. Many see the fate of the nation and the world as hanging on it. Several large organizations and thousands of websites have been formed to promote it. Meetings are being held around the country. Panels are being convened. Mock trials are being staged. Half the posters at anti-war rallies demand impeachment. The After Downing Street Coalition raised $10,000 in two weeks online to pay pollsters to ask about impeachment. And a new political action committee called ImpeachPAC has raised $30,000 online in one week to create a fund for pro-impeachment candidates. See: http://www.impeachpac.org
So, it does seem likely that the first Congress Member to introduce articles of impeachment will become something of a national hero and receive a rather large outpouring of gratitude, volunteers, and cash.
The political winds being what they are, I may wrong, but I don't think it's going to happen at all, unless Bush is caught in bed "with a dead woman or a live man," or something similiar.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2005 : 10:54:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
The political winds being what they are, I may wrong, but I don't think it's going to happen at all, unless Bush is caught in bed "with a dead woman or a live man," or something similiar.
Problem is impeachment can't be seriously considered until the results of the 2006 elections are in. If the democrats can take back both houses, or even one of them, then it can be considered. Besides the fact that Bush and Cheney actually deserve to be drawn and quartered I think we also have a little payback coming. Comparing the crimes of Bush to the crimes of Clinton is a bit like comparing a mass murderer to a guy who lied about stealing a cigar…
Of course, knowing that Bush and company are criminals and proving it is another thing…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2005 : 11:30:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
The political winds being what they are, I may wrong, but I don't think it's going to happen at all, unless Bush is caught in bed "with a dead woman or a live man," or something similiar.
Problem is impeachment can't be seriously considered until the results of the 2006 elections are in. If the democrats can take back both houses, or even one of them, then it can be considered. Besides the fact that Bush and Cheney actually deserve to be drawn and quartered I think we also have a little payback coming. Comparing the crimes of Bush to the crimes of Clinton is a bit like comparing a mass murderer to a guy who lied about stealing a cigar…
Of course, knowing that Bush and company are criminals and proving it is another thing…
I never had sex with that cigar! I only smoked it....
Yeh. There won't be much action on the subject for a while and perhaps never, alas. TANJ, eh?
Unless.... unless a whole, big, steaming pile of runny, necrotic crap (over and above what's already public knowledge), that can be neither whitewashed nor ignored, nor even disguised with an industrial-strenght air freshener, by even the most rabid Republican, comes out.
I dream, I dream..... 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2005 : 14:06:40 [Permalink]
|
But Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex, he was impeached for lying.
He should have said "yes, I had a blowjob", or "That's none of your fucking business!"
While it's embarressing to get caught, he should have owned his mistake.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 11/13/2005 14:07:32 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2005 : 14:49:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
But Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex, he was impeached for lying.
He should have said "yes, I had a blowjob", or "That's none of your fucking business!"
While it's embarressing to get caught, he should have owned his mistake.
Agree, but with his ol' lady standing right there? Oy veh, such a choice to make!
Actually, while he wasn't impeached for sex, that's what it was all about, anyway. Sex and up-tight Republicians who'd been trying to get him on anything at all for his entire tenure.
I wish somebody'd go give Bush a hummer. Then we could get the fucker impeached easily...
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2005 : 17:06:05 [Permalink]
|
Ha! I thought y'alled like that! LOL
I suppose the point is, as Trish noted, much of what goes on in political "discussion," aside from outright lying and otherwise being manipulative and slippery, is i-dotting, t-crossing, hair-slitting, questioning every conceivably possible doubt regardless of how astronomically improbable, etc. etc. etc. What a migraine.
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
... All sourced from Wikipedia ...
... Seems to me all that was left for them to do was find a justification for the war that they could sell to the American people. 9/11 ...
Facinating links, interesting possibility. I'd heard that term "Pax Americano" but wasn't aware of the (in)formal definitions... thanks.
RE Impeachment, I turn the dial of the radio and one station rants about impeachment, another discusses angles by which we might be able to attain a third-term of Bush (having his wife run, then resign the position to him, blah blah.) Now and again I have to remind myself why I hate politics... because the piles of manure extend into the stratosphere.
RE Clinton impeachment, I personally couldn't care less whether the guy banged the entire Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders in the oval office (possibly after Bush "set him up" with a surprise visit, knowing the rest would be inevitable... ha ha) It has nothing to do with anything. His business. Hillary's business. Otherwise, just more nonsense.
|
Ron White |
|
|
|
vrwc
New Member
47 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2005 : 21:36:49 [Permalink]
|
Hi,
Impeach Bush? Some of you, foregoing, are indulging in a sort of political wet dream. He's done nothing illegal. The "lied us into war" rhetoric has already been disproven. I refer you to the Silverman report from the previous congressional investigation.
For those of you still indulging in the Clinton impeachment "was only about sex" fantasy. I'll remind you about the big part, foreign campaign contributions and the almost (?) treasonous QUID PRO QUO of missle technology to red China arranged by Clinton. We know all of the foreign participants conveniently evaporated into red China (see my earlier list to filthy under the McCarthy heading) so I can't assert that Clinton was guilty. But there is a lot of evidence. That plus the lesser question of Whitewater. Madison S&L cost the txpayers over $80 million. Again, no conviction, but it's not sex.vrwc |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
