you may delight in these games of brinkmanship, but they don't really appeal to me. you constantly toss around words like "you're a liar", "that's a lie", "i dare you" etc. and expect to be responded to as if you were a paragon of reason and restraint. i stand by my earlier posts regarding the current state of the democratic party. to the extent you self-identify with that party they may apply to you as well- your call.
Fixing the intel to fit the policy doesn't mean he said we don't have the intel. What it means is he said don't worry about the intel, we are going after Saddam no matter what, and whatever intel is needed to make that happen we will fix it. That doesn't mean that Bush didn't think Iraq probably had WMD's of some sort. I'm sure he did think that. But Bush can believe that and also lie about them, the risk they prevent, or that is the reason he wanted to go into Iraq in the first place. It is possible and probable that both of these things happened. Bush believed Saddam had WMD's, and Bush intentionally lied about WMD's in order to justify a war he WANTED to fight. The memo are minutes from a govt. meeting, in which the person reported what was discussed. The evidence is sound. Thanks for the response. It is fine with me that you disagree. At least now, you are providing reasons for why don't beleive the evidence.
I am not a paragon of restraint. Quite the contrary. It's not something I'm proud of and not something I'll defend. When I say something is a lie, I mean it. And I do pride myself on my reason, but certainly not on my restraint. Which brings me to the other thing. In your previous post, you called me out specifically. You didn't say 'I think this of the Dems and since you are one maybe you too.' You said 'you and the Dems.' So I said you were an *******. I still think those remarks were unconscionable. But whether you apply them to me or the party, I can't talk politics with someone who thinks those things. (If I said something like 'What do R's stand for besides lynching black people and killing the poor' or something of the like, I wouldn't expect you to try and talk politics with me either.) And since I can't talk politics with someone who holds those radical views (of either me or my party) and since I am anything but a paragon of restraint, I'm gonna go ahead and put you on ignore, thereby avoiding going down this road again. It's not personal. I still like you personally and I'd still drink with you. And, as I do with Jorge and texxx, I'll still peek in to read your posts in other forums (do you post in other forums?) and even occasionally to read your posts in this forum, but, as I do with Jorge and texxx, I won't respond anymore. Nothing good can come of it. Again, no hard feelings.
this is the same type of reasoning that newsweek used. "it's plausible, therefore it must be true." nonsense. if bush believed saddam had WMD, which he clearly did, how can you say he lied? he presented some of the evidence he had at the UN. perhaps powell was wrong on some accounts (mobile labs), but how can you spin that as "a lie?" it's needless, and ultimately damaging, hyperbole, and the kind of loose charges that have now gotten people killed over the "false but plausible" koran desecration story.
The reasoning isn't that it is plausible so it must be true. The reasoning is that evidence backs up the statement, and despite what you had to say about the evidence, it doesn't disqualify it as evidence. You took the leap by trying to assing a particular implausible meaning to the term 'fixing the intel around the policy,' in an effort to discredit it. I don't condone Newsweek's story as I have already said. The two aren't related and aren't based on similar sources. What has gotten more troops and people killed than Newsweek's story is Bush's unnecessary policy regarding Iraq. That doesn't mean Newsweek isn't culpable because they are. But in the scope of things, they only did a fraction of what Bush's policy did. Changing gears, I can't believe you honestly think the Democrats hate democracy, and love Saddam Hussein or don't support our troops. That is ludicrous, and there is no evidence anywhere to back up one ounce of that claim.
sure there is, and it's the same type of reasoning others use to support he Bush lied canard, ie, "Bush said there are WMD in iRaq. there are no WMD in iRaq. Bush Lied!" "Bush supports regime change in iRaq, and democracy in the ME. Democrats oppose the Bush policy. Democrats love Saddam ("I luv Saddam...I luv Saddam...a little SNL flashback, for those who remember...), Democrats hate democracy!" see how easy it is? actually, the case against democrats is arguable stronger than that against Bush. and this is the basis for my earlier arguement that democrats have abandonded core principles in their death match against GWB. if democrats had argued that Bush wan't going far enough, ie, why isn't he supporting democracy in Saudi Arabia, or standing up to china contra Taiwan, etc. they might have had an arguement, and a fan, in me. perhaps some have tried to make those arguements, but they've undercut them by opposing democracy in iRaq, and suggesting Arafat was somehow a legitimately elected democratic leader and israel was to blame for all the ills in the ME. this exposed their insincerity. did Bush lie? no. do democrats hate freedom? dunno, it's hard to tell, but clearly they will oppose it if it means they can somehow hang some policy failure or contradiction around GWB's neck.
If that were the evidence people were using to claim Bush lied then you would have a point. However, that is not the evidence people are using to show that Bush lied. The Democrats also supported regime change in Iraq. Bush did not originate that policy. The only thing Bush did was lie, start a war, as a means of fulfilling that policy. In turn he alienated allies, lessened the general opinion of democracy's greatest champion throughout the world. Once again, opposing Bush's invasion and handling of that invasion in Iraq is not the same as opposing democracy in Iraq. That is where you trip every time. You act as if you don't want to support Bush's plan for democracy in Iraq that you are against democracy in Iraq period. That isn't the case. Bush most definitely lied. You've never been able to square Bush's statements and retreads about the IAEA report. No Bush supporter has. That was before the most recent memo which shows lying on a grander scale. Democrats pointing out that Bush is leading our nation away from the things that made the U.S. democracy's greatest champion and beacon in the world, and wanting those principles back, doesn't equate to hating democracy if they can nail Bush. It is fine if you disagree with how the Dems want to pursue the spread of democracy but to then claim that unless they want to do it Bush's way they are against it doesn't make sense. That is especially true when Bush only recognizes democracies that agree with him, and opposes democracies that don't. That isn't what democracy is about. Anyone who believes it is, including the president needs some refresher courses.
in the absence of proffering any creditable alternative it is. as you say, regime change didn't originate w/ Bush. In fact, it had been official US policy since 1998. all bush did was actually act of resolutions made during the Clinton admin. if only clinton had, perhaps we would have been fighting al queda in iRaq in 1998, or 1999, instead of in New York and DC in 2001. you and your buddy Mr. Jones certainly like to toss the lie meme around w/o much thought given to the actual word. yes, there appears to be some disagreement about what bush meant in extemporaneous remarks during a september 2002 press conference with tony blair at camp david. in fairness, tony blair made the same comments. but if the report were such a pillar of Bush's case for war, why is it absent from all of his major pre-war policy speeches? here's a link to his speech to the UN justa few days after the press conference: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html here's his 2002 SOW address: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/bush.speech.txt/ and the 2003 SOW: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/ there's no mention of the report in any of those speeches, so the "bush lied to the country to start a war" arguement, at least as it's based on the IAEA report comments, is pretty thin. once again, absent any credible policy alternative, there can be no other assumption. we've seen Bush's plan in word and deed. please detail for me all the democratic policy speeches since summer of 2002 that offfer details of a democratic plan to bring democracy to iraq and the rest of the ME. i don't recall any from Harry Pelosi's responses to Bush's SOWs...
The plan included enforcing no-fly zones, satellite monitoring, sanctions and embargos. Saddam had nowhere to go. I disagree with some of how their plan for regime change had been enacted, but they did have a plan. Whether he lied about it on his own accord, or in a pre-written and planned speech, doesn't change the fact that he lied about it. Kerry spoke about plans before the UN, there was the offer to have the U.S. intel agents on the ground verifying everything, which also included the promise of multiple party democratic elections in Iraq.
Jose Padilla Yaser Esam Hamdi Since I am sure you will claim Padilla and Hamdi "terrorists" (even though they are soon to be set free), here is a much better, and more recent example: Casey Nethercott Take a look at the scorecard and tell me how you can justify it?
for different reasons, neither hamdi nor padilla are being held under the patriot act. hamdi was captured in afghanistan, and although the "enemy combatant" designation doesn't apply to padilla, neither does the patriot act. you may disagree w/ padilla's detention, but it's not the patriot act that is causing it. i know nothing about the last case, although i suspect his arrest had something to do with his running a vigilante operation against immigrants.
The term "enemy combatant" is defined in the patriot act. I guess running an operation against immigrants is now terrorism in the eyes of Bush supporters? I guess so are corruption and dope dealers? I also assume then, that immigrants are just SOL in your book? Still waiting...
