|
|
#21
11-14-2005, 07:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
"You are making claims of quotes being taken out of context. It is up to you then to prove that is the case by providing the context which clearly shows this or it is you who is shamelessly politking without regard to the facts."
[img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] are you for real? ummm... okay, one time: the quote cited, by mrs clinton, began with "...the PROSPECT of..." (wmd in iraq). you're (nonsenseical) reasoning holds that that quote must have been a lie if bush lied about WMD in iraq... yet, mrs clinton's quote isn't even a statement of fact... that is, not subject to being considered truthful or a lie in the same manner as bush's appearent falsehoods are; it's a statement of opinion. get it? the evidence you use to support your bizzare line of reasoning WOULDN'T apply EVEN IF your argument made sense. c'mon now... at this point, i'm not even talking about what's-what politically or if anyone lied or not: I'm just pointing out that the argument you presented is patently illogical, and offers no sensible or applicable evidence to support it. 
|
|
#22
11-14-2005, 08:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
I posted the joint resolution passed by Congress authorizing military action by Bush. In that resolution it is stated that there is a link between Al Qaeda and Hussein. May or may not be true but the Democrats in Congress can hardly say that they were duped by Bush unless they think the voting public are total idiots. The Dems in Congress are just as accountable for their actions as Bush is for his. I also note that a significant number of Democrats voted against authorizing military action in Iraq while the same can't be said about the Republicans. But from all we know about the Democrats in Congress from their statements in Congress prior to the Iraq War, they basically believed that Hussein had WMDs and was a threat to develop nuclear weapons. Playing polictics is no excuse for not being accountable.
|
|
#23
11-14-2005, 09:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
[ QUOTE ]
I posted the joint resolution passed by Congress authorizing military action by Bush. In that resolution it is stated that there is a link between Al Qaeda and Hussein. May or may not be true but the Democrats in Congress can hardly say that they were duped by Bush unless they think the voting public are total idiots. The Dems in Congress are just as accountable for their actions as Bush is for his. I also note that a significant number of Democrats voted against authorizing military action in Iraq while the same can't be said about the Republicans. But from all we know about the Democrats in Congress from their statements in Congress prior to the Iraq War, they basically believed that Hussein had WMDs and was a threat to develop nuclear weapons. Playing polictics is no excuse for not being accountable. [/ QUOTE ] The debate is whether the Dems lied to us and/or whether Bush lied to us. I don't think the Dems lied to us: They don't have the motive. Nor am I positive that Bush lied to us. He may have just been duped by poor intelligence. Nonetheless, for the sake of precedence, 2 questions need to be asked. 1) Did anyone within the administration know that the Nigerian document was plausibly a forgery? And if so who? 2) Did anyone within the administration know or strongly doubt that there was no link between Al Qaida and Saddam? And if so who? As I re-read your post, I am forced to reconsider. The Dems have the same access to the CIA and other intelligence sources as Bush. A diligent Senator can get just as much info as can Bush. So why didn't they? Perhaps, other questions need to be asked. 1) DId the Senate minority leader seek CIA confirmation that the Nigerian Document was valid? And if no then why not? And if he did, what did he find out and from whom? Should he have dug deeper, etc, etc? 2) Did the Senate minority leader seek CIA confirmation that Al Qaida and Saddam were in cahoots? And if no then why not? etc, etc. I want to know who knew what and when did he know it. And if he didn't know it then why. The OP has a good point, as do you. And, after re-considering, I am left wondering how can incompetence check incompetence? Is there no one to blame but ourselves? Or were all the false implications just an honest mistake.
|
|
#24
11-14-2005, 09:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
[ QUOTE ]
I posted the joint resolution passed by Congress authorizing military action by Bush. In that resolution it is stated that there is a link between Al Qaeda and Hussein. May or may not be true but the Democrats in Congress can hardly say that they were duped by Bush unless they think the voting public are total idiots. The Dems in Congress are just as accountable for their actions as Bush is for his. I also note that a significant number of Democrats voted against authorizing military action in Iraq while the same can't be said about the Republicans. But from all we know about the Democrats in Congress from their statements in Congress prior to the Iraq War, they basically believed that Hussein had WMDs and was a threat to develop nuclear weapons. Playing polictics is no excuse for not being accountable. [/ QUOTE ] The fact is that most Democrats thought Hussein was a threat, and thus passed the resolution. However, anyone who knows anything about Washington would know that lines such as that connecting Hussein and al Qaeda can easily be placed into the wording of a resolution for political purposes, as it was ensured that those who supported the war would sign it anyway. And to jt1, I quote Ken Pollack, who supported the invasion: "Only the Administration has access to all the information available to various agencies of the US government--and withholding or downplaying some of that information for its own purposes is a betrayal of that responsibility."
|
|
#25
11-14-2005, 11:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your bluff is dead in the water
I posted this article in another thread and Ill post it again.
Article by Norman Padhoretz Also, Cyrus, there is no evidence whatsoever that this war was started because of Israel. I don't know why you would mention that in your argument.
|
|
#26
11-15-2005, 12:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
"A diligent Senator can get just as much info as can Bush."
I heard somebody on NBC Nightly News tonight say only about 5 senators actually read the CIA intellgence report. That sounds about right.
|
|
#27
11-15-2005, 01:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
Stop believing that there's a major difference between the powers in either party. It will all make sense then.
At the highest level, Democrats and Republicans are globalists, statists, who are all too willing to take our freedom.
|
|
#28
11-15-2005, 01:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your bluff is dead in the water
[ QUOTE ]
I posted this article in another thread and Ill post it again. Article by Norman Padhoretz Also, Cyrus, there is no evidence whatsoever that this war was started because of Israel. I don't know why you would mention that in your argument. [/ QUOTE ] Cyrus, I second this request for your theory of going to Iraq for Israel. Sure I suppose we've enhanced their security, but do we really think Saddam kept them up nights? Whats in it for the administration if a major reason was to help Israel? I had thought we might (finally)drift away from Israel as the oil market tightens.
|
|
#29
11-15-2005, 02:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your bluff is dead in the water
[ QUOTE ]
Sure I suppose we've enhanced their security, but do we really think Saddam kept them up nights? [/ QUOTE ] Did you know he paid palestinian suicide bombers' families $25,000 for their little martyrs to blow themselves up? Not exactly a comforting feeling...
|
|
#30
11-15-2005, 02:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
[ QUOTE ]
"You are making claims of quotes being taken out of context. It is up to you then to prove that is the case by providing the context which clearly shows this or it is you who is shamelessly politking without regard to the facts." [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] are you for real? ummm... okay, one time: the quote cited, by mrs clinton, began with "...the PROSPECT of..." (wmd in iraq). you're (nonsenseical) reasoning holds that that quote must have been a lie if bush lied about WMD in iraq... yet, mrs clinton's quote isn't even a statement of fact... that is, not subject to being considered truthful or a lie in the same manner as bush's appearent falsehoods are; it's a statement of opinion. get it? the evidence you use to support your bizzare line of reasoning WOULDN'T apply EVEN IF your argument made sense. c'mon now... at this point, i'm not even talking about what's-what politically or if anyone lied or not: I'm just pointing out that the argument you presented is patently illogical, and offers no sensible or applicable evidence to support it. [/ QUOTE ] You gave ONE supposed example of an out of context quote without citing the source or the entire paragraph. And if the rest of the quotes are legit then the arguement in the article I quoted makes perfect sense. Denying it without proof to the contrary won't make your view so.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
