Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

You headline would lead us to belive that lying in the name of policy is alright. If Bush didn’t actually lie (“I did not have sex with…”) he certainly misled and scared the bejeezus out of the public for political gain. Karl Rove made that perfectly clear to everyone that after 9/11, war and war talk were going to be used for political gain. But that’s ok, we “won” in Afghanistan and Iraq, so a little lie that cost lives, billions of dollars and global good will makes it all right.

And all this from a man who condemns moral relativism. What is more relativistic than lying to gain support for what he thinks is right? I hope the Republicans continue to defend him on this issue, it’s a loser for them.

So I guess the ends always justify the means. Shame on you George!

Powerful, persuasive and politically attractive?

What ever happened to telling the truth?

Thought you might want to read this piqued critique of Mr. Rosenbaum’s work, from the very thorough folks at The Daily Howler:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062303.shtml

I find this quote interesting: “But saying Bush selected information to emphasize (or perhaps exaggerate) in order to rally support for a policy choice is not the same as saying he lied.”

Reason: I don’t see a material difference between this sort of argument and Bill Clinton splitting hairs over “what your definition of ‘is’ is”.

It’s not even so much that Bush chose to hype certain aspects of the intelligence—he chose aspects that were either questionable, or had been thoroughly discredited months ago as building blocks for his “imminent threat” case. Continued reporting on this issue will make it clearer and clearer that the intelligence was actually correct, but not as definitive as the executive branch wanted in order to go to war on their timetable.

Now that the US government has reserved the right to act preemptively against countries that threaten us, it becomes even more important that the commander-in-chief be credible when stating that any threat, imminent or otherwise exists. Otherwise, when Bush says that “Iran is a threat to us” or “Syria is a threat to us”, he will not be believed—either by countries he may want as part of another “coalition of the willing”, or by the citizens of the United States.

Oh, come on. He’s backtracking faster than he ran in forward. That’s a sure sign of a liar.

Want more?

In yesterday’s radio address, Bush dismissed the WMD hunt saying that now there is intelligence that the WMD sites were looted and burned.

OK, George.

So, that means, you let the cat of the bag and now God knows who has the old Iraqi WMD.

So which is it, Liar Liar? Did the WMD really not exisit and you lied us into a war? Or did the WMD get looted and since you were asleep at the switch, it is now scattered all over waiting to be used against us.

Which is it, President Liar?

Robbie D.

PS: Give me 1 million men who lie about sexual liasons over one who lies send our children to die in a war. If he lied, it is a high crime. And you know what that means…

Well, having just read the article at The New Republic, called “The Selling of the Iraq War: The First Casualty.” On the front page: http://www.tnr.com

I would have to say your assertion that he did not lie seems extraordinarily weak. Aluminium tubes for cetrifuges to enrich uranium — nope, artillery tubes. Actual uranium purchase from Nigeria — nope, absolutely forged documents. Unmanned UAV planes that could strike the heart of America from Baghdada — nope, can’t even reach Tel Aviv (let alone the question of if they have the capability to carry chem/bio/nuke weaponry).

All of these were asserstion of GWB or staff in very public settings. There seems to be some significant evidence that at the very least GWB’s staff knew these things were outright fabrications to make it look like Iraq had a Nuke program. If that is not lying, what the heck is?

You may be right about it being a issue that hurts Dems, that remains to be seen. But this transends any party’s political advantage. A lawyer that divorces himself from ethicality might be able to champion the cause of “GWB’s cabinet knew, but GWB did not.” Very hollow argument that is, though. “The Pres. didn’t lie, he is simply incompetent.”

Of course, these are issues of the gravest importance. But we may never know the real truth, thank you partisan politics. The GOP controlled Senate and House seems very unwilling to investigate — despite what looks to a lot of outside observers a *very* strong case.

The state of the USA is rather scary right now.

Let me summarize your point for you.

Did Bush lie about the WMD threat?

It depends on what the definition of is is.

Oh, one more thing. We’re not talking about a mere blowjob here. We’re talking about the deaths of thousands of people, the occupation of a country the size of California, and the deaths of brave American soldiers every day in the name of that occupation.

Support the troops. Give them the tools to do the job or bring them home.

Who killed JFK, anyhow?

Fortunately for us, the majority of the American people did not go to law school and have a much more clearcut way of determining a lie. Deliberate, calculated deception to shade the truth was engaged in here. You can call it anything you want. But the average American will recognize it under its simple three-letter name, L-I-E.

Hey folks, if it was good enough to use on Gore, it’s good enough to use on Bush: George W. Bush is a SERIAL EXAGGERATOR. More likely to be heard, and harder for them to parse away.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gore+serial.exaggerator

This is a very interesting page. Not so much the story but the reactions. I would consider myself fairly middle-ground with fiscally conservative notions. I personally have a hard time believing most politicians, from either side and I make my decisions on a case by case basis.

But the comments on this article enlighten me to the bias and inability from “lefites” to accept anything from a Republican president. There’s no doubt that this one is harder to swallow than most for y’all.

First, it has not been that long for folks to be deciding that there are no WMDs. The far left wanted more time for the “inspectors”, we should give at least the same for our own government, and hopefully more.

Secondly, I don’t believe that GW lied to begin with. It would take (IMHO of course) a complete moron to not see Hussein as a threat to the world’s security, which means a direct threat to ours. And one move does not a total policy make. So pre-emption here does not make this the US policy, set in stone. That is a ridiculous claim fostered again by those who just can’t stand Bush, IMO of course. I realize that the debate is based on whether or not Bush lied… that IS important. But nothing leads to the notion that he did lie, unless you believe that he should be able to produce what he claimed was there in a very short amount of time; Unless you want to hold him to a near-impossible task.

Given the paragraph above, one might try and bring up No. Korea or Iran or other places. A reasonable person should be able to bring this down to the same level as child-rearing. For example, there is some debate on whether physical discipline is as good or worse than “reasoning” with children. Having children I’d say that neither is the right answer. I’m one of seven kids and each responds to a different form of discipline. Personally, I never responded to a belt-whipping and my parents figured that out right quick while my oldest brother did respond for certain circumstances. So pre-emption may have worked (and with other good cause prior to invasion) with Iraq, it may not be wise for Iran. Why would you want to lock us into such a policy based on one event?

I guess in the end my message will fall on deaf ears, incapable of dealing with reasonable ideas surrounding our real problems. Instead you will be consumed by your agenda and miss the light directly in front of you.

Any president is responsible for his statements, especially when those statements are made in front of the nation with the intent of convincing us that we should expend our money, the lives of our people and the lives of the ‘enemy’ to accomplish our goals. He lied, not only did his staff know the statements in the speach were false, the CIA knew and his National Security Advisor knew!

Regardless of how you want to spin doctor it - he is responsible for causing the deaths of americans and the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars for a war of his own making based on information that was known to be false by his closest advisors. So I ask the question - Why ? Why did bush go to war in Iraq ?

Saddam may have been a threat but he wasnt the reason for war, establishing control over the middle east in general was the reason for the war not to secure its oil but to secure the rights to build oil pipilines across afghanistan and iraq for companies like Unocal. (http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline-Iraq_040903c.htm). If this isnt true why are the Iraq erbels blowing up the pipeline every other day ? Why do american soldiers guard an Iraqi pipeline around the clock ?

When people ask why to most things - the answer is usually money - thats the story here. 9/11 - ‘war on terror’ and the axis of evil have all been used as smoke screens to obscure the truth about.

Now I dont buy into the paranoid conspiriracy theories about world domination and all that garbage - but I do believe in ‘follow the money’. This is one where huge oil reserves in the caspian basin are owned by friends of Bush and his cabinet, these oil reserves were landlocked - and now amazingly after 2 wars the oil is flowing for friends of the Bsuh administration.

‘Follow The Money’