Lying to the US

[Intuit]

Tried to post yesterday but apparently it never made it to the forum...


Congrats to Arrow for a well defended stance & positions.  Hard-work'n man there.

I personally will not make a decision to risk my life without enough of the facts and enough of the truth.  During the time in which Bush made his sales-pitch, his reasons for going to war changed with the wind.  He consistently tested one angle after the next, looking for the appropriate reaction each time.  When one angle proved insufficient, weeks later, out came another.  Finally, he came to rest on the "terrorist" & fear bid.  Still, he didn't get quite the amount of support that he wanted, but the response regarding this angle was better than past.    

The changing of reasons alone harbors distrust.  Given the circumstances surrounding the other excuses for going to war in Iraq, it just didn't make since to say that Iraq was anymore of an "imminent" threat than any of the other "Axis of Evil" countries.  (yet another "term" that harbors distrust because of it's attempt to appeal to an emotional base) Over the years we kept a pretty tight leash on the Iraqis... blockades (aka sanctions), spying, infiltration, forced inspections, etcetera.  It's not just we who didn't buy it, but virtually every other country.  As time went on, we independantly visited and bartered and sold for each and every little country's support.  The Bush Admin eventually garnered support from the British Government however the people were/are still very strongly against the decision.  These countries supposedly "support" our actions, yet won't committ any resources and we repeatedly tell them to NO and alienate them from any ongoing processes.  We don't want them involved... perhaps they agreed to simply remain neutral.

If I don't think that the reasons provided are worth my life, I certainly don't expect that they're worth anyone else's.  I do consider a half-truth (also referred to as propaganda) to be an overall misrepresentation of the facts.  Does this mean that I or any other citizen should not receive or expect half-truths from our governments ??... certainly not.  An unfortunate part of the truth is that Bush Admin cannot inform we citizens of the entire truth due to the fact that foreigners will enevitably hear the same thing.    However, the reasoning behind asking me to give my life better be pretty damned rock-solid.  My life is valuable, as are others.  

Mr. Bush certainly has far more information at hand than any of us will likely ever have.  I personally never thought him to be an unworthy decision-maker.  I do believe that he underestimates the intelligence and abilities of those who surround us.  (Ironically as those around him do, his intelligence.)  

I feel as though Bush Admin believes that I am an idiot.  I feel as though I have been disrespected.  (Or maybe just the entire international audience...) That his administration can say one thing and that, that is the reason for the decision... that is it.  If I am to agree with a decision, then I must be informed.  I must trust that the source doesn't have an alternate agenda.  If the individual(s) have confidence in their own decisions, then there should be no reason for misleading half-truths and non-truths.  But again, an unfortunate part of the truth is that Bush Admin cannot inform we citizens of the entire truth due to the fact that foreigners will enevitably hear the same thing.

I think we share the greater part of the responsibility and blame for Bush's decisions.  Yes, we want a country that remains dominant, profitable and yet relatively invulnerable to resource shortages.  No, we don't want to take the necessary actions for maintaining this status.  No, we don't want to drill in one of the most unique Antarctic wild-life refuges.  No, we do not wish to secure and procure further resources that would shure-up our status.  Yet when we "fall from grace", who is the first to get the finger pointed at them.  When 9/11 happened and we lined up for miles to drain our fuel stations, who did we point our fingers at.... was it ourselves, the terrorists, Bush Admin's security who already knew this was to take place (how rediculous ), or the fuel station managers who jacked-up the prices in response to the extreme demand.  Bush Admin has our best interests, as he sees them, at heart... of that I/we are sure of.  As for whether the decisions made thus far have been for the best ?  This is certainly subjective to say the least.

All in all, my issue is a general lack of trust and a knowledge of having been disrespected as a thinking & voting citizen.  I do not feel as though I am adjoined with this administration's decisions.  

Just my opinions....



Also, the head of the Bush Admin refuses to take any responsibility in the entire matter, yet quickly attaches himself to any and every small success.  We expect failures, we can handle them.  The public is realistic and knows that every little sub-plot won't be successful.  During public addresses, he appeals as though he wants understand & sympathy/compassion, yet won't admit to any of his own faults or failures.  There are still a lot of plans that are active and whether pass/fail we won't yet know for another x amount of years.  I suspect that Bush Admin has actually had a decent success rate for their underlying goals, whatever they may be... and ironically, that may not, be the case for some of the more visible goals.  Whether any of the goals, are to be successful or not won't matter when the people know that the trust is suspect.
 

[Mefistofeles]

There's an expression in Iraq that even the SHIA use; they always refer to the "good old days" under Saddam ;the country is in complete and utter chaos, the police chief in Mosul was assasinated and the terroists have left hundreds dead during the Shia holy festival.

Iraq tetters precariously on the brink of extreme violence and civil war.   Like I've always said Saddam might have been an evil and despicable guy but at least he kept a lid on things.  Now Iraq has become our problem.

To add insult to injury both the Shia and Sunni are blaming us.   This is a mess.



America Blamed for Bombing

[Arrow]

Quote
Arrow if you really beleive that Im sure you beleive we should go in and free tibet, we should stop the warring in Africa, we should limit the opression in N Korea, stop, go into Saudi Arabia and stop the support of terrosism. The bottom line is "soldiers dead and money spent". Its sad we have to look at it this way, but to say otherwise is wrong.

Yes, I do believe that we should solve those problems, using the necessary political, economic and military tools. In the case of NK, I think we should clean house, but that's another subject. I know it costs lives and money to do those things, and that we have limited resources to do them, but I think that just worrying about ourselves, like we did in the 20s and 30s, will only lead to more problems.

Quote
Bush tries to play that card like you did, yet his ideals only go where its convienent. He doesnt have the balls to follow his ideals through, or maybe they arent really his ideals.

Perhaps, but by the same token, though, Bush has been willing to deploy troops to other hot spots, such as Liberia and Haiti (although I think he drug his feet too much). Of the "Axis of Evil", Saddam is the one that required the least military resources to overthrow; Iran or NK would probably have been too much of a strain at current troop levels. The proof of Bush's intent will be happens to Iran or NK if he re-elected.

[fall-apart]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mefistofeles
 Like I've always said Saddam might have been an evil and despicable guy but at least he kept a lid on things.

Gimme a break - that's like saying, "Sure, Hitler had his faults, but he sure kept a tight rein on those Jews."

[a000]

Great post intuit.  Most polls show the distrust of Bush admin keeps going up.  I think thats a very scary thing.  Its what we have fought so many wars against in other countries.  

Arrow-  Glad you think we should go other places, least its consistent.  I honestly beleive that Bush made a deal with Powel so that Colon would support the war if they also went to liberia.  Its to ironic that Powell changed his mind about Iraq the week that Bush went to Liberia.  But you say that Iraq was the easiest to take out, and I agree.  But it was also at least the 3rd or 4th biggest threat to the US.  Against you say he has balls, but none of that shows it.  It was the easy way out, its what hes planned to do all along, and as Intuit said his reasons just kept changing to get support, when he didnt need a reason at all.

Mef-  II have to disagree, anything will be better than Sadam as long as we monitor it.  There is always the concern of cutting off a snakes head and 4 grow back.  Which is why its important that whoever is president to have a definate plan of how to handle it.  Or give it to the UN and let the world decide how to handle it.

[Arrow]

Quote
But you say that Iraq was the easiest to take out, and I agree. But it was also at least the 3rd or 4th biggest threat to the US. Against you say he has balls, but none of that shows it. It was the easy way out, its what hes planned to do all along, and as Intuit said his reasons just kept changing to get support, when he didnt need a reason at all.

It's hardly the easy way out. Bush Sr. and Clinton took the easy way out: stir revolt and fire in a few cruise missiles, but do nothing else. Clinton had plans to go back into Iraq, using ground troops and the Kurds, to take out Saddam. But instead of following through, he chickened out. Bush Sr. had Saddam on the ropes, but he too dropped the ball (and that really burns me). Both froze out of fears of political backlash, especially those from occupation operations. Bush Jr.'s actions are very risky, politically, and may very well cost him the election. And while Iraq was an easier target, both from political and military concerns, it has arguably put pressure on Lybia, Iran, North Korea and Pakistian; granted, it leaves the root problems in each country in place, but at least it helps to limit those problems.

Easier? Yes. Easy? Far from. Risky? Extremely.

Quote
Mef- II have to disagree, anything will be better than Sadam as long as we monitor it. There is always the concern of cutting off a snakes head and 4 grow back. Which is why its important that whoever is president to have a definate plan of how to handle it.

Now I whole heartly agree with you here.

Quote
Or give it to the UN and let the world decide how to handle it.

Uh huh...  

[Intuit]

Quote
Originally posted by: Arrow
It's hardly the easy way out. Bush Sr. and Clinton took the easy way out:.................

The old way was Vietnam... just to rush in there full-force and attempt and expect to annihilate "our" enemies.

The new way is to throw up blockades, yet call them sanctions... cut off resources and supplies.  Make it a political fau-pauw (somebody remind me how to spell that) to deal with them.  Slowly weaken them into a decrepit state... then rush in and crush a weakened enemy... the citizenry turned militia ?  They're too busy worried about their next meal.

Despite it's appearances at times, the US has learned a lot over the years.

[Intuit]

Quote
Originally posted by: a000
............I honestly beleive that Bush made a deal with Powel so that Colon would support the war .............

Thanks.  Ya know, it's funny you state that because a long time ago when this thing with Bush and Iraq first started to jump-off, I heard a brief news blip on the radio about Mr. Powell resigning.  They didn't give any details on anything and that was the last I ever heard of it.  I sensed his concern and had a pretty good idea as to why he would do such a thing... but either it was just a bad report, a premature leak or almost-fact... who knows.  I guess he figured he could do more if he stuck with it... but if it's true then they somehow convinced him to stay.

[a000]

Intuit-  Powell isnt going to be with Bush a second term he said awhile back.  News media either didnt care, or didnt notice it too much.  He may have changed his mind since I heard that.  But he did say it.  I met Colon once, seems like a pretty genuine guy.  So when he was against going into Iraq I listened to what he had to say, then he was squelched by the admin and thats when the resigning talks were mentioned.   Then Bush sent troops to Liberia and that same week Colon came out in support of Iraq.  I dont think this compramise was totally wrong, I just think it should be mentioned cause I like the politics of it.  

Arrow-  I will assume you misread what I wrote, even though you quoted it.  I wont assume you are changing what I said so you can respond to it easier.   I said Sadam was the easier way out, nowhere did I say it would be easy.   Now I will say its easy in comparision to Iran or N Korea.  But thats the definition of easier.   I also dont understand why people compare Bush to Clinton.  Does that matter now?  Lets compare Bush to the effects of Bush, as I thought we should compare Clinton to the effects of Clinton.  I never compared Clinton to Bush Sr when he was in office.

[Arrow]

Quote
Originally posted by: a000
Arrow-  I will assume you misread what I wrote, even though you quoted it.  I wont assume you are changing what I said so you can respond to it easier.   I said Sadam was the easier way out, nowhere did I say it would be easy.   Now I will say its easy in comparision to Iran or N Korea.  But thats the definition of easier.   I also dont understand why people compare Bush to Clinton.  Does that matter now?  Lets compare Bush to the effects of Bush, as I thought we should compare Clinton to the effects of Clinton.  I never compared Clinton to Bush Sr when he was in office.

Ok, I guess the line got me was:

Quote
It was the easy way out, its what hes planned to do all along

I saw a different context for "easy" than you just explained. I see now that you meant "easy" as in Bush had attack one of the axis of evil, while I took "easy" as being the least risky, politically and militarilly. Sorry for the confusion.

As for why I compare presidents (and there effects): I think its an useful exercise to show the strength or weakness of one president relative to another, on any given issue. Its useful for evaluating the current president's actions and for flagging the mistakes of past presidents that should be corrected, not repeated.

[a000]

Arrow I see how it could be used for evaluating but it never is.  Not even you have used it here.  Its only used on one side of the evaluation.  People love to use it as a scape goat.  They always say, well so and so did this so that makes Bush's mistake ok somehow.  Sure all presidents make mistakes, but I think they should be held to a higher standard not just the standard of the predecesor.  I think our presidential nominees are getting less and less perfect, we are no longer chooses the smartest and most qualified to roun our country.  I still havent figured out why a governor always gets nominated, its just cause not enough people know his flaws yet.

[Arrow]

Quote
Originally posted by: a000
Arrow I see how it could be used for evaluating but it never is.  Not even you have used it here.  Its only used on one side of the evaluation.  People love to use it as a scape goat.  They always say, well so and so did this so that makes Bush's mistake ok somehow.  

Actually I feel I've used to show what I think is better about Bush's policies than the previous adminstrations (although not in PC terms). I readily admit I'm one side, mainly because of my own views on foreign policy. Now on debates of over domestic policy, you'd probably find me a bit more balanced.

Quote
Sure all presidents make mistakes, but I think they should be held to a higher standard not just the standard of the predecesor.  I think our presidential nominees are getting less and less perfect, we are no longer chooses the smartest and most qualified to roun our country.  I still havent figured out why a governor always gets nominated, its just cause not enough people know his flaws yet.

When was the last time we chose the smartest and most qualified to lead the country? We've been electing muck rakers, mud slingers and outright stupidity since the early 1800s. With some exceptions, the person that kisses the most ass and slings the most dirt wins, and I'd expect nothing less this election.

[fall-apart]

Speaking of which, I think Kerry is going to get spanked in the fall - have you seen Slate's list of things Kerry's flopped on?  If Bush touches on even 1/2 of these, Kerry's going to be toast...

[Intuit]

Oh... like the inturn thing they tried recently...

If it turns into simple mud-slinging their both going to lose... and in that case, Kerry may end-up winning by default.

[Mefistofeles]

I despise the Bush Administration and feel that's disasterous budgetary and foreign policy are rapidly accelerating the American Empire's decay.  Unfortunately I think Kerry's desire to spend even more money than Bush makes this election a toss up between bad and worse.   By comparison to the "choice" that we have Bush doesn't seem too bad.


 

[a000]

I havent seen anything where Kerry plans to spend more than Bush.  Bush has spent more than any president in history,  plus he thinks we have extra money to give it away.  No president has ever used our line of credit the way Bush is.   Their only difference is between discretionary spending and non discretionary.   Total spending Bush has been higher than almost anyone else that woudlve been elected on either side of the aisle

[Rocky]

I guess a000 was right all along.  Made some of you guys in this thread look like pretty big fools, following the biggest fool of all, being Bush that is.



WASHINGTON (Jan. 12) - The search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has quietly concluded without any evidence of the banned weapons that President Bush cited as justification for going to war, the White House said Wednesday.

The Iraq Survey Group, made up of some 1,200 military and intelligence specialists and support staff, spent nearly two years searching military installations, factories and laboratories whose equipment and products might be converted quickly to making weapons.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said there no longer is an active search for weapons. ''There may be a couple, a few people, that are focused on that'' but that it has largely concluded, he said.

''If they have any reports of (weapons of mass destruction) obviously they'll continue to follow up on those reports,'' McClellan said. ''A lot of their mission is focused elsewhere now.''

Chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles Duelfer is to deliver his final report on the search next month. ''It's not going to fundamentally alter the findings of his earlier report,'' McClellan said, referring to preliminary findings from last September. Duelfer reported then that Saddam Hussein not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but that he had no capability of making any either. Bush unapologetically defended his decision to invade Iraq.

Bush has appointed a panel to investigate why the intelligence about Iraq's weapons was wrong.

[Zut50]

You're a brave man, Rocky

[Intuit]

quote:
Originally posted by: Rocky
.............Bush has appointed a panel to investigate why the intelligence about Iraq's weapons was wrong.

That's like having members of the mafia appointing a panel to investigate itself.  Perhaps we should start letting our nation's prisoners convict eachother in court.   Naturally, everybody but the ring-leader is going to be held responsible.

[Wunderbolt]

Oops. Better luck next time.

[fall-apart]

quote:
Originally posted by: Intuit

quote:
Originally posted by: Rocky
.............Bush has appointed a panel to investigate why the intelligence about Iraq's weapons was wrong.

That's like having members of the mafia appointing a panel to investigate itself.  Perhaps we should start letting our nation's prisoners convict eachother in court.   Naturally, everybody but the ring-leader is going to be held responsible.

Yeah, okay - what do you suggest they do, oh wise one?

[Rocky]

Independent council?  Like Clinton did to investigate himself

[ScutMonkey]

Oh Boy!  Another huge waste of taxpayer dollars!  Sign me up!

We already had a thorough vetting of the whole thing by the 9/11 council which was bipartisan and independent of the White House.  While it did overstep it's bounds (ala Ken Star), it still found nothing wrong with the Bush Admin's handling of the situation.  The CIA's being restructured, the Chief that gave the White House the faulty intel has step down, and now we have a new Homeland Security advisor as well.  

I'm sure it will happen and I'm sure we'll get a huge bill for it and I'm sure it will all be pointless.

[Rocky]

Its nice to know you finally say that Ken Starr was a waste of money.  I also think that it didnt work last time, why would it work this time.

" it still found nothing wrong with the Bush Admin's handling of the situation."

 Are you kidding me?  It said the Bush administraion did lots of things wrong hence "The CIA's being restructured, the Chief that gave the White House the faulty intel has step down, and now we have a new Homeland Security advisor as well."

Do you think all that happened because the Bush Administration did everything right?

[Intuit]

Fall-Apart, you crack me up sometimes.  
When someone is accused of a crime, they are tried "by a jury of their peers".
The Defendants have no part in picking the jury... though their legal counsel might.  (inform me if I'm wrong on that)  I just don't see why it should be any different for those within our governments.  (including law-enforcement which are famous for vendicating rogue police with "internal investigations")




The investigators made it a point to say that '...the investigation is not about pointing figures, but about preventing such a distaster from happening again....'   WTH!  The investigation wasn't even about LIES and BUSH and IRAQ.  They investigate the CIA, FBI etcetera, but never even bothered to try and explain why Bush Junior told them not to come-back again without a report that points toward Iraq.  A criminal investigator should always take into account, all potential motives.  Motives were not even considered so this was not a vendicating investigation.  This was yet another mis-direction.  But this is not to say that it wasn't valuable... it was just a mistake to try and put this forth as an investigation of Bush Junior when it is called the 9/11 Report.  (not Bush/Iraq report)

Does anyone find it interesting that no one centers on the many people who have resigned stating that the "reasonings" behind this war was a farse and/or mistake ?   No one bothered to ask these people... "How did they know ?" and "Why did you resign ?".  No one bothered to hire them as apart of the investigation ?  Does anyone find it interesting that Bush Junior never agreed to be questioned in public? Does anyone find it interesting that Rumsfeld (alledgedly) started the case to attack Iraq just 3 hours after 9/11 ?

Scruples... they never even bothered to ask me how did I know either...

Where is the "liberal" press in this ?  Anybody who publicly critiques Bush gets fired.  If you even so much as try to honor a fallen soldier they raise a big stink about it.  The "embedded reporters" that were abundant during the beginning of the war are all but extinct.  Imagine if they had actually discovered the massive stockpiles of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in Iraq ?  Would King Bush Junior have ever told the media to shut-up then ?

Then defendants of this clown try to make the excuse that 'Saddom sent them to Iran' but Saddom couldn't even get him frigg'n self out of the country.  They had TEN YEARS to blockade, infiltrate and spy, Satellite-map and BOMB Iraq.  Our very competent and superior military even had time to turn Iraq into  a 66.6666% "no-fly zone".   But somehow Bush wants to tell us that they weren't competent enough to have known their enemy !?  That they really had no idea that Iraq was devoid of defense ?  That the mear fact that their army turned tail and ran wasn't a clue ?  I respect our armed forces enough to have known better then... and now.