Originally Posted By JeffG >> "That's why I used the example of you hitting your wife. That's a strong insinuation only designed to hurt someone's reputation." << You aren't making a valid comparison, though. If there was evidence that his wife had suffered injuries consistent with a beating, then such an accusation might be comparable to the allegations that have been made about the president. The point is that it is pretty much an indisputable fact that some of the claims that the president and his administration made during the lead-up to the Iraq invasion turned out to be inaccurate. The open question that some would like to see answered is whether those inaccuracies were due to mistakes or intentional deception. -Jeff
Originally Posted By woody Yes, keep the charges alive. Time for censure and impeachment. Time for a kangeroo court. Most insinuations are based on half truths. Isn't that so? The charge of wife hitting could be based on something, but many times, it could be something rather innocent. So you're wrong to say my example is baseless. The half truth with the LIE is Bush has knowingly deceived. Isn't it enough that the CIA is discredited that now you want to discredit the President for using information from such sources?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << The open question that some would like to see answered is whether those inaccuracies were due to mistakes or intentional deception. >> Well Jeff, when you ask all the democrats and other foreign nations who all said Saddam had WMD's if they were using "intentional deception", let us know.
Originally Posted By JeffG As has been pointed out numerous times, none of them used the information as the basis for an invasion. Even still, I'm fully and completely in favor of investigating all aspects of the errors that were made in the planning of the invasion, including trying to figure out who might have manipulated the information to reach a foregone conclusion. -Jeff
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<As has been pointed out numerous times, none of them used the information as the basis for an invasion>> Sure they did. Why did Kerry and all those democrats vote to take military action against Iraq? Because they didn't like Saddam's mustache? Those democrats voted for the war because of WMD's along with the other reasons the president layed out.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<Those democrats voted for the war because of WMD's along with the other reasons the president layed out>> Which were based on bad intelligence, untruths, lies, or whetever we are calling them now.
Originally Posted By woody >>Which were based on bad intelligence, untruths, lies, or whetever we are calling them now.<< I'm calling for an election in 2006. That'll settle it. Or maybe it didn't. Bush won in 2004 and the charges of lies still remain.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Which were based on bad intelligence, untruths, lies, or whetever we are calling them now.> Not all of them. Not even most of them. As I have pointed out before, there are over 20 reasons given for taking action against Iraq in the Joint Resolution approving military action. Only one was tainted by false intelligence.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<including trying to figure out who might have manipulated the information to reach a foregone conclusion.>> Jeff, it cracks me up that you think someone " manipulated " information. Wouldn't the 9/11 commission have told you this? These new documents that are out are showing daily what a bad guy Saddam was and how linked he was to terrorists all over the world. Do you still wish Saddam was in power?
Originally Posted By bboisvert <,I'm calling for an election in 2006. That'll settle it.>> We can only hope. <<Bush won in 2004 and the charges of lies still remain.>> No kidding! Nothing's really changed since then either, except there has been a few more people indicted and a lot more soldiers and Iraqis have died. Yep, I can't wait the the GOP gains power again. They'll sure fix this mess that we're in. Those Democrats! They can't do nuthin' right! One party government is the key to success.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Nothing's really changed since then either, except there has been a few more people indicted and a lot more soldiers and Iraqis have died.> A ratified Constitution, a democratically elected government, and greater prosperity for the Iraqi people are not "nothing".
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "A ratified Constitution, a democratically elected government, and greater prosperity for the Iraqi people are not "nothing"." How much proof do you have that this is working? Not much at all.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Great! Sounds like our work is done in Iraq -- why are we still there?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Great! Sounds like our work is done in Iraq -- why are we still there?" This is actually the perfect response to platitudes like: "A ratified Constitution, a democratically elected government, and greater prosperity for the Iraqi people are not "nothing"." I'd love to have mrichmondj's question answered. Meanwhile, those who think things are fine can chew on this: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/19/iraq.main/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/ meast/03/19/iraq.main/index.html</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <How much proof do you have that this is working?> None, but there is no proof it's not, either. There is lots of evidence it's working however, if one is willing to look for it. You probably won't find it on CNN, however.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Sounds like our work is done in Iraq -- why are we still there?> We haven't defeated the terrorists yet. But we are winning.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You rather spectacularly missed the fact that this was exactly my POINT in #102. We know Bush has said things that are untrue. We do not know for sure that he lied, because an untruth and a lie are different things. That's exactly what I said in #102, and you missed it completely.>> <I didn't miss it. I was making a point that the insinuation was a pretty serious charge in itself AND YOU MISSED MY POINT.> Woody, woody, woody. I didn't miss that point - in fact, I addressed it specifically in #102. And I pointed out the difference between an insinuation based on nothing (like saying someone beats his wife when there's no evidence that wife was ever beaten by anyone) and saying someone MAY have lied, based on the fact that things he said have turned out to be untrue. JeffG addressed this crucial difference too - as usual, better and more succinctly than I did. <That's why I used the example of you hitting your wife. That's a strong insinuation only designed to hurt someone's reputation.> Asked and answered. If someone said Bill Frist or Harry Reid may have beat his wife, that's just a slimy accusation. If someone said OJ Simpson may have beat his wife, that's BASED on something. <The alleged lie has not been proven and this lie has been around years with no relief. Time to give it a rest.> Part of the problem is that Democrats do not control either house, do not control committees, and do not have subpeona power to get to the bottom of some of this. That may change in November.
Originally Posted By woody "I didn't miss that point - in fact, I addressed it specifically in #102. And I pointed out the difference between an insinuation based on nothing (like saying someone beats his wife when there's no evidence that wife was ever beaten by anyone) and saying someone MAY have lied, based on the fact that things he said have turned out to be untrue. JeffG addressed this crucial difference too - as usual, better and more succinctly than I did." You certainly did not appreciate my response to JeffG in Post 116. The CIA is discredited. Is the President still lying based on bad intelligence? It takes a lot of language gynastics to keep bringing up the Bush lie meme. It's amazing that when two people is of the same mind, there is absolute no criticism between Dabob2 and JeffG's responses.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I didn't miss that point - in fact, I addressed it specifically in #102. And I pointed out the difference between an insinuation based on nothing (like saying someone beats his wife when there's no evidence that wife was ever beaten by anyone) and saying someone MAY have lied, based on the fact that things he said have turned out to be untrue. JeffG addressed this crucial difference too - as usual, better and more succinctly than I did.>> <You certainly did not appreciate my response to JeffG in Post 116.> "Appreciate" as in I didn't respond to it? Your response in post 116 was only semi-coherent and semi-germane. It takes enough time to answer your semi-coherent and semi-germane responses to me; I'm not about to pick up the ones you make to Jeff as well. <The CIA is discredited. Is the President still lying based on bad intelligence?> If you're referring to WMD, that's not the only thing he may have lied about - or intentionally misled us about, which is more likely. <It's amazing that when two people is of the same mind, there is absolute no criticism between Dabob2 and JeffG's responses.> As so often, it's unclear what you mean here. You mean no criticism between JeffG and me? No criticism of others for both of us? And why would either be "amazing?"
Originally Posted By woody Dabob2: You asked me to lookup JeffG's response. If you didn't expect me to respond to JeffG, then why did you ask me to read it? I admit that I don't write the best sentences around here, but you're no better. You can't or won't stay with the argument. That's too bad. It's sad that you won't read JeffG's responses as critically as I do.
