Hypocrisy...

vroom · November 20, 2005, 4:01pm

… never mind the fact the White House has admitted they were mistaken about the WMD’s.

How you guys figure you have a line on the weapons that the White House couldn’t find, and you know how damned much this administration was motivated to find them, is beyond me.

When you figure out where those weapons are you send a fax to the pentagon and to the White House, you will be an instant republican hero, an icon.

Until then… AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

reddog6376 · November 21, 2005, 10:37am

[quote]harris447 wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
harris447 wrote:

Damnit harris, I wish you wouldn’t lie, it certainly doesn’t help the debate.

http://www.kxtv.com/news-special/war/bush-un-address.htm

Well, seeing how three of the five things Bushie mentioned were utter lies (WMDs, POWs, and Saddamm suporting Islamic terrorists), I’m not going to lose any sleep.

So…we went to war because of the Oil-for-Food scandal?

Or–and this is just so cynical,I can’t believe I’m saying it, but–maybe the administration KNEW there were no WMDs, so they just threw in some bullshit about how the United States won’t stand for genocide. Which, as wehave shown time and again, we will.

Let recap Bush’s speach for you, as you obviously didn’t read it.

Reason 1) Iraq had not lived up to the treaty it signed at the end of Gulf War I: True.

Reason 2) Iraq ignored UN demands for ceasing the represion of the Iraqi peoplle: True.

Reason 3) Iraq’s numerious human rights violations: True.

Reason 4) Iraq had failed to release Kuwaiti POW’s: True.

Reason 5) Iraq was giving aid to terrorist organizations: True.

Reason 6) Iraq had failed to prove to the world (as per the cease fire) that it had given up it’s pursuit of WMD’s: True.

Resaon 7) Iraq had biological weapons: False (although debatable).

Reason 8) Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapons program: Debatable

Reason 9) Iraq had long range SCUD missles: True.

Reason 10) Iraq was subverting the oil-for food program: True.

Reason 11) Iraq was not cooperating with UN Weapons inspectors: True.

So, he mentioned 11 not 5, 2 of which are debatable. As all of this information has been available for 3 years, I’ll ask you outright. Do you just ignore the facts, or are you a liar?

So, are you really saying that we went to war because of iraq’ human rights violations?

Now, you’re lying.
[/quote]

How is that a lie? It was one of the multiple reasons our Commander & Chief gave for going to war (note the date on the speach), I quote it, & you claim it’s a lie. On the other hand, you claims, [quote]“You’re half right. WMD’s were the sole reason given BEFORE the war. Since this fiasco started and no weapons were found, there’s been a shitload of reasons.” [/quote] which I have clearly shown is a lie. Only you don’t have the balls to admit publicly that you are a liar. Give it up harris, you nothing but a pathetic partisan hack.

rainjack · November 21, 2005, 11:00am

[quote]vroom wrote:
Wow, cheapshots from Rainjack, I am suprised… perhaps you missed my reference to the following?

– From the MSNBC Article

What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow?s occupation.

When is the last time you posted source information instead of your opinion on how crappy other’s source information is? Hmm?[/quote]

November 16th was the last time I posted a link.

But I quoted your own words on the 19th I believe.

So what’s your point?

harris447 · November 21, 2005, 11:12am

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
harris447 wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
harris447 wrote:

Damnit harris, I wish you wouldn’t lie, it certainly doesn’t help the debate.

http://www.kxtv.com/news-special/war/bush-un-address.htm

Well, seeing how three of the five things Bushie mentioned were utter lies (WMDs, POWs, and Saddamm suporting Islamic terrorists), I’m not going to lose any sleep.

So…we went to war because of the Oil-for-Food scandal?

Or–and this is just so cynical,I can’t believe I’m saying it, but–maybe the administration KNEW there were no WMDs, so they just threw in some bullshit about how the United States won’t stand for genocide. Which, as wehave shown time and again, we will.

Let recap Bush’s speach for you, as you obviously didn’t read it.

Reason 1) Iraq had not lived up to the treaty it signed at the end of Gulf War I: True.

Reason 2) Iraq ignored UN demands for ceasing the represion of the Iraqi peoplle: True.

Reason 3) Iraq’s numerious human rights violations: True.

Reason 4) Iraq had failed to release Kuwaiti POW’s: True.

Reason 5) Iraq was giving aid to terrorist organizations: True.

Reason 6) Iraq had failed to prove to the world (as per the cease fire) that it had given up it’s pursuit of WMD’s: True.

Resaon 7) Iraq had biological weapons: False (although debatable).

Reason 8) Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapons program: Debatable

Reason 9) Iraq had long range SCUD missles: True.

Reason 10) Iraq was subverting the oil-for food program: True.

Reason 11) Iraq was not cooperating with UN Weapons inspectors: True.

So, he mentioned 11 not 5, 2 of which are debatable. As all of this information has been available for 3 years, I’ll ask you outright. Do you just ignore the facts, or are you a liar?

So, are you really saying that we went to war because of iraq’ human rights violations?

Now, you’re lying.

How is that a lie? It was one of the multiple reasons our Commander & Chief gave for going to war (note the date on the speach), I quote it, & you claim it’s a lie. On the other hand, you claims, “You’re half right. WMD’s were the sole reason given BEFORE the war. Since this fiasco started and no weapons were found, there’s been a shitload of reasons.” which I have clearly shown is a lie. Only you don’t have the balls to admit publicly that you are a liar. Give it up harris, you nothing but a pathetic partisan hack.

[/quote]

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous. - Jospeh Goebbels, 12 January 1941, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel
Retrieved from " Big lie - Wikipedia "

I take it all back: Bush isn’t stupid; he’s read his history

reddog6376 · November 21, 2005, 11:36am

[quote]harris447 wrote:

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous. - Jospeh Goebbels, 12 January 1941, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel
Retrieved from " Big lie - Wikipedia "

I take it all back: Bush isn’t stupid; he’s read his history

[/quote]

And the best you can do is change the subject? “maybe if I draw a connection between Bush & Hitler, everyone will disregard the fact that I lied”.

bigflamer · November 21, 2005, 12:22pm

[quote]harris447 wrote:
His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy;[/quote]

Our enemy is terrorism, are you suggesting that there are good terrorists? WTF?

[quote]
never leave room for alternatives;[/quote]

Alternatives such as maybe the WMD’s were brought to Syria?

That maybe UBL was never funded or trained by the US?

[quote]
never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous. - Jospeh Goebbels, 12 January 1941, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel
Retrieved from " Big lie - Wikipedia "

I take it all back: Bush isn’t stupid; he’s read his history[/quote]

I posted this in one of the other threads, perhaps you missed it. It related well to the very big lie that you’re speking of. I’ll repost it for your benefit.

November 21, 2005
The (Very) Big Lie
By Michael Barone

It is said that a big lie can work if it is repeated often enough. For weeks, leading Democrats have been hammering away at the Big Lie that George W. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
Starting on Veterans Day, Bush, Dick Cheney and others in the administration embarked on a “pushback,” arguing that Bush – and many leading Democrats, including some now part of the Big Lie campaign – accurately characterized the intelligence at the time.

Bush, Cheney and the administration have the truth on their side. Exhaustive and authoritative examinations of the prewar intelligence, by the bipartisan report of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004, by the Silberman-Robb Commission in 2005 and by the British commission headed by Lord Butler, have established that U.S. intelligence agencies, and the intelligence organizations of leading countries like Britain, France and Germany, believed that Saddam Hussein’s regime was in possession of or developing weapons of mass destruction – chemical and biological weapons, which the regime had used before, and nuclear weapons, which it was working on in the 1980s.

[b]To the charges that Bush “cherry-picked” intelligence, the commission co-chaired by former Democratic Sen. Charles Robb found that the intelligence available to Bush but not to Congress was even more alarming than the intelligence Congress had.

The Silberman-Robb panel also concluded, after a detailed investigation, that in no instance did Bush administration authorities pressure intelligence officials to alter their findings.[/b]

Much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. But Bush didn’t lie about it. Some Bush supporters argue that the pushback now is a mistake, because it prevents the administration from focusing on events going forward. But the damage to Bush’s credibility is real, and he needs to repair it to speak credibly about the future.

At the same time, we must remember that the United States and our allies did not go to war solely because of weapons of mass destruction. There were other reasons, which Bush articulated at the time and which have been vindicated by events.

One of them was to remove from power one of the most brutal regimes on Earth. Mainstream media have enjoyed focusing on isolated prison abuses by U.S. forces and, in the past week, by Iraqis. (Have the media ever focused so closely on prison conditions in our past wars?) But these abuses are nothing compared with what the Saddam Hussein regime did every day. Rape rooms, prisoners fed into shredders, hundreds of mass graves: Do we really want to forget that the liberation of Iraq has vastly improved the lives of millions of people there?

Another goal was to advance freedom and democracy in the Middle East. Not just to help the people there, but to change the mindset of the region that produced the attacks of Sept. 11. Before 2003, the dictators and authoritarian rulers of the region focused their peoples’ inevitable discontents on the United States and Israel.

Now, the progress toward democracy in Iraq is leading Middle Easterners to concentrate on the question of how to build decent governments and decent societies. We can see the results – the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the first seriously contested elections in Egypt, Libya’s giving up WMDs, the Jordanian protests against Abu Musab Zarqawi’s recent suicide attacks and even a bit of reform in Saudi Arabia. In Syria, The Washington Post’s David Ignatius reports, “people talk politics here with a passion I haven’t heard since the 1980s in Eastern Europe. They’re writing manifestos, dreaming of new political parties, trying to rehabilitate old ones from the 1950s.”

Almost surely none of this would have happened without the liberation of Iraq. And there democracy goes forward: Seventy-eight percent voted for the Constitution last month, and democratic parties are contesting the elections to be held next month.

Against this backdrop, mainstream media headlined the call for withdrawal of Democratic Rep. John Murtha, who has long been skeptical about the war. The propagators of the big lie against President Bush are trying to delegitimize not only him, but also all the progress that has been made as a result of Iraq, progress both toward freedom for Middle Easterners and toward a Middle East that will no longer threaten the United States.

vroom · November 21, 2005, 12:48pm

Terrorism is a concept. Concepts, like words, are not your actual enemy.

Your enemy is flesh and blood terrorists who have been infected with a concept and have the will and desire to do something aobut it.

However, whether you believe it or not, those terrorists are still human. They in fact have human qualities. Perhaps they exhibit loyalty, determination, competence or trust, within their own system of social contacts.

Dehumanizing the enemy into some mythical monster, which is the same thing they do to us by the way, is not a way to allow for reasoned discourse. Of course, those “good” things are in fact bad things when used to improve the ability of the enemy to strike at us.

Anyway, this dehumanization is the road to fanaticism. Congratulations, you are yourself heading down the road to fanaticism, the very concept that has lead to the current war.

However, of course, your fanaticism is in a different direction, so your fanaticism is excusable. However, consider the motivation that our fanaticism can provide the enemy, given that their fanaticism provides motivation to us.

Anyway, this fanaticism is similar to the stance of the White House on torture, near torture, secret torture, whatever the hell you are willing to admit is happening.

Because we, the good guys, are using deplorable means, it doesn’t make us deplorable. However, when the bad guys do bad things, it does in fact make them deplorable, hated and it justifies more extreme measures to combat it.

Deplorable is deplorable whether or not the actions are in your own interest.

And no, while war is hell, the fact that you have to fight and defend yourself or your ideals is not in itself bad. Of course fighting terrorism and terrorists is a good thing. You can however fight and win without having to resort to deplorable activities.

It isn’t just the fact that people ask questions that puts doubt in soldiers minds, it is because the actions that are being taking raise questions, they do in fact raise questions in the soldiers own minds, whether or not we raise them back home.

Of course, it isn’t all soldiers, but many, perhaps like Tillman, may question their actions, but still understand their duty and committment. Questions are not the problem. Questionable actions are the problem.

If you don’t want dissent, stop doing things that cause honorable patriotic people of good conscience to feel bad about what is being doing in their name…

This is where everything comes from, at the heart of it.

It appears to some that fear was used to drive through a push to war (I’ll avoid using conclusive language). Some people that think this, who may be very loyal, patriotic and honorable, have a problem with this type of behavior.

It appears possible that the Bush administration tried to squelch dissent by outing Valerie Plame (again, I’m avoiding conclusive language). Some people that think this, while they may be very loyal, patriotic and honorable, would find this a questionable action.

It seems very likely that the Patriot Act will allow for future abuses, either during or after the war on terror is over, which endangers important civil rights in a significant way. Some people that think this and judge it important are in fact loyal, patriotic and honorable people who find such steps to be questionable.

It seems that the Bush administration wants to allow torture of detainees either through export outside of US jurisdiction or through the creation of secret detention centers in offshore areas. Again, some people that think this may be happening are loyal, patriotic and honorable and they find such actions questionable.

It isn’t the act of questioning that is the problem. It is the fact that it appears that actions are being taken which cross important boundaries. The actions themselves are questionable, that is the problem.

If the Bush administration was not operating in a questionable manner in so many regards, then his approval rating, the approval rating of his administration and the approval rating of republicans in general would not be in the toilet.

Questions are asked of questionable things. It will never stop. Want to quell dissent? Stop acting questionably and start acting more honorably.

rainjack · November 21, 2005, 1:23pm

[quote]vroom wrote:
Our enemy is terrorism, are you suggesting that there are good terrorists? WTF?