Bush Lied-intelligence and facts fixed to support war in Iraq

[ThAnswr]

ig·no·ra·mus
n. pl. ig·no·ra·mus·es An ignorant person.

ig·no·rant
adj.

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

stu·pid
adj.

1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.

As for your side, they voted to give the authority to Bush.

They believed the WMD claims.

If they were to use the Iraqi oil for funding (as I believe they should), your side would say, even louder & more incorrectly, that this war was about oil.

There was a relationship between Iraq & Al Queada.

And, W. won in Nov. We were right, & you were wrong. Losing is a hard to break habit for the left.


As for the personal attack, calling me a member of the Nazi Youth (bund). I am quite sick of the way you & a certain few others can consistently get away with insults & name calling. You ought to be banned for your repeated personal attacks. You, again, owe me an apology. Sickening.

Oy Gevalt!

 

[Figment]

They done both. Complained that it was "for the oil" and that the administration's claim to use the oil to pay for the war was a crock.

Ah yes, the equivocators....

 

[ThAnswr]

Ah yes, the equivocators....

Oops, namecalling.............and incorrect use of the English language.

An equivocator is one who does not take a definite position, but hedges their bets or according to Merriam-Webster's thesaurus:

"beat around (or about) the bush"

Gee, how apropos.

There is no equivocation, but there was a potful of delusion in the
lead-up to the invasion of Iraq.

 

[Figment]

Oops, namecalling.............and incorrect use of the English language.

An equivocator is one who does not take a definite position, but hedges their bets or according to Merriam-Webster's thesaurus:

"beat around (or about) the bush"

Gee, how apropos.

There is no equivocation, but there was a potful of delusion in the
lead-up to the invasion of Iraq.

I was idenifiying a group of people by the actions they take and the words they use. They are equivocators. Just as if I called someone who jogged a jogger. That is what he does.

As for the proper use of the word, it is entirely appropriate. On one side, the equivocators say the war was only about oil. On the other side, the same people say that we are wrong for not taking the oil...thereby hedging their bets so as to complain nonsensably about Bush no matter what he does, which is their driving force in life (they STILL can't past the fact that he won the election in 2000). If you choose to put yourself in that category, so be it.

 

[toto2]

And, W. won in Nov. We were right, & you were wrong. Losing is a hard to break habit for the left.

W

Winning the election doesn't make one side right and one side wrong

If by vote , we decide that all redhair people should be killed , it doesn't make killing right !

When the polls show that half the population of a country believes that Irak was behind 911 , or that weapons of mass destruction were found , winning the election doesn't make those weapons appear or change past history or facts. Believing doen't make things real. (ever heard of santa clause ?)

And somebody said that because of circumstances , intelligence on Irak was weak. Irak , if we want to believe the current american administration, was the USA sworn ennemy , the worst of the worst of the worst on earth ! Nobody was watching them ? No satellite flying over , no spyes what so ever ? Very doubtfull. I believe ( and when we belive we can be wrong) that Irak was very well spied on , and that is why they had to arrange the fact to go in. To say the contrary is like trying to find excuses . The Usa are the most strong country in the world with the most formidable intelligence service.

 

[Figment]

W

Winning the election doesn't make one side right and one side wrong

If by vote , we decide that all redhair people should be killed , it doesn't make killing right !

When the polls show that half the population of a country believes that Irak was behind 911 , or that weapons of mass destruction were found , winning the election doesn't make those weapons appear or change past history or facts. Believing doen't make things real. (ever heard of santa clause ?)

And somebody said that because of circumstances , intelligence on Irak was weak. Irak , if we want to believe the current american administration, was the USA sworn ennemy , the worst of the worst of the worst on earth ! Nobody was watching them ? No satellite flying over , no spyes what so ever ? Very doubtfull. I believe ( and when we belive we can be wrong) that Irak was very well spied on , and that is why they had to arrange the fact to go in. To say the contrary is like trying to find excuses . The Usa are the most strong country in the world with the most formidable intelligence service.

sounds like "Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy".

 

[Figment]

double post

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Is that a personal attack? And FTR, *you* enlighten me.

You are too sensitive, if you think that was a personal attack! Yes, I have heard that I have that affect on some people.

 

[toto2]

sounds like "Deep Thoughts, By Jack Handy".

Sorry , i don't know if I should laugh , be insulted or something else . I don't know "Deep Thoughts, By Jack Handy" It might be cultural , since I am french canadian

 

[minniepumpernickel]

You might PM me and tell me why.



Never sell anybody short. You never know.



On this, I tend to agree. Although the disturbing thing is that much of the military brass has as this is used at the War College.

On second thought, Bush probably did read "The Art of War".......Rok's version.

Oh, I just don't know a lot of people in RL that read some of the same type of books that I do. I have a friend that works as a prison guard and he said that "The Art of War" has really helped him do his job.

 

[sodaseller]

I was idenifiying a group of people by the actions they take and the words they use. They are equivocators. Just as if I called someone who jogged a jogger. That is what he does.

As for the proper use of the word, it is entirely appropriate. On one side, the equivocators say the war was only about oil. On the other side, the same people say that we are wrong for not taking the oil...thereby hedging their bets so as to complain nonsensably about Bush no matter what he does, which is their driving force in life (they STILL can't past the fact that he won the election in 2000). If you choose to put yourself in that category, so be it.

Straw Man and false dilemma - two logical fallacies

 

[Figment]

Sorry , i don't know if I should laugh , be insulted or something else . I don't know "Deep Thoughts, By Jack Handy" It might be cultural , since I am french canadian

never mind, then. it was a cultural/language thing. It was a skit from Saturday Night Live.

 

[toto2]

Oh and one last thing about people who think that the election sttled the dispute, from Andrew Greeley on Common dreams


"It is also asserted that the election settled the matters of the war and the torture of prisoners...

But the president received only 51 percent of the vote and carried only one more state than the last time (picking up New Mexico and Iowa and losing New Hampshire). This is a validation of the war and of prisoner abuse? This is a mandate to do whatever he wants to do and whatever the leadership of the evangelical denominations want? A percentage point and a single state are a mandate for more war?...

Finally, we are told that the Iraqi election confirms the Bush administration policy in Iraq. The president's supporters must be in deep trouble to reach so far for that one. All the election proves is that the Iraqis want to run their own country. It also raises the possibility that Shia clerics will deliver Iraq into the hands of the Iranians. Some kind of victory!"

Fortunatelly , some people are better with there command of the English language than I am ! The expresse things more clearlly than I would hope to do myself !

 

[Figment]

But the president received only 51 percent of the vote and carried only one more state than the last time (picking up New Mexico and Iowa and losing New Hampshire). This is a validation of the war and of prisoner abuse? This is a mandate to do whatever he wants to do and whatever the leadership of the evangelical denominations want? A percentage point and a single state are a mandate for more war?...

yep, it's called an election.

 

[dcentity2000]

I find it unbelievable that the President was able to go to war without holding a referendum, considering the incredibly narrow margin by which he won. At least Blair had two landslide victories behind him.



Rich::

 

[swilphil]

yep, it's called an election.

Fig-- There is a difference between an election and a mandate. Yes, Bush won the election in 2004, which I suppose for him is a mite better than what happened in 2000.

 

[toto2]

yep, it's called an election.

I understand how elections work. But with that margin , it is a bit difficult to gloat and take it as a pass to do what ever thay want ! And again , it does't make doesn't make the war right if that 51% voted on falses assomptions , or voted on bad information .

 

[dcentity2000]

I understand how elections work. But with that margin , it is a bit difficult to gloat and take it as a pass to do what ever thay want ! And again , it does't make doesn't make the war right if that 51% voted on falses assomptions , or voted on bad information .

To be fair, it is probably better to assume that the 51% voted on acceptable information as voters on both sides are equally susceptible to poor information.



Rich::

 

[ThAnswr]

No evidence has ever been offered against a working relationship, except that Saddam and Osama are different types of people and that Iraq has no ties to 9/11.

How do you prove a negative? The 9/11 commission found nothing beyond the most superficial of contacts. If there's no evidence of a working relationship, then there is no working relationship.

However, here's the best evidence that there was no working relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. No evidence was ever given by the Bush administration. The Bush administration was not going to take it on the chin if they had clear, convincing, and irrefutable evidence of that relationship. To take it a step further, they even distanced themselves from the rhetoric implying there was a relationship. No one will tell me the Bush administration had evidence and chose to keep it quiet.

 

[dcentity2000]

If Blair and Bush said it was so, you can bet your bottom dollar that it wasn't



Rich::