Bush sets record-longest vacation in recent history

[BuckNaked]

But you said she was right and he was wrong. Just what did you mean by that?

My box is clean - are you going to PM me or not? I'm waiting...

 

[ThAnswr]

I agree, but that does go both ways, no? Too often, I see people on both sides pointing at the other side saying "You're drinking the Kool-Aid", "You're following the party line", "You're brainwashed", etc.

Of course it goes both ways. And the colorful phrases are often used just to spice things up.

We've got some serious divisions in this country. We're at war and support for that war is down to 34%. The American people have lost faith in the reasons for this war and in Bush's competence to fight this war. We're in deep trouble.

I've seen this before during Viet Nam. No one could quite define what the mission was and no one could define what victory was.

And it's happening all over again.

 

[sodaseller]

Bush lied, knowingly fragrantly and repeatedly. No honest person can deny that.

 

[ThAnswr]

But you said she was right and he was wrong. Just what did you mean by that?

She did not believe in the reasons for the war and she was right. None of the reasons peddled by the Bush administration have panned out.

Btw, I'm still not sure she said she is speaking for her son. If you've got the info, please share it.

 

[BuckNaked]

Bush lied, knowingly fragrantly and repeatedly. No honest person can deny that.

Your honor, exhibit #1 of what I was talking about.

 

[bsnyder]

Your honor, exhibit #1 of what I was talking about.

 

[ThAnswr]

Bush lied, knowingly fragrantly and repeatedly. No honest person can deny that.

Fragrantly is the word. There's an old Italian saying: when a fish starts to rot, it stinks at the head first. Bush's war is a rotting fish.

Honestly, I don't believe Bush made it all up. I think he massaged the intelligence to make it more than it was and he certainly laid out the case for war hoping the American people would come to certain conclusions. Which they did and Bush never corrected those conclusions even though he knew them to be false, eg. Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

Suffice to say, Bush did not tell the whole truth, and a lie of ommission is still a lie.

 

[ThAnswr]

Your honor, exhibit #1 of what I was talking about.

Truly, this is not that difficult. You have to ask yourself certain questions.

1) Do you believe Bush told the complete and honest truth about the war and the case for war?

2) Do you believe Bush knew the American people believed certain things about Saddam Hussein, 9/11, and links to Al-Qaeda that he knew to be false?

If you cannot say yes to the #1 and no to #2, then you have to come to the conclusion Bush lied.

Failures to disclose the whole truth and failures to correct a misperception because it suits your purpose are lies of ommission. And a lie of ommission is still a lie.

 

[bsnyder]

I thought the word was flagrantly.

 

[bsnyder]

Truly, this is not that difficult. You have to ask yourself certain questions.

1) Do you believe Bush told the complete and honest truth about the war and the case for war?

2) Do you believe Bush knew the American people believed certain things about Saddam Hussein, 9/11, and links to Al-Qaeda that he knew to be false?

If you cannot say yes to the #1 and no to #2, then you have to come to the conclusion Bush lied.

Failures to disclose the whole truth and failures to correct a misperception because it suits your purpose are lies of ommission. And a lie of ommission is still a lie.

Yes, I believe he told the truth.

And as for #2, you do realize that there are HONEST people who think there ARE links to Al-Qaeda and Saddam, don't you? People in the government, people in the intelligence community, and people in the governments and intelligence communities of other countries. And ordinary joe shmoes.

 

[BuckNaked]

Truly, this is not that difficult. You have to ask yourself certain questions.

1) Do you believe Bush told the complete and honest truth about the war and the case for war?

2) Do you believe Bush knew the American people believed certain things about Saddam Hussein, 9/11, and links to Al-Qaeda that he knew to be false?

If you cannot say yes to the #1 and no to #2, then you have to come to the conclusion Bush lied.

Failures to disclose the whole truth and failures to correct a misperception because it suits your purpose are lies of ommission. And a lie of ommission is still a lie.

#1 Yes, I believe he told the complete and honest truth based on the intelligence information he had at the time.
#2 No, I don't believe that he knew that the American people thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, and I believe that he did believe (again, based on the intelligence information) that there were links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

So there you have it - an honest person that absolutely doesn't believe that President Bush lied, either flagrantly or fragrantly.

 

[sodaseller]

Fragrantly is the word. There's an old Italian saying: when a fish starts to rot, it stinks at the head first. Bush's war is a rotting fish.

Honestly, I don't believe Bush made it all up. I think he massaged the intelligence to make it more than it was and he certainly laid out the case for war hoping the American people would come to certain conclusions. Which they did and Bush never corrected those conclusions even though he knew them to be false, eg. Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

Suffice to say, Bush did not tell the whole truth, and a lie of ommission is still a lie.

The only plausible defense against the lying charge based upon objective evidence is that Bush staffed his Administration with PNAC types that adopted sincere but demented and factually unsupportable beliefs contradicting the best eveidence, and that The President, given his noted lack of intellectual curiosity, swallowed it whole

 

[ThAnswr]

Yes, I believe he told the truth.

And as for #2, you do realize that there are HONEST people who think there ARE links to Al-Qaeda and Saddam, don't you? People in the government, people in the intelligence community, and people in the governments and intelligence communities of other countries. And ordinary joe shmoes.

There are HONEST people who believe the moon is made out of green cheese. It doesn't make it so.

What they are basing their opinion on about Saddam Hussein's links to Al-Qaeda doesn't hold water. Beyond the most superficial of contacts, there was no link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda.

 

[pamlet]

If I've said it once, I've said it dozens of time, on these very boards that Bush committed a lie of ommission in letting the American people believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 and was in league with Al Qaeda. Not even Bush could be so out of touch as not to know about the polls that showed a majority of Americans believed it. He knew it wasn't true, but did nothing to change that perception because it suited the administration's purpose. That is called a lie ommission, and a lie of ommission is still a lie.

Bush lied.

You know ... I NEVER thought that Saddam was DIRECTLY involved... HOWEVER I do think the man was a total danger and would use anyone INCLUDING terrorists to get what he wanted.. which was TOTAL control of the area... He was a terrorist to the Iraqi people. As his regime continued it was just a matter of time that he would have aligned themselves.

Did you not LISTEN to what was said when we went into Iraq? I'm sure you did - you chose to hear what you wanted.

 

[bsnyder]

There are HONEST people who believe the moon is made out of green cheese. It doesn't make it so.

What they are basing their opinion on about Saddam Hussein's links to Al-Qaeda doesn't hold water. Beyond the most superficial of contacts, there was no link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda.

Doesn't hold water with whom? With you? Who made you the definitive answer on anything? Notwithstanding your user name....

True, there's no "smoking gun" proof of active participation between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. But there's plenty of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence.

And those superficial contacts, they were for the purpose of what? Having tea parties?

 

[ThAnswr]

#1 Yes, I believe he told the complete and honest truth based on the intelligence information he had at the time.
#2 No, I don't believe that he knew that the American people thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, and I believe that he did believe (again, based on the intelligence information) that there were links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

So there you have it - an honest person that absolutely doesn't believe that President Bush lied, either flagrantly or fragrantly.

Obviously, my answers are a bit different.

I don't believe Bush told the whole truth. There were too many stories coming out of this administration about aluminum tubes and "reconstituted nuclear weapons" for me to believe this administration did not "massage" the information they had.

And I cannot believe Bush did not know what the American public believed without coming to the conclusion that he is a completely out-of-touch moron. If he didn't know what the American people believed, you have to ask the question why.

 

[ThAnswr]

Doesn't hold water with whom? With you? Who made you the definitive answer on anything? Notwithstanding your user name....

You just can't help yourself. Go find someone else to play with.

 

[bsnyder]

Obviously, my answers are a bit different.

I don't believe Bush told the whole truth. There were too many stories coming out of this administration about aluminum tubes and "reconstituted nuclear weapons" for me to believe this administration did not "massage" the information they had.

And I cannot believe Bush did not know what the American public believed without coming to the conclusion that he is a completely out-of-touch moron. If he didn't know what the American people believed, you have to ask the question why.

There were also many people on the Left, here and in other countries, who opposed the invasion because they were afraid Saddam would use chemical/nuclear weapons on our troops.

Were they lying?

 

[bsnyder]

You just can't help yourself. Go find someone else to play with.

Why is that not a legitimate question? If I offended you, I'll offer my sincere apologies. That wasn't my intention.

 

[ThAnswr]

You know ... I NEVER thought that Saddam was DIRECTLY involved... HOWEVER I do think the man was a total danger and would use anyone INCLUDING terrorists to get what he wanted.. which was TOTAL control of the area... He was a terrorist to the Iraqi people. As his regime continued it was just a matter of time that he would have aligned themselves.

Did you not LISTEN to what was said when we went into Iraq? I'm sure you did - you chose to hear what you wanted.

Not even Saddam Hussein's neighbors thought he was a danger to them. He had no WMD's and he had no ties to Al-Qaeda. His power to make war and control the area was destroyed after the first Gulf War. As for his being a terrorist to the Iraqi people, Bush didn't invade Iraq because of the Iraqi people. He invaded Iraq because of the danger to the American people......which turned out to be overstated to say the least.

You listened to what this administration peddled and you bought it because you wanted to. I listened to the same and came to the conclusion the administration's case just didn't add up.

And the rest, as they say, is history.