John Kerry for President!

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Sure you do! It's a political ploy, and a pretty disgusting one at that, given the nature of the problems we face.

You've got that right. How people excuse the disaster in Irag just because they support George Bush and the Republican party?

Originally posted by bsnyder
And where would that process end? Would you have had the President collecting and analysing the intelligence data personally?

Collecting, no. But, damned straight I would want a President to look at the information he's given with a jaundiced eye. When a President is about to take the country to war, I would sure as hell hope he's looked over the information himself.

Or are you making excuses just because George Bush is George Bush and a Republican.

Originally posted by bsnyder
Yep, you're willing to put politcs before anything else.

Wow is this ever a "pot, kettle, black" situation.

A certain segment of the Republicans are willing to overlook everything that's gone south for this administration simply because it is a Republican administration.

 

[rcyannacci]

Originally posted by ToriLammy
So three doctors tell you the same thing, you go on the internet and research and find out the same thing. You start treatment and then 5 months into the treatment the doctors find out all the data on the illness was wrong (including everything you found on the internet).....who lied to you? Or was everyone just working with the best information available at the time????

This is a good point. But to take the metaphor even further, suppose the specialist you were working with had claimed to know exactly the prognosis and line of treatment you needed, convinced you to accept his/her position as the *only* option (even though through your research you had uncovered multiple possible treatments), and you continued with the treatment even though it meant a good deal of pain and personal anguish. After an initial round of treatment, the doctor pronounced "mission accomplished," you are cured, only for you to find weeks later that the pain and anquish continued, and indeed the sickness was continuing to grow. But when you took these new concerns to this doctor, he/she continued to reassert the "rightness" of their line of attack and their decision to reject assistance from other specialists.

I know I've entered the conversation late here (I've been traveling on business), but this particular metaphor hit home with me since my family has been dealing with issues of "treatment" lately. And, if I had encountered a doctor with the arrogance of this administration, I don't think I'd be well enough to engage in this conversation today. It's one thing to be working with a limited amount of information, but it's quite another to convince people that this information translated into only one option. My doctor gave me many options and took the time to educate me on the potential after-effects of each possible line of treatment. Did he steer me toward one option? Yes- and while he continually kept my spirits high my mentioning the positive effects of the treatment, he never misled me to thinking that attaining the cure would be easy. And both of us continually kept our options open to alter our line of attack when we noticed that the original direction was not working.
(edited to insert original quote)

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Whatever your politics, none of those are lies. They are judgements based on the best available information at the time. Bash President Bush all you want for making bad judgements, but they are nothing even remotely approaching a lie.

Baloney. There was plenty of information out there refuting the Bush administration's claims. It just didn't fit into the neo-con's dream of going to war in Irag.


And, more baloney, none of this approaches a lie. A lie of omission is still a lie. The failure to tell the complete truth, when one knows better, is still a lie.

Or are you saying George Bush didn't even know he was lying when he was lying?

Just gives me the warm fuzzies contemplating that scenario.

So let's call it bad judgement. I don't believe a President with such bad judgement that results in the deaths of nearly 1000 Americans, nearly 6000 wounded Americans, and countless hundreds of billion of dollars spent, should be rewarded with a second term.

Of course, YMMV.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by ToriLammy
So three doctors tell you the same thing, you go on the internet and research and find out the same thing. You start treatment and then 5 months into the treatment the doctors find out all the data on the illness was wrong (including everything you found on the internet).....who lied to you? Or was everyone just working with the best information available at the time????

This is a good question TL, and I was going to think about it for awhile but I have something important to do at three.

I can only make decisions that affect myself. I am not making decisions for the rest of the country, including our young service men and women. If I were in a position to make decisions that would affect thousands, or more I would make sure that I knew that what I was doing was the right thing. Why did Bush make the decision to go to war with Iraq so quicky? Couldn't he have waited a bit for more allied support, or something.

About your illness question, I would also have to look at data and statistics on the illness also. What percent of people were cured by the treatment? How risky is it, etc? I wouldn't rush into anything there either. If the doctor's were wrong, I suppose that I could sue for malpractice.

I also wanted to say that I really admire you for serving our country!

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by rcyannacci
This is a good point. But to take the metaphor even further, suppose the specialist you were working with had claimed to know exactly the prognosis and line of treatment you needed, convinced you to accept his/her position as the *only* option (even though through your research you had uncovered multiple possible treatments), and you continued with the treatment even though it meant a good deal of pain and personal anguish. After an initial round of treatment, the doctor pronounced "mission accomplished," you are cured, only for you to find weeks later that the pain and anquish continued, and indeed the sickness was continuing to grow. But when you took these new concerns to this doctor, he/she continued to reassert the "rightness" of their line of attack and their decision to reject assistance from other specialists.

I know I've entered the conversation late here (I've been traveling on business), but this particular metaphor hit home with me since my family has been dealing with issues of "treatment" lately. And, if I had encountered a doctor with the arrogance of this administration, I don't think I'd be well enough to engage in this conversation today. It's one thing to be working with a limited amount of information, but it's quite another to convince people that this information translated into only one option. My doctor gave me many options and took the time to educate me on the potential after-effects of each possible line of treatment. Did he steer me toward one option? Yes- and while he continually kept my spirits high my mentioning the positive effects of the treatment, he never misled me to thinking that attaining the cure would be easy. And both of us continually kept our options open to alter our line of attack when we noticed that the original direction was not working.

Well, whattyanno, someone who gets it.

Friend, I give you a standing ovation.

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
Baloney. There was plenty of information out there refuting the Bush administration's claims. It just didn't fit into the neo-con's dream of going to war in Irag.


And, more baloney, none of this approaches a lie. A lie of omission is still a lie. The failure to tell the complete truth, when one knows better, is still a lie.

Or are you saying George Bush didn't even know he was lying when he was lying?

Just gives me the warm fuzzies contemplating that scenario.

So let's call it bad judgement. I don't believe a President with such bad judgement that results in the deaths of nearly 1000 Americans, nearly 6000 wounded Americans, and countless hundreds of billion of dollars spent, should be rewarded with a second term.

Of course, YMMV.

Every major intelligence service in the world came to the same conclusion as George W. Bush. There was very little information in existence to support any other conclusion. That's why everyone (worldwide) believed it to be so.

President Bush did NOT know better. No one did.

Obviously mistakes were made. But characterizing this as lying is, quite simply, inaccurate.

As for the "lies" about being greeted as liberators, how much it'd cost, etc., those are quite clearly expectations that were not met. Again, hard to characterize that as lying regardless of where you stand politically. If you wish to persist with this, more power to you. But I don't think it'll help your case.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Every major intelligence service in the world came to the same conclusion as George W. Bush. There was very little information in existence to support any other conclusion. That's why everyone (worldwide) believed it to be so.

President Bush did NOT know better. No one did.

Obviously mistakes were made. But characterizing this as lying is, quite simply, inaccurate.

There was more than "precious little" information that the Bush claims of WMD's. Both the CIA and the DIA were skeptical about the claims that Saddam Hussein posed a danger to the US.

The Bush administration either tried to ignore that evidence or discredit the sources. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm

The fact is the IAEC refuted the Bush claims that Iraq had restarted it's nuclear program. Vaclev Havel himself refuted the claims that Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague. The CIA itself said the claims over Niger were forgeries (and still do inspite of the British insistence). Colin Powell himself expressed doubts.

But, as I said before, let's give Bush the benefit of the doubt. He did what he thought was right given the intelligence at the time.

Originally posted by jrydberg
As for the "lies" about being greeted as liberators, how much it'd cost, etc., those are quite clearly expectations that were not met. Again, hard to characterize that as lying regardless of where you stand politically. If you wish to persist with this, more power to you. But I don't think it'll help your case.

Let me see if I get this straight.

1) Bush got it wrong when it came to WMD's.

2) Bush got it wrong when it came to troop strength.

3) Bush got it wrong when it came to how much the war would cost,.

4) Bush got it wrong when it came to the belief we would be greeted as liberators.

5) Bush got it wrong when it came to the depth of the insurgency.

Is your case forget all that, even though he was clearly wrong, and let's give him 4 more years?

Now, please explain to me how all of that doesn't matter and we should re-elect Bush so he can continue to get it wrong for another 4 years?

Why should we give him another 4 years when, faced with all those mistakes, Bush himself said he would do it again?

 

[treesinger]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
There was more than "precious little" information that the Bush claims of WMD's. Both the CIA and the DIA were skeptical about the claims that Saddam Hussein posed a danger to the US.

The Bush administration either tried to ignore that evidence or discredit the sources. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm

The fact is the IAEC refuted the Bush claims that Iraq had restarted it's nuclear program. Vaclev Havel himself refuted the claims that Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague. The CIA itself said the claims over Niger were forgeries (and still do inspite of the British insistence). Colin Powell himself expressed doubts.

But, as I said before, let's give Bush the benefit of the doubt. He did what he thought was right given the intelligence at the time.




Let me see if I get this straight.

1) Bush got it wrong when it came to WMD's.

2) Bush got it wrong when it came to troop strength.

3) Bush got it wrong when it came to how much the war would cost,.

4) Bush got it wrong when it came to the belief we would be greeted as liberators.

5) Bush got it wrong when it came to the depth of the insurgency.

Is your case forget all that, even though he was clearly wrong, and let's give him 4 more years?

Now, please explain to me how all of that doesn't matter and we should re-elect Bush so he can continue to get it wrong for another 4 years?

Why should we give him another 4 years when, faced with all those mistakes, Bush himself said he would do it again?

Let me answer your last question. Bush would do it again because his real reason for invading Iraq is not very well covered it all. It is my opinion that Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to set up a democracy right in the heart of the Muslim world. Now, had he approached the world stage with that as his desired goal, he would have been beaten into a bloody pulp by the international community. Bush needed a reason to go in. Weapons of mass destruction were the most solid reasons to invade Iraq. We all knew Saddam had them. We know he had no proof that he destroyed them. And three of the world's leading intelligence agencies still said he had them. So that's what Bush went with.
Now if you want to argue that he would be even more disingenuous for invading Iraq under the false pretenses of weapons of mass destruction, I couldn't really argue with you there. But I feel that helping a Muslim country gain self rule is an incredibly worthy goal. I believe that 30 years from now Americans will look back and see that the world was changed for the better because of the new democracy in Iraq. At least, that's what my Conservative crystal ball tells me.
So, in my opinion, Bush would to this 100 times over, no matter the cost. The achievement of this goal, again in my opinion, will have implications so far reaching that many of us won't live long enough to fully understand it.

 

[treesinger]

Originally posted by rcyannacci
This is a good point. But to take the metaphor even further, suppose the specialist you were working with had claimed to know exactly the prognosis and line of treatment you needed, convinced you to accept his/her position as the *only* option (even though through your research you had uncovered multiple possible treatments), and you continued with the treatment even though it meant a good deal of pain and personal anguish. After an initial round of treatment, the doctor pronounced "mission accomplished," you are cured, only for you to find weeks later that the pain and anquish continued, and indeed the sickness was continuing to grow. But when you took these new concerns to this doctor, he/she continued to reassert the "rightness" of their line of attack and their decision to reject assistance from other specialists.

I know I've entered the conversation late here (I've been traveling on business), but this particular metaphor hit home with me since my family has been dealing with issues of "treatment" lately. And, if I had encountered a doctor with the arrogance of this administration, I don't think I'd be well enough to engage in this conversation today. It's one thing to be working with a limited amount of information, but it's quite another to convince people that this information translated into only one option. My doctor gave me many options and took the time to educate me on the potential after-effects of each possible line of treatment. Did he steer me toward one option? Yes- and while he continually kept my spirits high my mentioning the positive effects of the treatment, he never misled me to thinking that attaining the cure would be easy. And both of us continually kept our options open to alter our line of attack when we noticed that the original direction was not working.
(edited to insert original quote)

In my "Treatment" scenario, and meant it to be a little bit simpler. Again, if I'm a father and have a child that is very ill, I would confer with the very best doctors in the field. If all of those doctors told me the same things about the illness, then I would have to assume that they are correct. After all, these are the best doctors. Now I could go and see other doctors with lesser reputations. Some would agree with the elite doctors. And some would have a different diagnosis. But I would match the information from the doctors that gave me a different diagnosis against their contemporaries with the same reputation. And then match it again with the doctors of the highest reputation, and I will still have a reasonable degree of certainty of what the correct diagnosis is.
Compare this to weapons of mass destruction information. Bush consulted some of the best intelligence agencies in the world. Surely, other intelligence agencies were also scanned for information. Those other agencies were undoubtedly a mix between agreeing, not agreeing and a mixture of both. But I imagine that even then a solid majority of them thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Unfortunately, when it comes to intelligence, the information can never be perfect. It rarely ever is.