Bush Lied ! Thousands died......Follow

SR, your posts might be filled with some excellent points of view. That said, I can't be bothered trying to read what you call English. It makes my face explode reading any more than 3 sentences or so.

Basing off of what little effort you put into making your posts legible, I assume you are spamming some sort of drivel anyway. I'm also going to assume I'm right.

Seriously, someone needs to do some laundry!

You're defending those who are calling him a liar. You're attacking arguments being made by me to counter claims that he's a liar. That's a pretty fine hair you're splitting there Joph.




Ok. But you haven't actually supported that stance with anything other then "Well, a bunch of Dems claim that Bush manipulated the intelligence". Um... Of course they'd say that. It's classic CYA, right? They've got their constituents howling for blood and demanding to know why they voted for the war. It's a pretty easy duck-out to make that claim and keep their own skins intact.

[/quote]

No. He's not. He's on record saying that the intelligence he got from the CIA wasn't good enough


That's a totally different thing. To my knowledge he's never claimed that Bush had access to intelligence that might have changed the committee's minds and kept it from them.

In fact, if you read the article, it says the following:



Wow. Look at that. The president *and* congress were given bad assessments of the intelligence. Imagine that!

And:



Look at that, no evidence that the faulty intelligence about Iraq's WMDs resulted from politics or pressure. Kinda shoots down the whole "Bush lied to us, so it's not our fault!" argument, doesn't it?


But not to be outdone (and in the interest of fairness), here's what Rockefeller said:




So there's no evidence, but he's got a gut feeling or something. One that only coincidentally gives him a great excuse to tell his liberal anti-war constituents how it's not really his fault, but that he was lied to. And hey! It gives his "side" a bit more ammunition and rhetoric to use as well.


I'll take the evidence resulting from the investigation over a clearly interested party making claims that benefit himself and his party pretty directly. Now maybe you want to put weight in his claims, but he's got nothing to back it up with. The idea that you'd then quote him as though somehow he's got some special knowledge just kinda takes the cake.


It's a circular argument Joph. You support your claims that Bush is more to blame for this then Congress by quoting someone who's got a vested interest in claiming that Bush is more to blame for this then Congress. Um... It's pure convenient speculation. Nothing more. Certainly, no weight should be put on it IMO.




Ok. But we could make the same supposition about everyone else who also came to the same conclusion Joph. It's meaningless speculation at that point. Maybe Bush was the one looking just at the intelligence, and the Dem members of Congress were the ones working the intelligence to make a 'clearer' case?

There's no reason to argue one is any more likely the the other Joph.




Who knows? That's a pretty crappy reason to support a conspiracy theory about the President of the US. Gee. I guess since it could have happened that way then there's no reason to shoot down the crazies who assume it must have happened that way.

Look. Speculation is fine. But when people try to pass their speculation off as "fact" (as the OP did), I'm going to point out that there's no evidence supporting it (as I did). You can jump in and try to defend the conspiracy theorists, but you really don't have much to stand on IMO.



Well. It wasn't that there were many other nations that decided that Iraq wasn't a threat, but that they decided it wasn't sufficient threat to go to war over. That's not exactly the same thing. Virtually every major intelligence organization in the world believed that Iraq did have some WMDs, and certainly believed that Iraq was still trying to obtain materials and capability to build them. The difference was not in what the intelligence agencies around the world believed. It was what the politicians of those other countries decided was the right thing to do about it.

Most of the UN believed that the sanctions were working and eventually would force Saddam to comply with regards to his WMD programs. The US believed that Iraq had had long enough to comply and likely wouldn't ever comply using the current methodology. That's not a difference of intelligence. It's a difference of politics.

This is why I skipped your response.

10 Billion? ZOMG The US has been killing aliens from outer space!!!

Oh, and you don't have to dismantle a f*cking country to kill Sadam. There was no justification for the methods used.

And yes, I hate Bush, and I'm not American, that should tell you something about how Bush is viewed by the world.

Edited, Feb 4th 2008 1:22pm by Yodabunny

And, come November, they'll be further voted out of power in Congress and quite probably the White House.

The system works!

Sounds like Zaeed needs to read some unbiased news for once to get a clear view of the whole picture.

Forget it, I have nothing. I'm just gonna keep reading the Nation.

Edited, Feb 4th 2008 2:27pm by Annabella

Turn off the TV and look on the internet for unbiased coverage? I certainly do not think I am in the wrong for telling people posting on an internet forum this. >_>

It is, however, a major issue that the mediums most available to the public (newspapers, TV, radio) are for the most part inherently biased. I don't forsee this changing any time soon, so I think it's up to us as individuals to seek knowlede elsewhere.

Well, there's nearly always going to be a small part of bias in every news report, true. However, some sources are most definitely more neutral than others, and along the same vein I have found it useful to read the news from countries other than USA/UK (knowing several languages does give me an advantage, I'll admit). Even traveling abroad and reading their local news has given me a totally new perspective on current American events (it's good to know how others percieve these events, I think.)

However, I bolded part of your reply because I thought it was especially important and you're very, very right. People need to be able to get their information from more than one source, and come to a sort of educated conclusion based on that. I suppose that is the crux of what I was trying to say- it just drives me nuts that so many of my fellow Americans get their news from one source and assume it's the whole truth, and nothing but; and we wonder why so many Americans seem uneducated about world events? Yes, it takes a little more work, but in the end it enables people to make more sound decisions, especially in an election year.

Oh well, I have a feeling I'm preaching to the choir so I'll stop now.

I would argue that they can gain a larger aggregate picture which serves close to the same purpose.

But since most people don't read most of the media available in their native tongue I can't imagine tha learning a second tongue is going to help much. Excellent if you can do it, though.