Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Nov 9, 2003.
Read my quote.
How true this is
He said large stocks not extensive stocks.
He said we would be welcomed but not with open arms.
(& my favorite defence)
They were just a few words. It's not like he lied. He just said the wrong words.
It would appear that, for whatever reason, a state of affairs has arisen where US politicians have such little respect for the media (and by implication the public) that they blatantly lie knowing they will get away with it.
Rumsfeld's nonsense above is a perfect example of what has happened over the whole Iraq episode. Implication and innuendo, followed by denial.
What I don't understand is why you guys in the US let him get away with it!!!
It's all the fault of the liberal media. If they wern't so damn liberal, we wouldn't have these problems with gov't officials lying. You should know that by now.
like the majority of the people who bothered to vote in 2000, *i* didn't vote for bush
No offense meant, zim
Seriously, though, are there not procedures in your constitution that allow you to hold your leaders to account when they are caught lying like this?
i'm sure you know this, but it's nice to review:
the US has 3 branches of gov't: administrative, legislative, judicial. they are supposed to keep an eye on each other, checks and balances as we like to call it.
to answer your question, yes, there are procedures. it is Congress' job to investigate the WH when something is amiss.
so why isn't Congress up in arms?
1. both houses have a republican majority
2. ken starr and his $80 million clinton blowjob and whitewater investigation has soured people on independent investigation, and perhaps other kinds
3. congress is having trouble getting any meaningful information from the WH
4. the dems latest attempt at questioning, vis a vis the "Mission Accomplished" banner, was immediately shut down
5. the GOP has been pretty successful at scaring individuals, imo, w/ the threat of being labeled soft on terrorism or unpatriotic
so, Congress is scared, complicit or stymied. it's a brilliant stroke of power grabbing, on the WH's part. they can do what they want, lie about it at the time, lie about it later (c.f. rumsfeld's recent denial of remarks he'd made), and feel immune from consequences. all in the name of making america safer. and the ****-for-brains american public is too scared to do anything about it.
i'm sick about it. my country is going down the crapper, and most of my brain-dead countrypersons seem more than happy to remain idiotically unquestioning.
The US press is actually asking awkward questions.
The worm is turning.
Rumsfelt is the caused the problems in the 80's when he sold the arms. Invading a country some 20 years later is not the solution.
There are many rules and procedures to hold politicians accountable for their "lies" and other bad behavior. All the Americans here will be able to vote their conscience when the polls open this time next year.
The problem for the oposition is that 49% of America likes this guy, 49% like any number of democrats, and the rest like anyone who has no chance at winning. It will be a tough battle to win the white house in 04.
After Clinton took the white house and turned it into what ever you want to call it(not a good thing) people do not care any more.
Besides anti war people are missing the bigger issue. what ever the reason we(the US) went to war, whether it me oil, pride, money, the world is better off with out hussein in power. Can anyone say that the end result in the middle east will not be better than it was. Many claim that this will bread a new generation of anti american terrorists. Like that wasn't happening already?
what would you call it? i recall low unemployment, no unilateral wars, low crime, high standard of living, record numbers of first time home buyers, et. al.
if all it takes is someone to give bush a blowjob to get that back, i vote for the blowjob.
i can say we don't know what's going to happen. regardless of how inhumane hussein was to his people, his damage was, in fact, contained.
to equate one kind of terrorism increase w/ another is pointless. you have to examine the rates of the increase.
the ONLY way to solve terrorism is to remove the hatred. invading iraq and promising to reshape the middle east is one of the most effective ways i can think of to increase hatred.
It's a matter of whether we are creating more terrorists than we are killing off. If Iraq accelerated the recruitment of new terrorists, that is a Bad Thing. Obviously things are better without Saddam in power, but there are people out there as bad or worse than he was. For better or worse, we are now committed to rebuilding Iraq whatever the cost to us in blood and money. Half-assing it is not going to cut it here. We as Americans need to be ready to make some sacrifices. Iraq is going to cost us plenty, and even if we were lied to about the cost and the length of time and how we would be recieved by the Iraqi populace we now need to foot the bill. Maybe that's not what people were hoping for, nor was it what the administration told us to expect in the run-up to the war, but that was one of the potential downsides that the anti-war crowd warned of. Not because we loved Saddam or any such nonsense that the right tried to paint with as "soft on terror" "unpatriotic" or just plain "wussies".
Regardless. We are now committed. There is no going back. We now owe the Iraqi people a stable, non-corrupt, and functioning government. It's the old "you break it, you bought it" principle.
If you are prepared to tolerate your leaders misleading you, then denying it later, I can only say that you deserve the worst of outcomes for your country's future.
I'm angry because they appear to have hoodwinked Tony Blair as well!
Don't forget little Johnny down under.
No you are missing the bigger issue. Iraq may eventually be better off but we in the US are worse off. It is not OK for our government to lie to us "for our own good". An administration that actually respected us would have told the truth. They are so cynical they won't even admit what is on the public record. They will not tolerate questions about their lies.
You could not tolerate a lie about a private affair but you will tolerate lies that lead to many deaths. What's wrong with you?
Part of the problem is that the media only acts as a stenographer. As a result, the politicians are the ones who decide what issues are important, not the media (as it should be, IMO), and certainly not the public. Politicians are thus empowered to pretend that any issue is important rather than those which really matter.
I can envision a result that would be worse.
A partitioned Iraq. The North, a Kurdish mini-state at war with Turkey. The South, dominated by fundamentalist Shia leaders that support not only an Islamic state there, but also help spread it to other states in the middle east. The central and western parts of Iraq could well end up in a no man's land of fighting for influence between the North and the South and Saudi Arabia as well. All of this after losing who knows how many US soldiers and killing thousands more Iraqis. Sound better?
I hated Saddam and campaigned with Iraqi friends in the mid 80s to support those who tried to oust him. That was when Dubya's Daddy and the rest of the Reagan administration was helping to arm him against the Iranians. So kindly don't tell me about how bad he was.
Sometimes it pays to think about the consequences of one's actions. It appears as if this administration launched this war to further its geopolitical ambitions and in order to to convince themselves how easy it all was going to be they began by blowing smoke up their own a**** instead of listening to honest intelligence.
Bingo. There was no realistic plan in place.
They lied so long and so hard, and went to such extremes to find others who agreed with their ideals, that they believed it.
You can't base you whole plan on the ramblings of a whacko extremist exile group that's been calling for invasion for 10 years. You're going to be spoon-fed whatever they know you want to hear.
So the plan basically became to just go in and let things naturally work themselves out. In that respect, the plan is working, just not the way they were hoping for.
taking a high school physics course and learning about entropy would have dispelled that notion.
too bad bush is such an uneducated partyboy.