News Bush NOT Honest & Trustworthy/Republican Lies

[Mattara]

The biggest error people that are against President George W. Bush have is that they think the world is black and white with no other colour.

Examples of black/white arguments (that by definition is incorrect):

• The war in Iraq was bad because people died.
  
• Bush killed people in Iraq and he is an id*ot.
  
• Bush lies and he is an id*iot.
  
• Bush only takes vacations all the time.
  
• Iraq had 0 WMD.

I don't know where to begin to counter this becuase obviously everyone who is against President George W. Bush have either not researched his action and the world we live in today or think they have but havn't.

The war in Iraq was bad because people died.

This is a typical one sided argument. Yes, people died. So what. Coll.dmg. had to be made to protect the world from Iraq. The President did what had to be done. Saddam was a dictator and a terrorist and the world and the Iraqi people are better of w/o him. There is no telling what he could have done if he stayed in office.

Bush killed people in Iraq and he is an id*ot.

Start learning how things work in the U.S. government before you start pointing fingers. It was not the Presidents idea to war Iraq, and it was not he who decided to war Iraq and The President did not kill anyone in Iraq. There are more people with power in the U.S. that the President. People with huge amounts of influence (oil, staffmembers etc.). The President has the final decition of course, but that is it. Everything that is done in the White House is made by other people. The President only approves/denies the ideas or is involved in mayor things. But not even then does he have ultimate power. Politics in the U.S are a lot more difficult and advanced than President Bush saying "Now we war". And no President Bush was never down in Iraq with ak:s and killed anyone.

Bush lies and he is an id*iot.

So what if he lies on once in a while? He has a duty to his country and some things are better keep behind close doors.

Bush only takes vacations all the time.

President Bush takes more vacations that the average Joe, but you know what? He is entitles to them. The President works 18-19 hours a day. That is what you people do in ~3 days. This is not a special thing for George W. but Clinton also did it and the Presidents before him. If the President works 3*[standard] he should then have 3*[standard] vacation time. Standard vacation time in Sweden is 5 weeks. 3*5 = 15 weeks and that is 1/3 of the year as we've all read in newspapers etc. etc. that he has.

Iraq had 0 WMD.

All i have to say is "LOL". How lame are you people? Iraq have WMD. Ok, for you people who arn't in teh loop i'll give the hstoric background to it. Iraq did use WMD in the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq did use WMD to gas Kurds. Iraq did use WMD to kill shiamuslims in the south.

Just because the U.S. havn't found any doesn't mean they aren't there. It took them a year to find Saddam so why not? They could be hidden inside a bunker somwhere and never be found. They can also have been transferred to Iran before and during the first week of the war. Remember that the U.N. weapon inspectors where thrown out of Iran.

So please, before you start pointing fingers, try to learn the whole story before jumping to conclusion or useing Michael Moores 3:rd grade logic

 

[BobG]

The biggest error people that are against President George W. Bush have is that they think the world is black and white with no other colour.

Examples of black/white arguments (that by definition is incorrect):

• The war in Iraq was bad because people died.
  
• Bush killed people in Iraq and he is an id*ot.
  
• Bush lies and he is an id*iot.
  
• Bush only takes vacations all the time.
  
• Iraq had 0 WMD.

I don't know where to begin to counter this becuase obviously everyone who is against President George W. Bush have either not researched his action and the world we live in today or think they have but havn't.

The war in Iraq was bad because people died.

This is a typical one sided argument. Yes, people died. So what. Coll.dmg. had to be made to protect the world from Iraq. The President did what had to be done. Saddam was a dictator and a terrorist and the world and the Iraqi people are better of w/o him. There is no telling what he could have done if he stayed in office.

Bush killed people in Iraq and he is an id*ot.

Start learning how things work in the U.S. government before you start pointing fingers. It was not the Presidents idea to war Iraq, and it was not he who decided to war Iraq and The President did not kill anyone in Iraq. There are more people with power in the U.S. that the President. People with huge amounts of influence (oil, staffmembers etc.). The President has the final decition of course, but that is it. Everything that is done in the White House is made by other people. The President only approves/denies the ideas or is involved in mayor things. But not even then does he have ultimate power. Politics in the U.S are a lot more difficult and advanced than President Bush saying "Now we war". And no President Bush was never down in Iraq with ak:s and killed anyone.

Bush lies and he is an id*iot.

So what if he lies on once in a while? He has a duty to his country and some things are better keep behind close doors.

Bush only takes vacations all the time.

President Bush takes more vacations that the average Joe, but you know what? He is entitles to them. The President works 18-19 hours a day. That is what you people do in ~3 days. This is not a special thing for George W. but Clinton also did it and the Presidents before him. If the President works 3*[standard] he should then have 3*[standard] vacation time. Standard vacation time in Sweden is 5 weeks. 3*5 = 15 weeks and that is 1/3 of the year as we've all read in newspapers etc. etc. that he has.

Iraq had 0 WMD.

All i have to say is "LOL". How lame are you people? Iraq have WMD. Ok, for you people who arn't in teh loop i'll give the hstoric background to it. Iraq did use WMD in the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq did use WMD to gas Kurds. Iraq did use WMD to kill shiamuslims in the south.

Just because the U.S. havn't found any doesn't mean they aren't there. It took them a year to find Saddam so why not? They could be hidden inside a bunker somwhere and never be found. They can also have been transferred to Iran before and during the first week of the war. Remember that the U.N. weapon inspectors where thrown out of Iran.

So please, before you start pointing fingers, try to learn the whole story before jumping to conclusion or useing Michael Moores 3:rd grade logic

Before you start using size 4 fonts and boldface, you should learn about the ten year war Iraq and Iran fought against each other. If Hussein was stupid enough to send his WMD to Iran, I doubt Iran would return them in a very friendly manner. In fact, Hussein felt the threat of chemical weapons being used on Tehran helped bring an end to the Iraq-Iran war and prevented Iran from invading Iraq. In hindsight, Iran is the most likely reason Hussein was so secretive about WMD in spite of having dismantled his WMD program.

Dismantling the program meant UN inspectors couldn't find incriminating evidence that could result in another invasion by the US. Being secretive meant Iran couldn't know if Iraq had really dismantled its program or was just doing a good job of hiding it. Unfortunately, the secretive part worked well enough that the rest of the world couldn't know for sure either.

The debate over the Iraq invasion is:
a) whether a "pre-emptive" war should be launched, period.
b) whether a "pre-emptive" war should be launched without overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of the invadee being an imminent threat.
c) whether a "pre-emptive" war should be launched just on the possibility that the invadee may pose a threat.

Most would prefer not to ever launch a "pre-emptive" war, but the deadliness of modern weapons probably pushes most people towards b - that you have to invade if a country poses an imminent threat.

I think it's safe to say that Iraq didn't pose an immediate threat. That starts the second debate - how did the US miscalculate the threat so badly. Was it just "mistakes" or was it intentional? Even if just honest mistakes, there were enough that the best you could say is that the Bush administration was incompetent in assessing the threat.

 

[Mattara]

Before you start using size 4 fonts and boldface, you should learn about the ten year war Iraq and Iran fought against each other. If Hussein was stupid enough to send his WMD to Iran, I doubt Iran would return them in a very friendly manner. In fact, Hussein felt the threat of chemical weapons being used on Tehran helped bring an end to the Iraq-Iran war and prevented Iran from invading Iraq. In hindsight, Iran is the most likely reason Hussein was so secretive about WMD in spite of having dismantled his WMD program.

Dismantling the program meant UN inspectors couldn't find incriminating evidence that could result in another invasion by the US. Being secretive meant Iran couldn't know if Iraq had really dismantled its program or was just doing a good job of hiding it. Unfortunately, the secretive part worked well enough that the rest of the world couldn't know for sure either.

The debate over the Iraq invasion is:
a) whether a "pre-emptive" war should be launched, period.
b) whether a "pre-emptive" war should be launched without overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of the invadee being an imminent threat.
c) whether a "pre-emptive" war should be launched just on the possibility that the invadee may pose a threat.

Most would prefer not to ever launch a "pre-emptive" war, but the deadliness of modern weapons probably pushes most people towards b - that you have to invade if a country poses an imminent threat.

I think it's safe to say that Iraq didn't pose an immediate threat. That starts the second debate - how did the US miscalculate the threat so badly. Was it just "mistakes" or was it intentional? Even if just honest mistakes, there were enough that the best you could say is that the Bush administration was incompetent in assessing the threat.

Before you start trying to pwn people that is clearly more educated that yourself in this area, you can google "Gulf war syndrome" and then relate to how the same thing was used in the Iran-Iraq war.

By the way, the Iran-Iraq war was eight years, not ten.

 

[Manchot]

Saddam was a dictator and a terrorist and the world and the Iraqi people are better of w/o him. There is no telling what he could have done if he stayed in office.

Of course the Iraqi people are better off without him. That is a strawman argument. The real question is why do we have to pay (in more ways that one) to remove him and to stabilize the country? As for what he could have done: nothing. Sure, he was bilking the oil-for-food program for money, but what good is that when there are sanctions against you? (He obviously had no WMDs as of 2003, and certainly did not have the capability to create them.)

Start learning how things work in the U.S. government before you start pointing fingers. It was not the Presidents idea to war Iraq, and it was not he who decided to war Iraq and The President did not kill anyone in Iraq. There are more people with power in the U.S. that the President. People with huge amounts of influence (oil, staffmembers etc.). The President has the final decition of course, but that is it. Everything that is done in the White House is made by other people. The President only approves/denies the ideas or is involved in mayor things. But not even then does he have ultimate power. Politics in the U.S are a lot more difficult and advanced than President Bush saying "Now we war". And no President Bush was never down in Iraq with ak:s and killed anyone.

Ultimately, the president has complete control over the executive branch. Not his staff, not Donald Rumsfeld, not Dick Cheney. One of the points of having public officials is for accountability. If you blamed every politician's staff for his or her bad decisions, our democracy would fall apart. Moreover, you say that he is only involved in major things: is war not a major thing? Finally, of course he didn't kill people himself. Would you also claim that someone who orders an assassination is not as guilty as the person who actually carries it out?

President Bush takes more vacations that the average Joe, but you know what? He is entitles to them. The President works 18-19 hours a day. That is what you people do in ~3 days. This is not a special thing for George W. but Clinton also did it and the Presidents before him. If the President works 3*[standard] he should then have 3*[standard] vacation time. Standard vacation time in Sweden is 5 weeks. 3*5 = 15 weeks and that is 1/3 of the year as we've all read in newspapers etc. etc. that he has.

Do you have a source for the 18-19 hour work day, because I sincerely doubt that figure. While every president takes vacations, none have as profusely as Bush. In 5 years, he has managed to take as many as Reagan (the previous record holder) did in 8. That's a lot of vacation.

All i have to say is "LOL". How lame are you people? Iraq have WMD. Ok, for you people who arn't in teh loop i'll give the hstoric background to it. Iraq did use WMD in the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq did use WMD to gas Kurds. Iraq did use WMD to kill shiamuslims in the south.

Fifteen years ago. They were subsequently dismantled.

Just because the U.S. havn't found any doesn't mean they aren't there. It took them a year to find Saddam so why not? They could be hidden inside a bunker somwhere and never be found. They can also have been transferred to Iran before and during the first week of the war. Remember that the U.N. weapon inspectors where thrown out of Iran.

No credible person with any knowledge on the subject believes that Saddam had WMDs in 2003. These are the experts, mind you. The fact that you believe it to be true speaks volumes about you. I take it that you are a big supporter of truthiness?

 

[Gokul43201]

Examples of black/white arguments (that by definition is incorrect):

• The war in Iraq was bad because people died.
  
• Bush killed people in Iraq and he is an id*ot.
  
• Bush lies and he is an id*iot.
  
• Bush only takes vacations all the time.
  
• Iraq had 0 WMD.

I don't know where to begin to counter this becuase obviously everyone who is against President George W. Bush have either not researched his action and the world we live in today or think they have but havn't.

I don't recall reading any of the above listed opinions in this thread. Please show me where you read them. If they are not in this thread, you have constructed a strawman. And that, I'm sure know, is considered extremely disingenuous.

 

[Mattara]

The real question is why do we have to pay (in more ways that one) to remove him and to stabilize the country?

So you actually have less money now that before the war in Iraq that you do now becuase of the war in Iraq? No you don't. That my friend is a strawman argument (and a false one i might add). Stop saying "we" becuase there is no "we".

what good is that when there are sanctions against you?

And why do you think he got sanctioned? Was it because he is a non-terrorist? No.

He obviously had no WMDs as of 2003, and certainly did not have the capability to create them.)

There is no way of knowing that.

Ultimately, the president has complete control over the executive branch

Yes of course he has and that is what i have been saying. But there are forces in the U.S. politics that can tilt the actions in some angle from time to time.

One of the points of having public officials is for accountability

That is correct, but they do more than sitting around, waiting to be blamed for something.

If you blamed every politician's staff for his or her bad decisions, our democracy would fall apart.

I am not blaming every politician's staff, I'm referring to the U.S. politics as one machinery.

Moreover, you say that he is only involved in major things: is war not a major thing?

Yes it is. If you had read my entire argument you might have learned that that is what i said.

Would you also claim that someone who orders an assassination is not as guilty as the person who actually carries it out?

The one performing the killing is guilty. The one ordering is not, because people can say no. Then if I ordered someone to do something that would make another someone to do something that would make a third someone kill someone etc. You could expand it forever.

Do you have a source for the 18-19 hour work day, because I sincerely doubt that figure.

Clinton's autobiography/memoairs

common sense. It requires that amount of time to run a country

While every president takes vacations, none have as profusely as Bush. In 5 years, he has managed to take as many as Reagan (the previous record holder) did in 8.

The world is a lot more compicated now than when regan ruled. There are more things to do. Can't you see that?

They were subsequently dismantled

There is again, no way of telling that.

No credible person with any knowledge on the subject believes that Saddam had WMDs in 2003.

You are here by effectivly telling us that the Bush administration, the UN and a whole lot more people are idiots.

I don't recall reading any of the above listed opinions in this thread./.../if they are not in this thread, you have constructed a strawman. And that, I'm sure know, is considered extremely disingenuous.

The topic is: Bush NOT Honest & Trustworthy

My initial post in this topic was to counter this statement. Therefore it is not off-topic.

Please show me where you read them

Ok, i will.

Bush lies and is an id*iot;

Post 5:

/.../Even if you agree that Bush is a liar/../

There are discussions of the fact that there are more things than just the President saying: "WAR" all trouh page 1:

Post 10:

/.../because it is obvious that Bush is not running his brach at all.

Other post that supports my post not being a strawman or off-topic

Post 19:

Pre-war intelligence? It was rock solid! The president himself said so. Surely the president would not base a war and thousands upon thousands of casualties on unreliable information now, would he? Yup, only a matter of time before them Iraqi nukes are found.

Post 26:

Don't be so blinded by Bush bashing and Republican bashing that you fail to put things into perspective.

Other reference to Bush and telling and evil/id*iotic lies:

Post 20:

Surely he would not lie about warrantless searches either.

Post 23:

It is not about hate for Bush/.../

Post 25:

/.../The New Bush Lie:/../The Lie Before That:

Post 51:

/../The newest lie is a two-for-one. Lie Part I (a recycled lie):

Post 53:

The newest lie is a two-for-one. Lie Part I (a recycled lie):

Post 59:

I really have wondered if he [Bush] sold his soul to the anti-Christ

Post 68:

If Bush would stop doing horrible things

Post 78:

Does anyone really believe this great big lie?

A quote showing the power of the Bush admnistration - Bush:

Post 31:

Don't be so blinded by Bush bashing and Republican bashing that you fail to put things into perspective.

And finally a quote about vacation:

Post 72:

goes on tour to friendly destinations, beginning at the Grand Ole Opry, and ending in Dallas in his home state of Texas

(That could count as a form of vacation i.e. ayaw from normal work)

I think that is enough for you, Gokul43201. And the other things that is not covered here is grom my own thoughts and is still on-topic and not a strawman since it has something to do with "Bush" and "trustworthy".

I don't recall reading any of the above listed opinions in this thread. Please show me where you read them. If they are not in this thread, you have constructed a strawman. And that, I'm sure know, is considered extremely disingenuous.

This is however off-topic and a strawman not to forget a direct personal attack which is maybe not a good idea when having a discussion.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Before you start trying to pwn people that is clearly more educated that yourself in this area, you can google "Gulf war syndrome" and then relate to how the same thing was used in the Iran-Iraq war.

By the way, the Iran-Iraq war was eight years, not ten.

Gulf War Syndrome has been connected to Depleted Uranium poisoning.

Not the radiation from it, but frik... it is a very very heavy metal... the body will not respond well.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Where exactly are we saying the man is an idiot?

I think that he delegates all his work out to his subordinates (who are not very nice people) and thusly has no clue as to what is going on. That is not calling him an idiot, just lazy.

also, HIS ADMINISTRATION LIES. you need to escape from your ego trap that tells you to support Bush through all his lies because you supported him before and do not want to admit you were wrong about him.

 

[Mattara]

Gulf War Syndrome has been connected to Depleted Uranium poisoning.

Not the radiation from it, but frik... it is a very very heavy metal... the body will not respond well.

Actually GWS is still unknown. Speculations about depleted uranium is, well speculations and unproven theories.

 

[Mattara]

Where exactly are we saying the man is an idiot?

I think that he delegates all his work out to his subordinates (who are not very nice people) and thusly has no clue as to what is going on. That is not calling him an idiot, just lazy.

also, HIS ADMINISTRATION LIES. you need to escape from your ego trap that tells you to support Bush through all his lies because you supported him before and do not want to admit you were wrong about him.

Well, when people are feel that someone is a liar and evil etc. a synomyme for that would be idiot.

Get one thing straight ComputerGeek, I support Bush and the Bush administration because i think that they are doing a good job for the U.S. and for the world.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Actually GWS is still unknown. Speculations about depleted uranium is, well speculations and unproven theories.

Actually it is not. The DoD has published reports on it and thy even tell their soldiers about it. My brother is a Marine and he has been extensively trained on DU decon.

It is only speculation to folks who do not believe evidence or have any reasoning.

HEAVY METAL POISONING. that is what GWS is.

 

[Mattara]

Actually it is not. The DoD has published reports on it and thy even tell their soldiers about it. My brother is a Marine and he has been extensively trained on DU decon.

It is only speculation to folks who do not believe evidence or have any reasoning.

HEAVY METAL POISONING. that is what GWS is.

Now you are talking in circles. Ok, let me ask you this: how do you know that the DoD was telling the truth this time?

 

[ComputerGeek]

Well, when people are feel that someone is a liar and evil etc. a synomyme for that would be idiot.

try looking up synonyms for idiot... liar and evil are NOT on that list. you are trying to defend your irrational argument from above rather than facing the fact that no one here has said Bush is an idiot. Heck, I do not even really think he is evil any longer. I think that his inner circle just does not tell him all the facts in order to forward their agendas.

Get one thing straight ComputerGeek, I support Bush and the Bush administration because i think that they are doing a good job for the U.S. and for the world.

and thusly, hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Now you are talking in circles. Ok, let me ask you this: how do you know that the DoD was telling the truth this time?

So, they contradict their original stance of DU, make themselves look really bad for lying, and they are not telling the truth? Kind of an odd.

When some one, or some entity admits to the correctness of the opposing argument, that means that they acknowledge the truth of the opposing argument. If they wanted to continue lying, then it would not make any sense to change their stance.

 

[Mattara]

try looking up synonyms for idiot... liar and evil are NOT on that list.

Ok, my bad. I'll change it to simmilar.

hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

Let me use 1st grade math.

-1+3 = positive

I'll make myself clearly. The vectors may be negative also but the result is positive.

you are trying to defend your irrational argument from above rather than facing the fact that no one here has said Bush is an idiot.

Irrational? Try über.

Now we are just bickering off-topic. I made some interesting POV:s, let's move on.

 

[Tarheel]

Before you start trying to pwn people that is clearly more educated that yourself...

Oh The Irony! This made me spit mountain dew out of my nose!

I think people typically pwn one another whilst playing counter-strike.

At the Physics Forums it is more likely that you will be engaged in an intelligent discussion. (If you choose to participate)

 

[Mattara]

Oh The Irony! This made me spit mountain dew out of my nose!

I think people typically pwn one another whilst playing counter-strike.

At the Physics Forums it is more likely that you will be engaged in an intelligent discussion. (If you choose to participate)

Actually "pwn" is internet lingo meaning "to beat someone". Guess what? PF is on the internet.

And I think using smilies is a lack of seriousness.

But enough with the bickering

 

[Gokul43201]

The topic is: Bush NOT Honest & Trustworthy

My initial post in this topic was to counter this statement. Therefore it is not off-topic.

I didn't say it was off-topic, only that it may have been arguing against a strawman.

Ok, i will.

Bush lies and is an id*iot;

Post 5:There are discussions of the fact that there are more things than just the President saying: "WAR" all trouh page 1:

Post 10:Other post that supports my post not being a strawman or off-topic

Post 19:Post 26:

Other reference to Bush and telling and evil/id*iotic lies:

Post 20:Post 23:Post 25:Post 51:Post 53:Post 59:Post 68:Post 78:

Now which of those several quotes says that Bush's lying makes him an idiot ? And if you are saying that "bush lies" has nothing to do with his being "an idiot", then voicing these two uncorrelated points is only stating an opinion, not making an "argument". In your post, you claim that these are (incorrect) arguments.

I think that is enough for you, Gokul43201.

Sadly, it doesn't look to me like you've found a single example of a post where someone said that Bush tells lies and that makes him an idiot. So, far from being enough, it seems you still don't have a single data point in response to my query.

And finally a quote about vacation:

Post 72:

(That could count as a form of vacation i.e. ayaw from normal work)

Here, let me try once again. You claimed that an argument made in this thread was that "Bush only takes vacations all the time". Find this assertion in the post you've quoted, and I'll concede your point. Just finding a post that talks of Bush's vacations, doesn't mean the post makes the point you attributed to it.

And the other things that is not covered here is grom my own thoughts and is still on-topic and not a strawman since it has something to do with "Bush" and "trustworthy".

If you accuse people of "pointing fingers" based on the list of "arguments" that you provided, and they never used these same arguments, then, by definition, you have a strawman. It can be on-topic, and still be a strawman. The two are unrelated.

This is however off-topic and a strawman not to forget a direct personal attack which is maybe not a good idea when having a discussion.

1. I never attributed to you something that you didn't say or do(and base my argument on that). Ergo, I have not argued a strawman.

2. I have not made a direct attack on you. I have only pointed out that if nothing you list has been argued by others, then it makes no sense to attempt correcting these "incorrect arguments". Even if I didn't make my statement conditional, I would only be attacking your style of argment, and not you, personally.

3. Yes this is off-topic. A moderator may delete this if required. If there was a policy of deleting posts based on strawmen, maybe this post (and my previous one) would have been unnecessary.

I find it quite surprising that you considered my post a personal attack !

 

[Mattara]

I didn't say it was off-topic, only that it was arguing against a strawman.

Now which of those several quotes says that Bush's lying makes him an idiot ? And if you are saying that "bush lies" has nothing to do with his being "an idiot", then voicing these two uncorrelated points is only stating an opinion, not making an "argument". In your post, you claim that these are (incorrect) arguments.

Sadly, it doesn't look to me like you've found a single example of a post where someone said that Bush tells lies and that makes him an idiot. So, far from being enough, it seems you still don't have a single data point in response to my query.

Here, let me try once again. You claimed that an argument made in this thread was that "Bush only takes vacations all the time". Find this assertion in the post you've quoted, and I'll concede your point. Just searching for the word 'vacation' and posting the results is grossly unrelated to finding a post that makes the assertion you made in your post.




If you accuse people of "pointing fingers" based on the list of "arguments" that you provided, and they never used these same arguments, then, by definition, you have a strawman. It can be on-topic, and still be a strawman. The two are unrelated.

1. I never attributed to you something that you didn't say or do(and base my argument on that). Ergo, I have not argued a strawman.

2. I have not made a direct attack on you. I have only pointed out that if nothing you list has been argued by others, then it makes no sense to attempt correcting these "incorrect arguments". Even if I didn't make my statement conditional, I would only be attacking your style of argment, and not you, personally.

I find it quite surprising that you considered my post a personal attack !

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the opposite of a strawman is to have the special thing discussed before in the topic?

Most of the things i have brought up was discussed earlier to some extent and the things that has not, is my personal view on the topic so it is fair game.

And that, I'm sure know, is considered extremely disingenuous.

Right here you are insulting my intelligence, but I won't lower myself to your level with an answer

finding a post that talks of Bush's vacations, doesn't mean the post makes the point you attributed to it.

No, but i am allowed to post my POV so get over it.

1. I never attributed to you something that you didn't say or do(and base my argument on that). Ergo, I have not argued a strawman.

Fine, i'll act childish in saying that your posts are off topic and should be deleted.

 

[daveb]

Before you start trying to pwn people that is clearly more educated that yourself in this area, you can google "Gulf war syndrome" and then relate to how the same thing was used in the Iran-Iraq war.

By the way, the Iran-Iraq war was eight years, not ten.

What does GWS have to do with anything said (previous to the above quote)?

 

[Mattara]

It is an example of how Iraq used WMD

 

[daveb]

Now you are talking in circles. Ok, let me ask you this: how do you know that the DoD was telling the truth this time?

If the DoD was telling the truth, then GWS is caused by DU, and NOT by WMDs. If the Pentagon is not telling the truth, then they are lying. Therefore, Bush (who approves of DoD offical positions) supports that lie. Therefore, Bush is a liar. Whether he is also an idiot is what you should argue. The fact is, either he is a liar, or your argument about GWS is a strawman.

 

[Mattara]

No, my input on GWS is not a strawman since it was a counter argument to a counter argument countering my initial argument(s)

 

[Tarheel]

...since it was a counter argument to a counter argument countering my initial argument(s)

LMAO! I HAVE to stop reading this thread!

 

[daveb]

It is an example of how Iraq used WMD

There is no debate over whether they used WMDs in the Iran-Iraq war. But since you claim

Actually GWS is still unknown.

, then how can you claim that it is an example of how Iraq used WMDs?

 

[Manchot]

Actually "pwn" is internet lingo meaning "to beat someone".

Actually "pwn" is internet gaming lingo meaning "to beat someone." It's it's more in the realm of 15-year-old gamers than people on a serious physics discussion forum.

So you actually have less money now that before the war in Iraq that you do now becuase of the war in Iraq? No you don't. That my friend is a strawman argument (and a false one i might add). Stop saying "we" becuase there is no "we".

Is that a serious question? The government's debt is the people's debt. The $1200 or so that has been spent per person on this war has to come from somewhere, and even though it's not coming directly from our pockets into the war coffers, it'll have to come indirectly from taxes. Also note that I said "in more ways than one." This includes the human cost of the war (our friends and family members who have died and/or been permanently injured) as well as the credibility cost abroad.

And why do you think he got sanctioned? Was it because he is a non-terrorist? No.

In the loosest sense of the definition of terrorist (i.e., one who uses terror as a means to obtain an objective), yes, Saddam was a terrorist. In the stricter sense of the definition (one without power who uses terror to gain it), he was not one. The problem with calling him a terrorist in the former definition is that it evokes memories of 9/11 and al-Qaeda, which he had nothing to do with. The word "dictator" is much more appropriate here. Anyway, no, he wasn't sanctioned because he was a "terrorist" or a dictator. I don't know if you've noticed, but there are many dictators across the world, many of whom don't have sanctions against them. He was sanctioned because of his country's invasion of Kuwait.

There is no way of knowing that.

Other than Hans Blix and his team of WMD experts saying so?

Yes of course he has and that is what i have been saying. But there are forces in the U.S. politics that can tilt the actions in some angle from time to time.

The Bush administration was unequivocally the driving force behind the invasion of Iraq. He was not tilted: he was the tilter.

That is correct, but they do more than sitting around, waiting to be blamed for something.
I am not blaming every politician's staff, I'm referring to the U.S. politics as one machinery.

You said, "Everything that is done in the White House is made by other people. The President only approves/denies the ideas or is involved in ma[j]or things." This suggests that you believe that his accountability is diminished by the fact that he has a staff.

The one performing the killing is guilty. The one ordering is not, because people can say no. Then if I ordered someone to do something that would make another someone to do something that would make a third someone kill someone etc. You could expand it forever.

Ordering a hit on someone is considered to be first degree murder in the U.S. (and in most other countries). You can get the death penalty for it. And yes, if a chain of command is followed wherein there are multiple levels of ordering, the counts of murder can go right on up the chain, as it should. (In fact, in the military, often only the person who first ordered the hit could be charged, because the rest were following orders.)

Clinton's autobiography/memoairs
common sense. It requires that amount of time to run a country

Bush isn't Clinton. Why do you think they have the same hours? You're also not qualified to guess how much time he spends.

The world is a lot more compicated now than when regan ruled. There are more things to do. Can't you see that?

Really? There were more dictatorships in 1985 than there are now, and Reagan had that pesky little nuclear superpower known as the Soviet Union breathing down his neck. Bush has fewer dictatorships and some suicidal guys in a cave. Furthermore, even if the world was "more complicated," wouldn't that require less vacation time?

There is again, no way of telling that.

Two words: Hans Blix.

You are here by effectivly telling us that the Bush administration, the UN and a whole lot more people are idiots.

For one thing, I said "believes," referring to the present. No one currently claims that he had WMDs, not even the Bush administration. Even in 2003, your statement is false. The UN didn't vote to go to war, so they're out. "A whole lot of people" refers to the people that were assured by the Bush administration that there were WMDs, so they don't count. (A subset of that group are the senators who had the "same intelligence" that Bush did, which is false statement. They in fact did not have the same intelligence, only the intelligence which supported the case for war.) As for the Bush administration, I'll leave it to you to decide whether they're idiots or not.

By the way, if the whole WMD thing was an intelligence snafu, why did George Tenet get the Medal of Freedom?

 

[BobG]

So you actually have less money now that before the war in Iraq that you do now becuase of the war in Iraq? No you don't. That my friend is a strawman argument (and a false one i might add). Stop saying "we" becuase there is no "we".

And why do you think he got sanctioned? Was it because he is a non-terrorist? No.

There is no way of knowing that.

Yes of course he has and that is what i have been saying. But there are forces in the U.S. politics that can tilt the actions in some angle from time to time.

That is correct, but they do more than sitting around, waiting to be blamed for something.

I am not blaming every politician's staff, I'm referring to the U.S. politics as one machinery.

Yes it is. If you had read my entire argument you might have learned that that is what i said.

The one performing the killing is guilty. The one ordering is not, because people can say no. Then if I ordered someone to do something that would make another someone to do something that would make a third someone kill someone etc. You could expand it forever.

Clinton's autobiography/memoairs

common sense. It requires that amount of time to run a country

The world is a lot more compicated now than when regan ruled. There are more things to do. Can't you see that?

There is again, no way of telling that.

You are here by effectivly telling us that the Bush administration, the UN and a whole lot more people are idiots.

The topic is: Bush NOT Honest & Trustworthy

My initial post in this topic was to counter this statement. Therefore it is not off-topic.

The debate over the Iraq invasion is:
a) whether a "pre-emptive" war should be launched, period.
b) whether a "pre-emptive" war should be launched without overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of the invadee being an imminent threat.
c) whether a "pre-emptive" war should be launched just on the possibility that the invadee may pose a threat.

Most would prefer not to ever launch a "pre-emptive" war, but the deadliness of modern weapons probably pushes most people towards b - that you have to invade if a country poses an imminent threat.

I think it's safe to say that Iraq didn't pose an immediate threat. That starts the second debate - how did the US miscalculate the threat so badly. Was it just "mistakes" or was it intentional? Even if just honest mistakes, there were enough that the best you could say is that the Bush administration was incompetent in assessing the threat.

So, of the three positions on the Iraq invasion, your position is d) whatever decision and rationale Bush used is good. If that's your point of view, that's fine.

Diverting the discussion into the invasion of Iraq doesn't help your case, though. There is certainly quite a bit of evidence to indicate Iraq had dismantled its WMD, while there is no evidence to indicate that they somehow hid their WMD. Your entire argument on the Iraq invasion is based on believing that Bush has to be right. Belief in Bush might support believing in the Iraq invasion, but using the Iraq invasion to support a belief in Bush doesn't work. There's a chance Bush is right and all the current evidence is wrong, but it's not very likely considering what we know now.

In fact, while you could argue that there's no ironclad evidence, it certainly at least looks as if the Bush administration held position "c" - that the possibility of Iraq posing a threat justified invasion. I don't agree with that position, but holding that position would be fine if it were the reason he gave the American public. He definitely gave the impression that the invasion was to defuse an imminent threat by Iraq.

 

[SOS2008]

<snip>

I feel your posts have been addressed well, so will repeat some of what has already been posted. To your first post, I have researched Bush’s life and political career extensively. I agree it would be nice if people would do the same--including you.

BobG has provided a good explanation for why the invasion of Iraq is questioned, most notably preemption without clear and present danger. It is not only because people have died, though it is sad people like you view life with so little value (perhaps until it is your own, or someone you love?).

Then you say: “So what if he lies on once in a while? He has a duty to his country and some things are better keep behind close doors.” First, the extent of his lies are that of High Treason, (not little white lies most people say). Second, a president is supposed to be a model for the rule of law. And third, you are confusing lies/propaganda with classified intelligence related to national security—two different issues.

As a new member you are not aware of the many threads we have had regarding WMD in Iraq. There is clear evidence that there were no WMD, and that WMD were not moved out of Iraq before the invasion. Even Bush, et al have formally admitted to this, and information to the contrary are conspiracy theories.

I don’t agree that the Iraqis are better off…yet. If basic needs can be restored and the country can become stable, then I’ll agree – minus the loss of life and keeping in mind the cost of the war, which BTW is the #1 reason for the national debt in the U.S. at this time.

In regard to Bush and debate about control, I assure you his management style is that of someone who orders his staff to go out and “make it so.” Yes, staff does the real work, strategy, etc., but with a command in mind. Those who obey are greatly loved and rewarded, and those who don’t will part paths (Powell, Whitman, etc.).

If you want to talk about bashing, then let’s address blind support. You say: “I support Bush and the Bush administration because i think that they are doing a good job for the U.S. and for the world.” I have seen it asked many times in many forums for evidence for this belief. These people never provide it, because it is emotionally based, not based on evidence.

As a new member, another word of advice – If you take an accusatory stance, you should be prepared to back up your claims with credible sources, etc. Also, if you feel you have been attacked personally, I can direct you to other forums where this would be true.

 

[SOS2008]

This originally posted in the NSA Spying thread:

Or an executive order giving Cheney power to classify information at his will. Also now known as Libbys new defense. see below
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051104.html
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113962394427971509-ydWRY_4tyZ2tAJcCsfbEBc_qD7A_20070210.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602160841.asp

The way I see it, Executive 13292 only gives Cheney the authority to classify information, not declassify information as Cheney suggests in relation to the Valery Plame incident, and libbys leaking of that information.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html

Is this still America or did I take a wrong turn somewhere. Could Cheney have legally given Libby the permission to release information that would out a CIA operative in order to discredit her husbands classified testimony about the non existence of yellow cake??

Dam this whole administration is so totally Bizarre it is beyond Orwell.

This is a very relevant post. Before replying I did some research and this is what I found:

Timeline:

February 2002 :
The CIA sent Wilson to Nigeria to determine if Iraqis had tried to purchase yellowcake uranium from Africa; his conclusion was that these allegations were probably unfounded.

28 January 2003 :
President Bush, State of the Union: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

6 May 2003:
NYT Nicholas Kristof reported Wilson's conclusions about African yellowcake, but did not name him.

So less than two months after the State of the Union speech and about two months before the first news story, Executive Order 12958 was amended, and released on March 23, 2003. The entire content can be read @ http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030325-11.html

And then two months after the first story by Kristof, conservative pundit Robert Novak reported Plame's status in a July 2003 column in the Washington Post.

So what we see is an administration that places itself above the law by making new laws however they please. And it isn't this one isolated incident, but a continual track record whether a letter of intent negating adherence to the new bill regarding torture, and now hoping to change FISA. Can you say CROOK?

 

[edward]

And yet Cheny only just now, at the end of his "I pulled the trigger" confession to FOX news, revealed that he had been given the authority by executive order to pretty much do as he dam well pleases when he dam well pleases.

This includes doing what he dam well pleases with classified documents and outing CIA operatives to protect a lie.

Why the hell didn't he just say so in 2003? Because he couldn't have gotten away with it in 2003. It might have spoiled his little foray into Iraq that turned into a permanent occupation of that country.

Everything about this administration has been a secretive conspiracy to defraud the American people, yet a great portion of the American people bought into it. This administration has managed through their devious methods to fool enough of the people enough of the time to get away with anything.

I am going to sign off now I am suffering from an extreme chocolate deficiency.