Remember When O'Neill Was Lying About Administration Focus on Iraq?

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Your whole point seems to be that bush admin is somehow uniquely responsible for painting Iraq as a WMD threat.

It's not ment to be, my point much like the thread itself.  Is to point out that the Bush administration lied and is continuing to lie about it's reasons for going to war and causing the deaths of thousands of people.

[Eagler]

yep, a cowboy hat for everyone, even dowding and frogboy:

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Thrawn
It's not ment to be, my point much like the thread itself.  Is to point out that the Bush administration lied and is continuing to lie about it's reasons for going to war and causing the deaths of thousands of people.

Whats the difference between a lie and incorrect information?

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Whats the difference between a lie and incorrect information?

Answer:
If a Republican does it, it's a lie.
If a Democrat does it, even under oath, it's incorrect information.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Whats the difference between a lie and incorrect information?

The Bush administration may have had incorrect information in some cases, but they aslo willfully lied about information regarding the reasons to go to war in Iraq and cause the death of thousands of people.

[GRUNHERZ]

Dis Clinton lie about it too when he bombed Iraq because of the WMD, killing many people? Did Clinton lie too when he continued the sanctions because of WMD, killing thousands of iraqi children in the process?

If you say Bush WMD policy is a lie then isnt Clintons similar agressive bombing and killing Iraqi's policy a lie as well?  If the WMD threat idea is the issue, then really it shouldnt matter even across both adminstarations...

[GRUNHERZ]

I found out this Clarke fellow is peddling a book...  Check it out at amazon..

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743260244/qid=1079857747/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-1728316-4967045?v=glance&s=books&n=507846


I think this puts his sensationalism in perspective...  

[maslo]

So bush used same lie, so there shouldnt be a problem Grun ?

Did i got your point correctly ?


major diference between those 2 US laiers is, that one of them is at home and second of them is trying to convince us that terrorism and killing is  important for  world peace.

So stop crying about Clinton, he is gone and tell us Grun, what should president of US do, after he several times presend wrong informations on public, whitch cause death of few thousand people. .... Does he have any responsibility or he is only poor vicim of his employee ?

[Frogm4n]

Yes grun, thats the entire reason these guys are critical of bush. Even though they used to believe in the same things and worked with the man. They wanted to sell books. Even though they could have wrote positive books about him and sold them to bush supporters which roughly equal the anti bush people.

When multiple people that worked within the admin. that are privy to information we are not start comming out critizing the president its never a good sign.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
Yes grun, thats the entire reason these guys are critical of bush. Even though they used to believe in the same things and worked with the man. They wanted to sell books. Even though they could have wrote positive books about him and sold them to bush supporters which roughly equal the anti bush people.

When multiple people that worked within the admin. that are privy to information we are not start comming out critizing the president its never a good sign.

Unless, of course, they have axes to grind and a personal agenda.

When current members of the Administration start blowing their whistles in droves I'll be concerned.  Until then, I'll just let you libs grab your pom poms every time one of your compatriots gets canned and writes a book.

[midnight Target]

I sense a giant missed point here.. but that's nothing new for this BBS.

1. Clark isn't saying that "all options were being considered", he is saying that the Bush admin wanted to BOMB IRAQ as a response for 9-11. Because they had "better targets". If this is true it is certainly disturbing.
2. If criticizing Bush helps sell more books, doesn't it follow that most people agree with the criticism? What does this tell you?

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by midnight Target
I sense a giant missed point here.. but that's nothing new for this BBS.

1. Clark isn't saying that "all options were being considered", he is saying that the Bush admin wanted to BOMB IRAQ as a response for 9-11. Because they had "better targets". If this is true it is certainly disturbing.
2. If criticizing Bush helps sell more books, doesn't it follow that most people agree with the criticism? What does this tell you?

The policy of the US since 1998 was regime change in Iraq.  In a meeting discussing response to 9/11 wouldn't it be reasonable to expect someone to suggest that the 9/11 attack could be used as pretext for following established policy of the last 2 administrations as approved by congress?  

After all it was discussed and then the idea discarded for other justification.  Standing on its own, that an idea was fielded does not alarm me unless it was acted upon.  The justification for Iraq was not immediately related to 9/11.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by midnight Target
I sense a giant missed point here.. but that's nothing new for this BBS.

1. Clark isn't saying that "all options were being considered", he is saying that the Bush admin wanted to BOMB IRAQ as a response for 9-11. Because they had "better targets". If this is true it is certainly disturbing.
2. If criticizing Bush helps sell more books, doesn't it follow that most people agree with the criticism? What does this tell you?

MT this guy is trying to sell books. Its not that big of a strech to take differing opinions of who thougt who was responsible and then dramatize them into that. And who in the "Bush adminstration" wanted to do it?  BTW who is this vague "bush adminstration"?  Indviidual opionos in any organization do not reflect the oranizations opinions, they help form it no doubt but in any good org there are systes to resolve intraorganizational negotiation of issues and arrive at some conclusion that considers options and arrives at best conclusion. So I ask you, is the "bush admin" that that you say argued to attack iraq  the same "bush adminstration" that invaded afgananistan within only 3 weeks of 911... You see when did we invade afghanistan, in october 911. When did we invade Iraq, in march 2003.   So whatever was discussed, you are for open discusssion in a decision making process arent you, its obvious what the ultimate decision that was made and made very quickly, regardless of any differing opinions.

Second point. If criticizing bush helps sell books thaen doersnt that mean that most people agree with the criticism.

Well I hope its just eary in the morning and you havent had that coffe yet, cuz thats an unusally crude and unsophistaced staement from you, unless you really are particularly myopic and wishful in your dislike of bush.

1) It  means he is attempting to make the book poular with those people who dislike bush.

2) It means that he is attempting to criticize bush in order to create controversy or "buzz" for his book - which is always good for sales.

Or look at it this way, if your favoriye author Ann Coulter is bashing the Deomcratic party in order to sell her books, does that mean "that most people agree with the criticism?"

I think you know the answer MT. Go get that coffe now.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Martlet
I don't know what fantasy world you're living in.  You guys have been yapping about evidence, but you've yet to produce any.

I thought that was basically the argument against the war?

[Holden McGroin]

I thought that was basically the argument against the war?

But before the war, the controversy was how to deal with WMD's and Iraq's violations of UNSC resolutions.

France, Deutchland, and Russia wanted more time for sanctions and inspections to work, the US and UK had had enough.  

As I remember it, the only government claiming that weapons did not exist was Iraq's.