Americans support war in Iraq 2-to-1, poll finds

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JackStorm

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2003
1,216
0
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Well, where it comes to charity I might not have a good viewpoint. I, personally, give to a lot of charities, usually those that help young people because I think the money is best spent on them. I like giving to charity because it gives me a good feeling, personally, and also some hope that those who are benefitted will see the beauty of helping others and, when they are able to afford to do so, will follow the example.

I would never imagine stealing from someone else in order to give to any cause, no matter how noble. I believe that would taint the morality of the act. I LOATHE Robin Hood, and I think he and his methods were proper for an age where the only way to get wealth was to be born into it, but we in the U.S. do NOT live in that kind of world. Over 80% of the rich in America, as an example, are *first generation* wealthy. The biggest thing that holds people back is an idea in their head that says they *can't* do better than they have. I do not share that idea.

If I were to share in the idea that you are what you are born to, I would have to be dirt poor and a drug addict. I cam from a family where my parents abused drugs, where we moved constantly because my father couldn't keep a job due to his piss-poor attitude. When I was 8 years old we spent almost a year living in the family van because my father spent, spent, spent everything he made on getting high.

But you know what? I've never even once tried an illegal drug of any kind. I've gotten drunk maybe 3 or 4 times in my life and I didn't like it. I left home at 17 and got myself a cruddy minimum wage job (if I recall it was at around $5 an hour doing utter grunt labor for Kmart) and put myself through a couple of years of training at a technical college where I learned networking, and eventually I've managed to climb up to make around $30 an hour. I'm not part of a union and I never will be. I haven't gotten a lot of breaks, though I have had close friends who have helped me through some rough times, and I appreciate that more than I can ever say. I've made mistakes, of course, as we all have, and even had a child with a nutty woman who ended up kidnapping him 5 years ago.

But I don't give up, and though I do sometimes despair I don't stop believing that I CAN do better and that I can make every year better than the last. I believe that with all my heart and soul, and sometimes I can't believe that I'm really from the family I am, but the truth of that situation is inescapable. So when I see whiny piss-ant people like Bowfinger, whose answer for making people economically better off is to steal from some and give to others, I get a little pissed. Partially because people like him bring out the worst and most unethical behavior in people and partially because they intentionally work to discourage people and implant the idea in their heads that they can't make through honest means.

To anyone who's ever tempted by such evil words, I would say to you that you CAN make it, you are NOT stuck where you were born, you are NOT doomed to any fate but what YOU choose. The key is to realize that the power of CHOICE is in your hands and your minds, and you must learn to make the best choices you can.

You CAN make it. I know from experience.

Jason
Good post, and I agree with pretty much everything you just said.

People need to realize that if they want something out of life or want to change their life. They should work/fight for it. Whether it be to gain an education, obtain freedom, get a job or just too improve ones standard of living. It's all to easy for people now a days to just give up and then expect to have everything handed to them. As you said, you ALWAYS have a choice. Granted, if you live in a dictatorship, whatever choice you make wont be easy. But it's still your choice.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Well, where it comes to charity I might not have a good viewpoint. I, personally, give to a lot of charities, usually those that help young people because I think the money is best spent on them. I like giving to charity because it gives me a good feeling, personally, and also some hope that those who are benefitted will see the beauty of helping others and, when they are able to afford to do so, will follow the example.

I would never imagine stealing from someone else in order to give to any cause, no matter how noble. I believe that would taint the morality of the act. I LOATHE Robin Hood, and I think he and his methods were proper for an age where the only way to get wealth was to be born into it, but we in the U.S. do NOT live in that kind of world. Over 80% of the rich in America, as an example, are *first generation* wealthy. The biggest thing that holds people back is an idea in their head that says they *can't* do better than they have. I do not share that idea.

If I were to share in the idea that you are what you are born to, I would have to be dirt poor and a drug addict. I cam from a family where my parents abused drugs, where we moved constantly because my father couldn't keep a job due to his piss-poor attitude. When I was 8 years old we spent almost a year living in the family van because my father spent, spent, spent everything he made on getting high.

But you know what? I've never even once tried an illegal drug of any kind. I've gotten drunk maybe 3 or 4 times in my life and I didn't like it. I left home at 17 and got myself a cruddy minimum wage job (if I recall it was at around $5 an hour doing utter grunt labor for Kmart) and put myself through a couple of years of training at a technical college where I learned networking, and eventually I've managed to climb up to make around $30 an hour. I'm not part of a union and I never will be. I haven't gotten a lot of breaks, though I have had close friends who have helped me through some rough times, and I appreciate that more than I can ever say. I've made mistakes, of course, as we all have, and even had a child with a nutty woman who ended up kidnapping him 5 years ago.

But I don't give up, and though I do sometimes despair I don't stop believing that I CAN do better and that I can make every year better than the last. I believe that with all my heart and soul, and sometimes I can't believe that I'm really from the family I am, but the truth of that situation is inescapable. So when I see whiny piss-ant people like Bowfinger, whose answer for making people economically better off is to steal from some and give to others, I get a little pissed. Partially because people like him bring out the worst and most unethical behavior in people and partially because they intentionally work to discourage people and implant the idea in their heads that they can't make through honest means.

To anyone who's ever tempted by such evil words, I would say to you that you CAN make it, you are NOT stuck where you were born, you are NOT doomed to any fate but what YOU choose. The key is to realize that the power of CHOICE is in your hands and your minds, and you must learn to make the best choices you can.

You CAN make it. I know from experience.

Jason

Good for you.

Now here is another scenario. An honest hardworking man finds that his 2 year old child is horribly mentally retarded. This child also needs medication to prevent epilepsy and a whole host of things. The father decides to do the best he can for this child and the rest of the family. He works just about every waking moment. He has not time to "improve" himself. So he works day after day and sees this child decay because whatever he does is not enough. He has no CHOICE. At the time all of this is going on, there is no medicaid. There is no resource to turn to. There are no "thieves" to help him. Gradually the child winds up in a group home barely able to function. He would never be able to hold a networking job. He IS stuck. He has NO CHOICE. He IS doomed.

And every financial resource and then some was spent. If there had been some aid, then perhaps this child could have been better off, but no.

Tell me, how could my father have done better for my brother?

You brag about overcoming adversity. Again, good for you. I did too. Some cannot.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Why is it that when someone posts a real-life example of a human being being able to overcome adversity to some degree, there is always someone with a hypothetical example of a guy who the world is just plain out to get? Why must your hypothetical scenarios always assume a complete and total lack of any possibility of charity or help from friends, family, fellow church or community members, etc.?

And just for clarification, I don't brag about anything, I'm just telling it like it is, and saying in opposition to the likes of you that yes, in a free society people CAN make their lives better. Your scenario in no way justifies the abandonment of the ethical code that protects individual rights.

What a sad view of life you hold, my friend. Let's just spread that doom, doom, doom!

Jason
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Why is it that when someone posts a real-life example of a human being being able to overcome adversity to some degree, there is always someone with a hypothetical example of a guy who the world is just plain out to get? Why must your hypothetical scenarios always assume a complete and total lack of any possibility of charity or help from friends, family, fellow church or community members, etc.?

What a sad view of life you hold, my friend. Let's just spread that doom, doom, doom!

Jason
Who's being hypothetical?
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Are you going to say now that your example is a real one? I'll tell you this: Real or not, you have not provided any example that can justify the enslavement of some men for the sake of others. When you try to justify why the government should steal from some people and give to others, you ARE endorsing slavery. Slavery is wrong, PERIOD. The right way is liberty, honesty, integrity and justice. There are lots of charities to help people in unfortunate circumstances, and the nice advantage of charity is that it's VOLUNTARY and therefore moral. Theft is not moral, no matter who the beneficiary is.

Jason
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,707
6
0
Yay another poll, conducted on 1,001 adults. 243 of their opinions are worthless since they are unregistered voters. The other 758 have just watched Saddam Hussein captured on television broadcasted 24 hours a day, so I'm sure that would sway their opinion for the next couple of weeks or so. Let's see what happens in the next poll when people forget about Saddam.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Are you going to say now that your example is a real one? I'll tell you this: Real or not, you have not provided any example that can justify the enslavement of some men for the sake of others. When you try to justify why the government should steal from some people and give to others, you ARE endorsing slavery. Slavery is wrong, PERIOD. The right way is liberty, honesty, integrity and justice. There are lots of charities to help people in unfortunate circumstances, and the nice advantage of charity is that it's VOLUNTARY and therefore moral. Theft is not moral, no matter who the beneficiary is.

Jason
Yes it is real.

Enslavement? Bah, hyperbole. Get a dictionary.

Charities are not always enough. They werent.

What you are saying is that you were able to go from a have not to a have, and if you choose to not help another it is your right to watch others who cannot improve their situation die, and feel offended or wronged when charity fails, and society collectively creates a system that provides to those in true need. I am NOT advocating a free ride for those who can work and do not. Well, others do not feel that way. They see value in people regardless of their income or situation. People are going to help others if they want to or not.

Here is the difference between you and I. When I had hard times, I noted the difference between those who could help themselves and those who did not. I remember. You did not, or you did not care enough. You give to charity? Great. Good for you. Others do not. I do, and I pay taxes too, and I realize it is in part because of the niggardliness of others worried more about some imagined slavery than the welfare of others. Welfare is NOT a bad word, even if it has been associated with those who choose not to work. The public good, the common welfare, kindness, generosity are not swears. Are you a victim? Then it is because you want to see yourself as one. If you were to say that you wish the money taken in taxes to do the most good, I would agree. You are more worried that another might diminish the cash you have that could have been spent on a nicer trim package for your car.

You claim that "theft" is a greater sin than the inhumanity of another.

So be it. You make clear the things you value.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Well, where it comes to charity I might not have a good viewpoint. I, personally, give to a lot of charities, usually those that help young people because I think the money is best spent on them. I like giving to charity because it gives me a good feeling, personally, and also some hope that those who are benefitted will see the beauty of helping others and, when they are able to afford to do so, will follow the example.

I would never imagine stealing from someone else in order to give to any cause, no matter how noble. I believe that would taint the morality of the act. I LOATHE Robin Hood, and I think he and his methods were proper for an age where the only way to get wealth was to be born into it, but we in the U.S. do NOT live in that kind of world. Over 80% of the rich in America, as an example, are *first generation* wealthy. The biggest thing that holds people back is an idea in their head that says they *can't* do better than they have. I do not share that idea.

If I were to share in the idea that you are what you are born to, I would have to be dirt poor and a drug addict. I cam from a family where my parents abused drugs, where we moved constantly because my father couldn't keep a job due to his piss-poor attitude. When I was 8 years old we spent almost a year living in the family van because my father spent, spent, spent everything he made on getting high.

But you know what? I've never even once tried an illegal drug of any kind. I've gotten drunk maybe 3 or 4 times in my life and I didn't like it. I left home at 17 and got myself a cruddy minimum wage job (if I recall it was at around $5 an hour doing utter grunt labor for Kmart) and put myself through a couple of years of training at a technical college where I learned networking, and eventually I've managed to climb up to make around $30 an hour. I'm not part of a union and I never will be. I haven't gotten a lot of breaks, though I have had close friends who have helped me through some rough times, and I appreciate that more than I can ever say. I've made mistakes, of course, as we all have, and even had a child with a nutty woman who ended up kidnapping him 5 years ago.

But I don't give up, and though I do sometimes despair I don't stop believing that I CAN do better and that I can make every year better than the last. I believe that with all my heart and soul, and sometimes I can't believe that I'm really from the family I am, but the truth of that situation is inescapable. So when I see whiny piss-ant people like Bowfinger, whose answer for making people economically better off is to steal from some and give to others, I get a little pissed. Partially because people like him bring out the worst and most unethical behavior in people and partially because they intentionally work to discourage people and implant the idea in their heads that they can't make through honest means.

To anyone who's ever tempted by such evil words, I would say to you that you CAN make it, you are NOT stuck where you were born, you are NOT doomed to any fate but what YOU choose. The key is to realize that the power of CHOICE is in your hands and your minds, and you must learn to make the best choices you can.

You CAN make it. I know from experience.

Jason
You can take that trailer-trash chip on your shoulder and shove it up your rectum. You ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance, and if you truly believe I "intentionally work to discourage people and implant the idea in their heads that they can't make (sic) through honest means," you can add reading comprehension to your list of personal inadequacies. You obviously haven't paid the least bit of attention to what I have and have not actually said. Your comment about unethical behavior is even more preposterous.

I had an employee who was a lot like you, striking out on her own in her late teens, determined to climb above her poor beginnings, carrying a lot of hostility and other leftover baggage from her youth. She wasn't a good employee. True, she was driven to work her butt off. Unfortunately, her insecurities tainted her attitude and her ability to work as part of a team. She was compulsive about making herself visible and being sure she got credit even at the expense of her coworkers. She saw herself as a one-woman show; she alone was responsible for her success; only her individual accomplishments would be recognized and rewarded. It is ultimately a self-destructive behavior.

I sincerely suggest you seek professional help. Then, if you'd like to discuss our differences about balancing unfettered capitalism and globablization against the best interests of We, the People of the United States, let me know.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Well, where it comes to charity I might not have a good viewpoint. I, personally, give to a lot of charities, usually those that help young people because I think the money is best spent on them. I like giving to charity because it gives me a good feeling, personally, and also some hope that those who are benefitted will see the beauty of helping others and, when they are able to afford to do so, will follow the example.

I would never imagine stealing from someone else in order to give to any cause, no matter how noble. I believe that would taint the morality of the act. I LOATHE Robin Hood, and I think he and his methods were proper for an age where the only way to get wealth was to be born into it, but we in the U.S. do NOT live in that kind of world. Over 80% of the rich in America, as an example, are *first generation* wealthy. The biggest thing that holds people back is an idea in their head that says they *can't* do better than they have. I do not share that idea.

If I were to share in the idea that you are what you are born to, I would have to be dirt poor and a drug addict. I cam from a family where my parents abused drugs, where we moved constantly because my father couldn't keep a job due to his piss-poor attitude. When I was 8 years old we spent almost a year living in the family van because my father spent, spent, spent everything he made on getting high.

But you know what? I've never even once tried an illegal drug of any kind. I've gotten drunk maybe 3 or 4 times in my life and I didn't like it. I left home at 17 and got myself a cruddy minimum wage job (if I recall it was at around $5 an hour doing utter grunt labor for Kmart) and put myself through a couple of years of training at a technical college where I learned networking, and eventually I've managed to climb up to make around $30 an hour. I'm not part of a union and I never will be. I haven't gotten a lot of breaks, though I have had close friends who have helped me through some rough times, and I appreciate that more than I can ever say. I've made mistakes, of course, as we all have, and even had a child with a nutty woman who ended up kidnapping him 5 years ago.

But I don't give up, and though I do sometimes despair I don't stop believing that I CAN do better and that I can make every year better than the last. I believe that with all my heart and soul, and sometimes I can't believe that I'm really from the family I am, but the truth of that situation is inescapable. So when I see whiny piss-ant people like Bowfinger, whose answer for making people economically better off is to steal from some and give to others, I get a little pissed. Partially because people like him bring out the worst and most unethical behavior in people and partially because they intentionally work to discourage people and implant the idea in their heads that they can't make through honest means.

To anyone who's ever tempted by such evil words, I would say to you that you CAN make it, you are NOT stuck where you were born, you are NOT doomed to any fate but what YOU choose. The key is to realize that the power of CHOICE is in your hands and your minds, and you must learn to make the best choices you can.

You CAN make it. I know from experience.

Jason
You can take that trailer-trash chip on your shoulder and shove it up your rectum. You ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance, and if you truly believe I "intentionally work to discourage people and implant the idea in their heads that they can't make (sic) through honest means," you can add reading comprehension to your list of personal inadequacies. You obviously haven't paid the least bit of attention to what I have and have not actually said. Your comment about unethical behavior is even more preposterous.

I had an employee who was a lot like you, striking out on her own in her late teens, determined to climb above her poor beginnings, carrying a lot of hostility and other leftover baggage from her youth. She wasn't a good employee. True, she was driven to work her butt off. Unfortunately, her insecurities tainted her attitude and her ability to work as part of a team. She was compulsive about making herself visible and being sure she got credit even at the expense of her coworkers. She saw herself as a one-woman show; she alone was responsible for her success; only her individual accomplishments would be recognized and rewarded. It is ultimately a self-destructive behavior.

I sincerely suggest you seek professional help. Then, if you'd like to discuss our differences about balancing unfettered capitalism and globablization against the best interests of We, the People of the United States, let me know.
So you had an attention whore - that doesn't refute what he said. And infact his post brought a big smile to my face, although it would have been better if he'd have left you out of it;).

Sacrificing one's self for the betterment of others is noble, but to force sacrifice is not sacrifice at all. Likewise, Greed is evil, and can drive one to disregard that which provided for ascension; but to force all, because some might become evil, is not right nor just.

CkG
 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
No justification was needed...Congress approved it and we simply enforced what the UN (France, Germany, Russia) refused to do.
Nothing like militant states where a power hungry head of state intimidates the peoples' representatives into endorsing BS policy. Congress does not approve wars . . . Congress is responsible for declaring war. Minor detail in that Constitution-thing . . . you know that document that no one acknowledges anymore.

people are sheep!
people are stupid!
idiots believe everything the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush White House tells them.
If the shoe fits . . . considering many Americans believe we found WMD in Iraq, Saddam was linked to 9/11 (or Al Qaeda), and the Sun orbits the Earth.

morons!, conspiracy to hide the truth! we are the terrorists!
Who needs a conspiracy when the country is populated by morons?!
Two years ago a Roper poll commissioned by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) surveyed students attending the nation's top schools and found that 40 percent did not know in what half century the Civil War occurred. A recent National Assessment of Education Progress test found that more than half of high school seniors thought that Germany, Italy or Japan was our ally in World War II.

A Columbia Law School survey found that 35 percent of voting-age Americans thought that Karl Marx's dogma, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," was in the United States Constitution. Another 34 percent responded that they weren't sure.
blame the major media for making people sheep then. most people dont bother to read the news anymore, they let it be beamed to them via satalite or sent via cable. therefore they only hear what the major news outlets tell them. and, if i remember correctly, it was the media who 'linked' Saddam and Al Qaeda to 911, not the President.
 

SynthesisI

Banned
May 21, 2003
634
0
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
linky

i can predict the liberals responses already:

people are sheep!
people are stupid!
idiots believe everything the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush White House tells them.
morons!, conspiracy to hide the truth! we are the terrorists! Dean will win!!
Of course- what else did you expect? :beer:;)
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I think it would be informative if we had a poll that prefaced the support question with the phrase "Assuming the invasion of Iraq to be illegal" followed by the alternative preface "Assuming the ... to be legal". Of course the 'War' suggests that war is a natural consequence to an invasion. But, it seems to me, the exigent circumstance was thwarted (if it existed) rather quickly and it didn't take the elimination of the Iraqi government and prolonged occupation to accomplish the invasion predicate. That does not mean I support the former Iraqi government. It does, however, suggest that the invasion was a means to an end and that fact (assumed) ought to be the question asked.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Are you going to say now that your example is a real one? I'll tell you this: Real or not, you have not provided any example that can justify the enslavement of some men for the sake of others. When you try to justify why the government should steal from some people and give to others, you ARE endorsing slavery. Slavery is wrong, PERIOD. The right way is liberty, honesty, integrity and justice. There are lots of charities to help people in unfortunate circumstances, and the nice advantage of charity is that it's VOLUNTARY and therefore moral. Theft is not moral, no matter who the beneficiary is.

Jason
Welcome to the real world. I am sorry your dad was a loser. Other people need help for other reasons. Your story is not the only story.

PS. You sound stupid when you moan about slavery and theft. Do you propose eliminating all taxes or just taxes for things you hate?
 

NesuD

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,999
106
106
"We own you, you don't have any legal rights."
Hell BBD thats nothing new. I remember being told almost word for word the same thing when i was in high school. Hmm lets see that was in 1978 when gasp!!! we had a democrat for President. Please this crap is so recycled even a carp won'r bite on it.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
Genesys-

"blame the major media for making people sheep then. most people dont bother to read the news anymore, they let it be beamed to them via satalite or sent via cable. therefore they only hear what the major news outlets tell them. and, if i remember correctly, it was the media who 'linked' Saddam and Al Qaeda to 911, not the President. "

Not exactly. Read it and weep-

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Genesys-

"blame the major media for making people sheep then. most people dont bother to read the news anymore, they let it be beamed to them via satalite or sent via cable. therefore they only hear what the major news outlets tell them. and, if i remember correctly, it was the media who 'linked' Saddam and Al Qaeda to 911, not the President. "

Not exactly. Read it and weep-

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
I love that letter. I've used it several times. It's kind of a cross between a magic act and a clove of garlic. All you have to do is pull it out of your hat and the apologists disappear. Here it is in it's full glory, again, just to drive the message out to as many people as possilbe:
Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate


March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: ( Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH
Proof positive, straight from the horses's ... err ... mouth, that President George W. Bush did personally and explicity claim a link between Iraq and 9/11. Yet the YABAs still claim Bush never lied about anything. I guess it depends on what the definition of 'is' is.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Genesys-

"blame the major media for making people sheep then. most people dont bother to read the news anymore, they let it be beamed to them via satalite or sent via cable. therefore they only hear what the major news outlets tell them. and, if i remember correctly, it was the media who 'linked' Saddam and Al Qaeda to 911, not the President. "

Not exactly. Read it and weep-

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
I love that letter. I've used it several times. It's kind of a cross between a magic act and a clove of garlic. All you have to do is pull it out of your hat and the apologists disappear. Here it is in it's full glory, again, just to drive the message out to as many people as possilbe:
Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate


March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: ( Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH
Proof positive, straight from the horses's ... err ... mouth, that President George W. Bush did personally and explicity claim a link between Iraq and 9/11. Yet the YABAs still claim Bush never lied about anything. I guess it depends on what the definition of 'is' is.
It seems you both do not understand what it says. I think people need to learn how to read "or" statements;) Also the letter is referencing a law(Public Law 107-243) - which talks about Sept.11.

It's really a nice try there Bow and Jhhnn, but your interpretation is only a misguided opinion at best. Oh, and about some supposed "disappearing" - I think it's because you ran away that you didn't see me talk about the same things I have above which refute your assessment(opinion).

CkG
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Genesys-

"blame the major media for making people sheep then. most people dont bother to read the news anymore, they let it be beamed to them via satalite or sent via cable. therefore they only hear what the major news outlets tell them. and, if i remember correctly, it was the media who 'linked' Saddam and Al Qaeda to 911, not the President. "

Not exactly. Read it and weep-

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
I love that letter. I've used it several times. It's kind of a cross between a magic act and a clove of garlic. All you have to do is pull it out of your hat and the apologists disappear. Here it is in it's full glory, again, just to drive the message out to as many people as possilbe:
Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate


March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: ( Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH
Proof positive, straight from the horses's ... err ... mouth, that President George W. Bush did personally and explicity claim a link between Iraq and 9/11. Yet the YABAs still claim Bush never lied about anything. I guess it depends on what the definition of 'is' is.
It seems you both do not understand what it says. I think people need to learn how to read "or" statements;) Also the letter is referencing a law(Public Law 107-243) - which talks about Sept.11.

It's really a nice try there Bow and Jhhnn, but your interpretation is only a misguided opinion at best. Oh, and about some supposed "disappearing" - I think it's because you ran away that you didn't see me talk about the same things I have above which refute your assessment(opinion).

CkG

Actually we do. I think you do too, but your response is not unexpected.
Bush is justifying his actions as per this law AND REFERRING TO 9/11. He did not need to. He could have not referred to this at all. He did though to bring people on board.
You still beating your wife CkG? One can say all sorts of things without making a declaritive.

Saddam has yet to be linked to terrorist organizations BTW. When Bush spoke of Iraq, it was often SaddamandBinLadan. Oh yes, two different people, but this administration has gone to virtually NO effort to point out that fact as demonstrated by countless polls. Why bring this up at all? Because it sounds good.

To say that Bush did not try to associate Saddam with terrorism and 9/11 is ridiculous. It's like someone saying a criminal never confessed to killing someone because they never explicitly used the word murder even if they described the whole thing in explicit detail

No, you are too smart. You know Bush associates Saddam with 9/11. You just want to get a rise out of those who know as well and say so.


 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
What you are saying is that you were able to go from a have not to a have, and if you choose to not help another it is your right to watch others who cannot improve their situation die, and feel offended or wronged when charity fails, and society collectively creates a system that provides to those in true need. I am NOT advocating a free ride for those who can work and do not. Well, others do not feel that way. They see value in people regardless of their income or situation. People are going to help others if they want to or not.

Here is the difference between you and I. When I had hard times, I noted the difference between those who could help themselves and those who did not. I remember. You did not, or you did not care enough. You give to charity? Great. Good for you. Others do not. I do, and I pay taxes too, and I realize it is in part because of the niggardliness of others worried more about some imagined slavery than the welfare of others. Welfare is NOT a bad word, even if it has been associated with those who choose not to work. The public good, the common welfare, kindness, generosity are not swears. Are you a victim? Then it is because you want to see yourself as one. If you were to say that you wish the money taken in taxes to do the most good, I would agree. You are more worried that another might diminish the cash you have that could have been spent on a nicer trim package for your car.

You claim that "theft" is a greater sin than the inhumanity of another.

So be it. You make clear the things you value.
You're damned right I make clear the things I value. Just so there is no question, here is an itemized list:

1. Individual Rights. I value the idea that EACH individual has certainly inalienable, NATURAL rights inherent as a result of his nature as a creature who is conscious, self aware and requires freedom to act in order to pursue his own best interests.

2. Justice. I value the idea that each man should get what he deserves, WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE, as a consequence of his thoughts and actions. If he deserves wealth because he worked hard and made good choices, he should not be deprived of it. If he deserves death because he made poor decisions and landed himself drunk in the gutter, SO BE IT.

3. Reason. I value the idea that a man's mind is his most valuable tool of survival and that he should learn to use it in the most effective way possible so as to make the best possible life FOR HIMSELF.

4. Rational Self Interest. I value the idea that each man knows and is RESPONSIBLE FOR KNOWING what his best interests are, and acting to achieve those interests in a NON SACRIFICIAL manner, which is to say without sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.

5. Liberty. I value the idea that as a consequence of his nature as a being with a form of consciousness that requires him to make choices and act upon those choices in order to maintain his life, man ought to be free to live, work and benefit from his work to whatever extent he is capable, with the only limits being that he may not intentionally interfere in the liberty of any other man.

6. Property. I value the idea that a man who works and earns property owns that property and that no one has a right to take it from him under any circumstance whatsoever. Obvious asides would include such times as when government uses the power of Eminent Domain to take property for public use (roads, government buildings, etc), but that in such times the taking MUST be justly compensated. I do NOT endorse the very modern practice of government taking property from individuals and giving it to corporations (see Costco, the Home Despot and others for examples of evil companies who lobby the government to steal from people and give to them.)

I do NOT find there to be anything noble or moral about self sacrifice. Sacrifice *literally* means "To give up, renounce or destroy", leaving self-sacrifice little alternative but to mean "to give up, renounce or destroy oneself." I find no nobility in such an act. I do not believe that a soldier who dies in a cause he believes in can be said to have made a self sacrifice; he obviously believed his cause was worth the risk of even his life, and that his fight and even death are not sacrifices but investments in something he holds in as high esteem as he would his own life. This is the nobility of his act.

Do you propose eliminating all taxes or just taxes for things you hate?
Neither. If we're going to talk taxes, my position would be quite simple: Make taxes FAIR. Charge EVERYONE, even corporations, a simple, flat percentage. Don't allow deductions of any kind. Eliminate the IRS and save a fortune in processing taxes. On top of that, disallow the government from spending more than it brings in, and mandate that the government must save, say (pulling this # out of the air) 20% of its' yearly income toward future unforeseen emergencies such as wars, terrorist attacks, whatever.

The sum total of what I advocate is JUSTICE. Insist that ALL men have the same NATURAL rights, and craft the laws such that they protect those rights. Don't let some people sacrifice others. Don't let some people steal from others. If you think that some people have a right to take away what other people have justly EARNED, you're only fooling yourself when you say that isn't slavery.

Jason
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Well, where it comes to charity I might not have a good viewpoint. I, personally, give to a lot of charities, usually those that help young people because I think the money is best spent on them. I like giving to charity because it gives me a good feeling, personally, and also some hope that those who are benefitted will see the beauty of helping others and, when they are able to afford to do so, will follow the example.

I would never imagine stealing from someone else in order to give to any cause, no matter how noble. I believe that would taint the morality of the act. I LOATHE Robin Hood, and I think he and his methods were proper for an age where the only way to get wealth was to be born into it, but we in the U.S. do NOT live in that kind of world. Over 80% of the rich in America, as an example, are *first generation* wealthy. The biggest thing that holds people back is an idea in their head that says they *can't* do better than they have. I do not share that idea.

If I were to share in the idea that you are what you are born to, I would have to be dirt poor and a drug addict. I cam from a family where my parents abused drugs, where we moved constantly because my father couldn't keep a job due to his piss-poor attitude. When I was 8 years old we spent almost a year living in the family van because my father spent, spent, spent everything he made on getting high.

But you know what? I've never even once tried an illegal drug of any kind. I've gotten drunk maybe 3 or 4 times in my life and I didn't like it. I left home at 17 and got myself a cruddy minimum wage job (if I recall it was at around $5 an hour doing utter grunt labor for Kmart) and put myself through a couple of years of training at a technical college where I learned networking, and eventually I've managed to climb up to make around $30 an hour. I'm not part of a union and I never will be. I haven't gotten a lot of breaks, though I have had close friends who have helped me through some rough times, and I appreciate that more than I can ever say. I've made mistakes, of course, as we all have, and even had a child with a nutty woman who ended up kidnapping him 5 years ago.

But I don't give up, and though I do sometimes despair I don't stop believing that I CAN do better and that I can make every year better than the last. I believe that with all my heart and soul, and sometimes I can't believe that I'm really from the family I am, but the truth of that situation is inescapable. So when I see whiny piss-ant people like Bowfinger, whose answer for making people economically better off is to steal from some and give to others, I get a little pissed. Partially because people like him bring out the worst and most unethical behavior in people and partially because they intentionally work to discourage people and implant the idea in their heads that they can't make through honest means.

To anyone who's ever tempted by such evil words, I would say to you that you CAN make it, you are NOT stuck where you were born, you are NOT doomed to any fate but what YOU choose. The key is to realize that the power of CHOICE is in your hands and your minds, and you must learn to make the best choices you can.

You CAN make it. I know from experience.

Jason
You can take that trailer-trash chip on your shoulder and shove it up your rectum. You ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance, and if you truly believe I "intentionally work to discourage people and implant the idea in their heads that they can't make (sic) through honest means," you can add reading comprehension to your list of personal inadequacies. You obviously haven't paid the least bit of attention to what I have and have not actually said. Your comment about unethical behavior is even more preposterous.

I had an employee who was a lot like you, striking out on her own in her late teens, determined to climb above her poor beginnings, carrying a lot of hostility and other leftover baggage from her youth. She wasn't a good employee. True, she was driven to work her butt off. Unfortunately, her insecurities tainted her attitude and her ability to work as part of a team. She was compulsive about making herself visible and being sure she got credit even at the expense of her coworkers. She saw herself as a one-woman show; she alone was responsible for her success; only her individual accomplishments would be recognized and rewarded. It is ultimately a self-destructive behavior.

I sincerely suggest you seek professional help. Then, if you'd like to discuss our differences about balancing unfettered capitalism and globablization against the best interests of We, the People of the United States, let me know.
So you had an attention whore - that doesn't refute what he said. And infact his post brought a big smile to my face, although it would have been better if he'd have left you out of it;).

Sacrificing one's self for the betterment of others is noble, but to force sacrifice is not sacrifice at all. Likewise, Greed is evil, and can drive one to disregard that which provided for ascension; but to force all, because some might become evil, is not right nor just.

CkG
You miss my point. It's not just that she craved attention (though she certainly did). She seems so similar to DMA. She had the same chip on her shoulder, the same self-centered perspective, the same anger and contempt for anyone who didn't make it like she did. She was opinionated but not well informed. She was smart and capable, but not nearly so much as she acted. Ironically, I always felt she didn't believe her own self-promotion. I think she still saw herself as a failure and pushed so hard to prove to herself she wasn't. We never discussed the politics of Wal-Mart, but I know she shopped there regularly. I can hear her saying the same kinds of things as DMA.

Re. DMA's rants, I find them ridiculous. He keeps attacking imaginary positions with absurd, over-the-top hyperbole. He makes no attempt whatsoever to consider what someone else really said or to address points raised. He offers no documentation to support his claims, relying solely on screeching his extremist views as gospel truths, over and over. Mostly, in spite of dozens of paragraphs of name-calling and lunacy about "stealing" and "slavery", he never really explains what it is he objects to. We are all wrong, but since he won't provide any specifics, we don't know what we are wrong about. It is impossible to have any kind of a discussion with him, and it is apparent he has no interest in discussions anyway.




 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
What you are saying is that you were able to go from a have not to a have, and if you choose to not help another it is your right to watch others who cannot improve their situation die, and feel offended or wronged when charity fails, and society collectively creates a system that provides to those in true need. I am NOT advocating a free ride for those who can work and do not. Well, others do not feel that way. They see value in people regardless of their income or situation. People are going to help others if they want to or not.

Here is the difference between you and I. When I had hard times, I noted the difference between those who could help themselves and those who did not. I remember. You did not, or you did not care enough. You give to charity? Great. Good for you. Others do not. I do, and I pay taxes too, and I realize it is in part because of the niggardliness of others worried more about some imagined slavery than the welfare of others. Welfare is NOT a bad word, even if it has been associated with those who choose not to work. The public good, the common welfare, kindness, generosity are not swears. Are you a victim? Then it is because you want to see yourself as one. If you were to say that you wish the money taken in taxes to do the most good, I would agree. You are more worried that another might diminish the cash you have that could have been spent on a nicer trim package for your car.

You claim that "theft" is a greater sin than the inhumanity of another.

So be it. You make clear the things you value.
You're damned right I make clear the things I value. Just so there is no question, here is an itemized list:

1. Individual Rights. I value the idea that EACH individual has certainly inalienable, NATURAL rights inherent as a result of his nature as a creature who is conscious, self aware and requires freedom to act in order to pursue his own best interests.

2. Justice. I value the idea that each man should get what he deserves, WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE, as a consequence of his thoughts and actions. If he deserves wealth because he worked hard and made good choices, he should not be deprived of it. If he deserves death because he made poor decisions and landed himself drunk in the gutter, SO BE IT.

3. Reason. I value the idea that a man's mind is his most valuable tool of survival and that he should learn to use it in the most effective way possible so as to make the best possible life FOR HIMSELF.

4. Rational Self Interest. I value the idea that each man knows and is RESPONSIBLE FOR KNOWING what his best interests are, and acting to achieve those interests in a NON SACRIFICIAL manner, which is to say without sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.

5. Liberty. I value the idea that as a consequence of his nature as a being with a form of consciousness that requires him to make choices and act upon those choices in order to maintain his life, man ought to be free to live, work and benefit from his work to whatever extent he is capable, with the only limits being that he may not intentionally interfere in the liberty of any other man.

6. Property. I value the idea that a man who works and earns property owns that property and that no one has a right to take it from him under any circumstance whatsoever. Obvious asides would include such times as when government uses the power of Eminent Domain to take property for public use (roads, government buildings, etc), but that in such times the taking MUST be justly compensated. I do NOT endorse the very modern practice of government taking property from individuals and giving it to corporations (see Costco, the Home Despot and others for examples of evil companies who lobby the government to steal from people and give to them.)

I do NOT find there to be anything noble or moral about self sacrifice. Sacrifice *literally* means "To give up, renounce or destroy", leaving self-sacrifice little alternative but to mean "to give up, renounce or destroy oneself." I find no nobility in such an act. I do not believe that a soldier who dies in a cause he believes in can be said to have made a self sacrifice; he obviously believed his cause was worth the risk of even his life, and that his fight and even death are not sacrifices but investments in something he holds in as high esteem as he would his own life. This is the nobility of his act.

Do you propose eliminating all taxes or just taxes for things you hate?
Neither. If we're going to talk taxes, my position would be quite simple: Make taxes FAIR. Charge EVERYONE, even corporations, a simple, flat percentage. Don't allow deductions of any kind. Eliminate the IRS and save a fortune in processing taxes. On top of that, disallow the government from spending more than it brings in, and mandate that the government must save, say (pulling this # out of the air) 20% of its' yearly income toward future unforeseen emergencies such as wars, terrorist attacks, whatever.

The sum total of what I advocate is JUSTICE. Insist that ALL men have the same NATURAL rights, and craft the laws such that they protect those rights. Don't let some people sacrifice others. Don't let some people steal from others. If you think that some people have a right to take away what other people have justly EARNED, you're only fooling yourself when you say that isn't slavery.

Jason

In all this you make no allowence for those who cannot help themselves due to no fault of their own. It looks like you are declaring your rights, yet hold you have no obligations towards others. Your words mean nothing. You are I, I, I.

If others be like to die, they had better do it and decrease the surplus populaton, eh?
Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?


Oh, have you looked up the definition of slavery yet?

Where are you chained? Who says you cannot leave a tiny plot of land? Who is taking ALL the fruits of your labor? Who prevents you from marrying? From having a family?
Still waiting for this one.

Poor you.

Sacrifice? You?

Oh no, that would be immoral.

You are for you, and against all others, since they might touch your pile of cash.

You are indeed niggardly of spirit.

You are bitter, and you have my pity.


 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Well, where it comes to charity I might not have a good viewpoint. I, personally, give to a lot of charities, usually those that help young people because I think the money is best spent on them. I like giving to charity because it gives me a good feeling, personally, and also some hope that those who are benefitted will see the beauty of helping others and, when they are able to afford to do so, will follow the example.

I would never imagine stealing from someone else in order to give to any cause, no matter how noble. I believe that would taint the morality of the act. I LOATHE Robin Hood, and I think he and his methods were proper for an age where the only way to get wealth was to be born into it, but we in the U.S. do NOT live in that kind of world. Over 80% of the rich in America, as an example, are *first generation* wealthy. The biggest thing that holds people back is an idea in their head that says they *can't* do better than they have. I do not share that idea.

If I were to share in the idea that you are what you are born to, I would have to be dirt poor and a drug addict. I cam from a family where my parents abused drugs, where we moved constantly because my father couldn't keep a job due to his piss-poor attitude. When I was 8 years old we spent almost a year living in the family van because my father spent, spent, spent everything he made on getting high.

But you know what? I've never even once tried an illegal drug of any kind. I've gotten drunk maybe 3 or 4 times in my life and I didn't like it. I left home at 17 and got myself a cruddy minimum wage job (if I recall it was at around $5 an hour doing utter grunt labor for Kmart) and put myself through a couple of years of training at a technical college where I learned networking, and eventually I've managed to climb up to make around $30 an hour. I'm not part of a union and I never will be. I haven't gotten a lot of breaks, though I have had close friends who have helped me through some rough times, and I appreciate that more than I can ever say. I've made mistakes, of course, as we all have, and even had a child with a nutty woman who ended up kidnapping him 5 years ago.

But I don't give up, and though I do sometimes despair I don't stop believing that I CAN do better and that I can make every year better than the last. I believe that with all my heart and soul, and sometimes I can't believe that I'm really from the family I am, but the truth of that situation is inescapable. So when I see whiny piss-ant people like Bowfinger, whose answer for making people economically better off is to steal from some and give to others, I get a little pissed. Partially because people like him bring out the worst and most unethical behavior in people and partially because they intentionally work to discourage people and implant the idea in their heads that they can't make through honest means.

To anyone who's ever tempted by such evil words, I would say to you that you CAN make it, you are NOT stuck where you were born, you are NOT doomed to any fate but what YOU choose. The key is to realize that the power of CHOICE is in your hands and your minds, and you must learn to make the best choices you can.

You CAN make it. I know from experience.

Jason
You can take that trailer-trash chip on your shoulder and shove it up your rectum. You ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance, and if you truly believe I "intentionally work to discourage people and implant the idea in their heads that they can't make (sic) through honest means," you can add reading comprehension to your list of personal inadequacies. You obviously haven't paid the least bit of attention to what I have and have not actually said. Your comment about unethical behavior is even more preposterous.

I had an employee who was a lot like you, striking out on her own in her late teens, determined to climb above her poor beginnings, carrying a lot of hostility and other leftover baggage from her youth. She wasn't a good employee. True, she was driven to work her butt off. Unfortunately, her insecurities tainted her attitude and her ability to work as part of a team. She was compulsive about making herself visible and being sure she got credit even at the expense of her coworkers. She saw herself as a one-woman show; she alone was responsible for her success; only her individual accomplishments would be recognized and rewarded. It is ultimately a self-destructive behavior.

I sincerely suggest you seek professional help. Then, if you'd like to discuss our differences about balancing unfettered capitalism and globablization against the best interests of We, the People of the United States, let me know.
So you had an attention whore - that doesn't refute what he said. And infact his post brought a big smile to my face, although it would have been better if he'd have left you out of it;).

Sacrificing one's self for the betterment of others is noble, but to force sacrifice is not sacrifice at all. Likewise, Greed is evil, and can drive one to disregard that which provided for ascension; but to force all, because some might become evil, is not right nor just.

CkG
You miss my point. It's not just that she craved attention (though she certainly did). She seems so similar to DMA. She had the same chip on her shoulder, the same self-centered perspective, the same anger and contempt for anyone who didn't make it like she did. She was opinionated but not well informed. She was smart and capable, but not nearly so much as she acted. Ironically, I always felt she didn't believe her own self-promotion. I think she still saw herself as a failure and pushed so hard to prove to herself she wasn't. We never discussed the politics of Wal-Mart, but I know she shopped there regularly. I can hear her saying the same kinds of things as DMA.

Re. DMA's rants, I find them ridiculous. He keeps attacking imaginary positions with absurd, over-the-top hyperbole. He makes no attempt whatsoever to consider what someone else really said or to address points raised. He offers no documentation to support his claims, relying solely on screeching his extremist views as gospel truths, over and over. Mostly, in spite of dozens of paragraphs of name-calling and lunacy about "stealing" and "slavery", he never really explains what it is he objects to. We are all wrong, but since he won't provide any specifics, we don't know what we are wrong about. It is impossible to have any kind of a discussion with him, and it is apparent he has no interest in discussions anyway.
No, I just think your assessment is off. Just because someone like DMA or myself believe in self-reliance and in working hard to achieve our goals, doesn't mean that we have a chip on our shoulders. Is his way of posting it a tad blunt? Sure, but this is the intarweb - you have to say what you mean and mean what you say, and sometimes that means being blunt, which can be viewed as "extreme" by those who may not understand the concept or who hold a differing viewpoint. The lady you knew sounds like an attention whore with low self esteem so she had to prop up her achievements. That isn't what DMA is doing - he's just saying that if he can do it - anyone can. He's not trying to hold himself above other's and say - "look at me" - he's stating with experience that people CAN make decisions in life that will lead them out of the "hell" they may have been born into or placed in.

I find alot of the anti-WalMart rants ridiculous - they keep attacking some percieved "agenda" or position with absurd, over-the-top hyperbole. See, it goes both ways;)

CkG
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Genesys-

"blame the major media for making people sheep then. most people dont bother to read the news anymore, they let it be beamed to them via satalite or sent via cable. therefore they only hear what the major news outlets tell them. and, if i remember correctly, it was the media who 'linked' Saddam and Al Qaeda to 911, not the President. "

Not exactly. Read it and weep-

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
I love that letter. I've used it several times. It's kind of a cross between a magic act and a clove of garlic. All you have to do is pull it out of your hat and the apologists disappear. Here it is in it's full glory, again, just to drive the message out to as many people as possilbe:
Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate


March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: ( Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH
Proof positive, straight from the horses's ... err ... mouth, that President George W. Bush did personally and explicity claim a link between Iraq and 9/11. Yet the YABAs still claim Bush never lied about anything. I guess it depends on what the definition of 'is' is.
It seems you both do not understand what it says. I think people need to learn how to read "or" statements;) Also the letter is referencing a law(Public Law 107-243) - which talks about Sept.11.

It's really a nice try there Bow and Jhhnn, but your interpretation is only a misguided opinion at best. Oh, and about some supposed "disappearing" - I think it's because you ran away that you didn't see me talk about the same things I have above which refute your assessment(opinion).

CkG

Actually we do. I think you do too, but your response is not unexpected.
Bush is justifying his actions as per this law AND REFERRING TO 9/11. He did not need to. He could have not referred to this at all. He did though to bring people on board.
You still beating your wife CkG? One can say all sorts of things without making a declaritive.

Saddam has yet to be linked to terrorist organizations BTW. When Bush spoke of Iraq, it was often SaddamandBinLadan. Oh yes, two different people, but this administration has gone to virtually NO effort to point out that fact as demonstrated by countless polls. Why bring this up at all? Because it sounds good.

To say that Bush did not try to associate Saddam with terrorism and 9/11 is ridiculous. It's like someone saying a criminal never confessed to killing someone because they never explicitly used the word murder even if they described the whole thing in explicit detail

No, you are too smart. You know Bush associates Saddam with 9/11. You just want to get a rise out of those who know as well and say so.
The joint resolution passed by Congress to give Bush the authority is (Public Law 107-243). So Bush stating what he did in his letter follows what the law that was passed said. You can try to pin this on Bush all you want and claim he linked them, but it isn't a direct link either. It is an "or" thing, because it wasn't limited to just Iraq(the resolution). See, that is the problem some had with it - other resolutions limited things only to Iraq, but the one passed allowed for Bush's discresion. What Bush stated in his letter is exactly what the resolution passed by Congress says.
I understand that people want to spin this into a "Bush said" type of thing, but using this example doesn't help their cause.

CkG
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY