Ultra Quiet: Yeah, looking for excuses for not finding WMDs. Sorry for my dumbness. Not everyone can be as smart as you. Get over it that the war wasn't because of the non-existant WMDs.
You apparently have a great difficulty reading and understanding English as well as not being able to write it.
I have already clearly stated what my point was in this thread. I have also, quite clearly, stated what my position is on WMD in other threads.
You don't rate a personal re-hash of those points or positions. If you're interested, read some other threads.
Dave's claim that the poster's here who say that they 'know' what happened are ignorant is a valid claim. But I'd just like to expand on it a little.
First, if anyone claims to 'know'...not 'believe'...what happened or if our president was honest or not, is not only ignorant but also closed minded and a liar. And really, discussing the issue with them isn't worth the time.
Second, there are those who claim to 'know'...not 'believe'...on both sides of the issue.
First, if anyone claims to 'know'...not 'believe'...what happened or if our president was honest or not, is not only ignorant but also closed minded and a liar. And really, discussing the issue with them isn't worth the time.
Second, there are those who claim to 'know'...not 'believe'...on both sides of the issue.
Gaard, you are technically right. But the kind of evidence that would convict Bush of a conscious and deliberate attempt to manipulate the American people, the Senate and House, by lying will be difficult to come by. It will require somebody more than one, probably, fingering him who attended planning meetings where deception was plotted out and orchestrated, or perhaps a confession.
However when you look at the circumstantial evidence everything, from my perspective, points to a lie. You have the 1996 New American Century piece, the authors presence in the admin, their central role in the war, the circumspect nature of raw intelligence and the absolute certainty of the intelligence presented by the Admin, the masses of WMD portrayed, their absence on the battlefield, and on and on and on. Unless you are on a jury or institution sworn to uphold the government, you have to have very poor intuitive and reasoning faculties, you have to be profoundly biased, not to see that everything points to the fact that Bush lied.
However when you look at the circumstantial evidence everything, from my perspective, points to a lie. You have the 1996 New American Century piece, the authors presence in the admin, their central role in the war, the circumspect nature of raw intelligence and the absolute certainty of the intelligence presented by the Admin, the masses of WMD portrayed, their absence on the battlefield, and on and on and on. Unless you are on a jury or institution sworn to uphold the government, you have to have very poor intuitive and reasoning faculties, you have to be profoundly biased, not to see that everything points to the fact that Bush lied.
Powell and Rice were both on TV this morning and both reaffirmed their positions that the intel. was good, the trailers are WMD labs and that more WMD would be found.
The bias here is that you, and others, see that every piece of media hype and misinformation points to the fact that Bush lied. That is the only bias that is present in this discussion.
Yes, you can believe our president lied. You can think that all of the evidence available points to him lying. (From, as you say, your perspective) 
But, no matter how much you believe it to be so, or how much circumstantial evidence points to that conclusion, it's still just a belief until it becomes a proven fact.
Yes, the evidence will be hard to come by. But I believe, unlike the fate of Jimmy Hoffa, the truth about the events leading up to this war will eventually come forward. Maybe not soon enough for some, but eventually it will.
For the record, I'm of the belief that our president wasn't accurate in his claims and speeches regarding the justifications for this war. Now, do I know whether he was deliberately misleading? No. It's possible that he was misinformed. It's also possible that he outright lied, and wanted this war for alterior motives. Motives that he hasn't stated. I think he was wrong...but I don't know if he was deliberately misleading.
I know I've been accused of being obsessed with this so-called 'solid' evidence before. But if we could just be shown what this damn evidence was it would lower a lot of the raised eyebrows around the world.
IMO, until the president and his boys pony up with what they based their 'we must go in now' attitudes on, they will continue to be accused of fabricating the primary reason for this war. And rightfully so.
But, no matter how much you believe it to be so, or how much circumstantial evidence points to that conclusion, it's still just a belief until it becomes a proven fact.Yes, the evidence will be hard to come by. But I believe, unlike the fate of Jimmy Hoffa, the truth about the events leading up to this war will eventually come forward. Maybe not soon enough for some, but eventually it will.
For the record, I'm of the belief that our president wasn't accurate in his claims and speeches regarding the justifications for this war. Now, do I know whether he was deliberately misleading? No. It's possible that he was misinformed. It's also possible that he outright lied, and wanted this war for alterior motives. Motives that he hasn't stated. I think he was wrong...but I don't know if he was deliberately misleading.
I know I've been accused of being obsessed with this so-called 'solid' evidence before. But if we could just be shown what this damn evidence was it would lower a lot of the raised eyebrows around the world.
IMO, until the president and his boys pony up with what they based their 'we must go in now' attitudes on, they will continue to be accused of fabricating the primary reason for this war. And rightfully so.
Powell and Rice were both on TV this morning and both reaffirmed their positions that the intel. was good, the trailers are WMD labs and that more WMD would be found.
--------------------------
Had you expected they'd come on and say that Bush lied? I don't expect you to agree. The bias in the argument is that I'm a skeptic and you're a believer. I never felt the war was about WMD from the start. Your bias is that news media hype determines my judgment because your life experience shows you how news media hype stampedes people. My life experience tells me that the news media hype is almost totally pro Admin., any Admin., and has formed your complete outlook in subtle ways you don't recognize. Who's right if either. I would love to believe as you do, but I've spent a life of self examination, some small scratching of the surface anyway, particularly self rationalization and self lying. My self analysis cost me everything I believed. I paid with everything I ever loved and treasured for what I see. All the visibly dearest naive notions and quieting dreams that sustained me were shattered. But illusion runs unbelievably deep. I don't think one can get truly free without a guide. The blindness is just too profound. \
But whatever the case, my journey through my own self delusions, if you'll pardon my immodesty, has left me with a sure instinct and vision into the illusion of others, at least up to the point where they?ve been unwilling to pay as big a price as I. I have the distinct impression that I never miss. That confidence, I fear, carries over to you. I will continue to rely on the Moonbeam Duck Test in these matters. The only real question in all of this to me is will our action in Iraq lead to a better world than if we had pursued another course. I'm persuaded there was a better way. I don't like an egomaniacal leadership stampeding my country into an illegal war on the basis of a secret religious doctrine they are afraid to share. Sorry. The weapons issue of of small moment in that picture. The notion that Iraq was an immediate threat (the central issue) fell in the opening days of the war. Three weeks and the statues fell. Wow, what a threat.
--------------------------
Had you expected they'd come on and say that Bush lied? I don't expect you to agree. The bias in the argument is that I'm a skeptic and you're a believer. I never felt the war was about WMD from the start. Your bias is that news media hype determines my judgment because your life experience shows you how news media hype stampedes people. My life experience tells me that the news media hype is almost totally pro Admin., any Admin., and has formed your complete outlook in subtle ways you don't recognize. Who's right if either. I would love to believe as you do, but I've spent a life of self examination, some small scratching of the surface anyway, particularly self rationalization and self lying. My self analysis cost me everything I believed. I paid with everything I ever loved and treasured for what I see. All the visibly dearest naive notions and quieting dreams that sustained me were shattered. But illusion runs unbelievably deep. I don't think one can get truly free without a guide. The blindness is just too profound. \
But whatever the case, my journey through my own self delusions, if you'll pardon my immodesty, has left me with a sure instinct and vision into the illusion of others, at least up to the point where they?ve been unwilling to pay as big a price as I. I have the distinct impression that I never miss.
That confidence, I fear, carries over to you. I will continue to rely on the Moonbeam Duck Test in these matters. The only real question in all of this to me is will our action in Iraq lead to a better world than if we had pursued another course. I'm persuaded there was a better way. I don't like an egomaniacal leadership stampeding my country into an illegal war on the basis of a secret religious doctrine they are afraid to share. Sorry. The weapons issue of of small moment in that picture. The notion that Iraq was an immediate threat (the central issue) fell in the opening days of the war. Three weeks and the statues fell. Wow, what a threat. Gaard, every trial and conviction, without direct witnesses to the crime, is based on circumstantial evidence. The scientific method is sort of just the same. A conviction doesn't depend on proof, but a high degree of likelihood, beyond reasonable doubt. What is reasonable. It's not something partisans would understand.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Powell and Rice were both on TV this morning and both reaffirmed their positions that the intel. was good, the trailers are WMD labs and that more WMD would be found.
--------------------------
Had you expected they'd come on and say that Bush lied? I don't expect you to agree. The bias in the argument is that I'm a skeptic and you're a believer. I never felt the war was about WMD from the start. Your bias is that news media hype determines my judgment because your life experience shows you how news media hype stampedes people. My life experience tells me that the news media hype is almost totally pro Admin., any Admin., and has formed your complete outlook in subtle ways you don't recognize. Who's right if either. I would love to believe as you do, but I've spent a life of self examination, some small scratching of the surface anyway, particularly self rationalization and self lying. My self analysis cost me everything I believed. I paid with everything I ever loved and treasured for what I see. All the visibly dearest naive notions and quieting dreams that sustained me were shattered. But illusion runs unbelievably deep. I don't think one can get truly free without a guide. The blindness is just too profound. \
But whatever the case, my journey through my own self delusions, if you'll pardon my immodesty, has left me with a sure instinct and vision into the illusion of others, at least up to the point where they?ve been unwilling to pay as big a price as I. I have the distinct impression that I never miss.
Getting past all your bullsh!t where you claim to know who I am and your own proclamation about how smart you are here's what we are left with:
Your bias towards Bush is clear and well demonstrated and if you think anyone here is convinced that you have used "good intuitive and reasoning faculties" to arrive at your conclusions, you are sadly mistaken. That's what every one of your arguments breaks down into and once again we have come full circle.
Moonbeam,
There's a chance you're right. Some would say that there's more than a chance...that it's likely.
I can't help but think that maybe this war was justified by using the same high degree of likelihood/proof theorem.
ie..."Do we have proof of WMD? No. But there is a high degree of likelihood that they're there. Unfortunately, we can't use a HDL as a basis for war, so let's just say we have proof."
There's a chance you're right. Some would say that there's more than a chance...that it's likely.
I can't help but think that maybe this war was justified by using the same high degree of likelihood/proof theorem.
ie..."Do we have proof of WMD? No. But there is a high degree of likelihood that they're there. Unfortunately, we can't use a HDL as a basis for war, so let's just say we have proof."
Getting past all your bullsh!t where you claim to know who I am and your own proclamation about how smart you are here's what we are left with:
Your bias towards Bush is clear and well demonstrated and if you think anyone here is convinced that you have used "good intuitive and reasoning faculties" to arrive at your conclusions, you are sadly mistaken. That's what every one of your arguments breaks down into and once again we have come full circle.
---------------------------------
Lets not get carries away with my claims. I qualified them with "Who's right if either." You like to chastise those who can't read or have low comprehension skills. Please don't go overboard on me here. Also, my experience has nothing to do at all with being smart or thinking that I am. That you fabricated out of the thin air of your own concerns about your intelligence. I can think of no reason at all to assume or pretend that I'm smarter than you. We are of course full circle because I simply have more faith in my judgment than yours. Occams razor and all that, you know. And I am not charged with the defense of the country in a military capacity. To be skeptical, however, I see as a patriotic duty.
Time may tell us more. Unlike you, however, I hope I'm wrong.
Your bias towards Bush is clear and well demonstrated and if you think anyone here is convinced that you have used "good intuitive and reasoning faculties" to arrive at your conclusions, you are sadly mistaken. That's what every one of your arguments breaks down into and once again we have come full circle.
---------------------------------
Lets not get carries away with my claims. I qualified them with "Who's right if either." You like to chastise those who can't read or have low comprehension skills. Please don't go overboard on me here.
Also, my experience has nothing to do at all with being smart or thinking that I am. That you fabricated out of the thin air of your own concerns about your intelligence. I can think of no reason at all to assume or pretend that I'm smarter than you. We are of course full circle because I simply have more faith in my judgment than yours. Occams razor and all that, you know. And I am not charged with the defense of the country in a military capacity. To be skeptical, however, I see as a patriotic duty. Time may tell us more. Unlike you, however, I hope I'm wrong.
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Powell and Rice were both on TV this morning and both reaffirmed their positions that the intel. was good, the trailers are WMD labs and that more WMD would be found.
--------------------------
Had you expected they'd come on and say that Bush lied? I don't expect you to agree. The bias in the argument is that I'm a skeptic and you're a believer. I never felt the war was about WMD from the start. Your bias is that news media hype determines my judgment because your life experience shows you how news media hype stampedes people. My life experience tells me that the news media hype is almost totally pro Admin., any Admin., and has formed your complete outlook in subtle ways you don't recognize. Who's right if either. I would love to believe as you do, but I've spent a life of self examination, some small scratching of the surface anyway, particularly self rationalization and self lying. My self analysis cost me everything I believed. I paid with everything I ever loved and treasured for what I see. All the visibly dearest naive notions and quieting dreams that sustained me were shattered. But illusion runs unbelievably deep. I don't think one can get truly free without a guide. The blindness is just too profound. \
But whatever the case, my journey through my own self delusions, if you'll pardon my immodesty, has left me with a sure instinct and vision into the illusion of others, at least up to the point where they?ve been unwilling to pay as big a price as I. I have the distinct impression that I never miss.
Getting past all your bullsh!t where you claim to know who I am and your own proclamation about how smart you are here's what we are left with:
Your bias towards Bush is clear and well demonstrated and if you think anyone here is convinced that you have used "good intuitive and reasoning faculties" to arrive at your conclusions, you are sadly mistaken. That's what every one of your arguments breaks down into and once again we have come full circle.
UQ - Getting past all your bullsh!t your bias towards Bush is clear and well demonstrated. That's what every one of your arguments breaks down into and once again we have come full circle.
Is there anything Bush could do that you wouldn't agree with?
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Powell and Rice were both on TV this morning and both reaffirmed their positions that the intel. was good, the trailers are WMD labs and that more WMD would be found.
--------------------------
Had you expected they'd come on and say that Bush lied? I don't expect you to agree. The bias in the argument is that I'm a skeptic and you're a believer. I never felt the war was about WMD from the start. Your bias is that news media hype determines my judgment because your life experience shows you how news media hype stampedes people. My life experience tells me that the news media hype is almost totally pro Admin., any Admin., and has formed your complete outlook in subtle ways you don't recognize. Who's right if either. I would love to believe as you do, but I've spent a life of self examination, some small scratching of the surface anyway, particularly self rationalization and self lying. My self analysis cost me everything I believed. I paid with everything I ever loved and treasured for what I see. All the visibly dearest naive notions and quieting dreams that sustained me were shattered. But illusion runs unbelievably deep. I don't think one can get truly free without a guide. The blindness is just too profound. \
But whatever the case, my journey through my own self delusions, if you'll pardon my immodesty, has left me with a sure instinct and vision into the illusion of others, at least up to the point where they?ve been unwilling to pay as big a price as I. I have the distinct impression that I never miss.
Getting past all your bullsh!t where you claim to know who I am and your own proclamation about how smart you are here's what we are left with:
Your bias towards Bush is clear and well demonstrated and if you think anyone here is convinced that you have used "good intuitive and reasoning faculties" to arrive at your conclusions, you are sadly mistaken. That's what every one of your arguments breaks down into and once again we have come full circle.
UQ - Getting past all your bullsh!t your bias towards Bush is clear and well demonstrated. That's what every one of your arguments breaks down into and once again we have come full circle.
Is there anything Bush could do that you wouldn't agree with?
Woof woof woof woof woof. Woof woof woof.
I should give a serious response because you are certainly serious about all that stupid sh!t you post.
1. I am not a fan of "megaphone diplomacy".
2. I am pro-choice.
3. I think they were wrong about the stem cell research.
4. I think the Solicitor General should have been reassigned after 9/11.
5. I think Cheney should have released the transcripts from his energy policy meetings. I am in favor of complete transparency in gov't dealings whether it's health care or energy. National security not withstanding.
I have also said repeatedly that if there has been lying done about the war, somebody should hang. Twice.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
The Policy of prior Administrations has been to seek Congressional approval early on or prior to an action that may become devisive or, of course, is required by the War Powers Act or other Laws. Resolutions are passed giving a "sense of the Congress" or specific authorization for these actions. Every one knows this, I'm sure. Everyone also knows that; the submission (s) by the administration to congress contain certain facts, assumptions, interpretations and the like. During the course of prosecuting the "action (s)" the premise (s) for the action (s) become self evident and the people and the congress go on to other things. The premise (s) underlying the requested congressional authority for this Iraqi issue, however, do not seem to have materialized yet. Congress is starting to ask for the proof. Not many granted but, a few are asking for the "beef".
Earlier in this thread I suggested that the action by the US violated UN charter if it could not be shown to have been an exigent circumstance. UN resolution 1441 action section item 12, reads that the body would reconvene to determine what action should take place should Iraq fail to comply etc.. All prior relevant resolutions were incorporated into 1441 explicitly. So, to argue that a prior resolution implied this or that is not appropriate. The Congress gave the President authority to by pass the UN charter by its 'blessing' on the issue and the funding for the 'war'. Therefore, there exists a greater onus on the Congress to validate the actions of the Administration and thus themselves to the people of this country and the world.
If this is true, what is reasonable in terms of time and effort for the validation to occur. Spin doctors have been at work as indicated in the 'links' provided on this thread and other threads. It seems to me that the only thing needing validation is what was identified as the reason to invade a sovereign nation and that it was an exigent situation. Nothing else matters. If the administration didn't include a hundred ICBM's, but we found them, it would be nice but, not proof of the matter needing validation. The focus needs staying on What is contained in the administrations's moving papers regarding the exigent reason for invasion.
Earlier in this thread I suggested that the action by the US violated UN charter if it could not be shown to have been an exigent circumstance. UN resolution 1441 action section item 12, reads that the body would reconvene to determine what action should take place should Iraq fail to comply etc.. All prior relevant resolutions were incorporated into 1441 explicitly. So, to argue that a prior resolution implied this or that is not appropriate. The Congress gave the President authority to by pass the UN charter by its 'blessing' on the issue and the funding for the 'war'. Therefore, there exists a greater onus on the Congress to validate the actions of the Administration and thus themselves to the people of this country and the world.
If this is true, what is reasonable in terms of time and effort for the validation to occur. Spin doctors have been at work as indicated in the 'links' provided on this thread and other threads. It seems to me that the only thing needing validation is what was identified as the reason to invade a sovereign nation and that it was an exigent situation. Nothing else matters. If the administration didn't include a hundred ICBM's, but we found them, it would be nice but, not proof of the matter needing validation. The focus needs staying on What is contained in the administrations's moving papers regarding the exigent reason for invasion.
BOBDM, aren't you going to go 'OH' or something? I told ya, ya know. UQ isn't completely loopy.
HJ, I gots no ider whats them exigent reasons fur invasion is. Can you lay um on me, er are ya speaking theoretical like sorta like sayen wheres we orta looks ta gather up the pertinents.
HJ, I gots no ider whats them exigent reasons fur invasion is. Can you lay um on me, er are ya speaking theoretical like sorta like sayen wheres we orta looks ta gather up the pertinents.
Definitely stick with German. Anyone who starts with "you are like uber pathetic" should, you know, like, go and, like, piss off.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
BOBDM, aren't you going to go 'OH' or something? I told ya, ya know. UQ isn't completely loopy.
HJ, I gots no ider whats them exigent reasons fur invasion is. Can you lay um on me, er are ya speaking theoretical like sorta like sayen wheres we orta looks ta gather up the pertinents.
Well. BillyBobJohnnyJoe, it was that Iraq had WMD and intended to use them. It was that they were 'linked' to Al Qeada and other terrorist organizations and that these organizations were an immediate threat to all Civilized Nations. At least that is what I think I read, BBJJ. Down here we is but water farmers... not good readers and all so maybe it read something else with whereas and thereby and all that legal like and confusing language.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Powell and Rice were both on TV this morning and both reaffirmed their positions that the intel. was good, the trailers are WMD labs and that more WMD would be found.
--------------------------
Had you expected they'd come on and say that Bush lied? I don't expect you to agree. The bias in the argument is that I'm a skeptic and you're a believer. I never felt the war was about WMD from the start. Your bias is that news media hype determines my judgment because your life experience shows you how news media hype stampedes people. My life experience tells me that the news media hype is almost totally pro Admin., any Admin., and has formed your complete outlook in subtle ways you don't recognize. Who's right if either. I would love to believe as you do, but I've spent a life of self examination, some small scratching of the surface anyway, particularly self rationalization and self lying. My self analysis cost me everything I believed. I paid with everything I ever loved and treasured for what I see. All the visibly dearest naive notions and quieting dreams that sustained me were shattered. But illusion runs unbelievably deep. I don't think one can get truly free without a guide. The blindness is just too profound. \
But whatever the case, my journey through my own self delusions, if you'll pardon my immodesty, has left me with a sure instinct and vision into the illusion of others, at least up to the point where they?ve been unwilling to pay as big a price as I. I have the distinct impression that I never miss.
I'm afraid that your "journey through my own self delusions" [sic] is not over. Don't assume that the media shaped me in sublte ways beyond my "simple" comprehension. Please write a book for us. Be our "guide." Get us through the blindness. I rebuke you and your secret "Moonbeam Duck Test."
That said. I really do love you guys. And gals. -TalTRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter