I see a recurring theme of some of the liberal posters...

[judasmachine]

The solution to a public figure lying outright is personal responsibility, not argueing the definition of "IS", and not faulting someone else's intelligence. The solution is bucking up and admitting it and taking the punishment like a man.

The war is a bit trickier for obvious reasons. We clean up after oursleves in a timely manner and start talking to all parties involved. Inviting even the Mullahs, Shieks, Civic Leaders, and everyone else to sit down and discuss this. We may not be able to save much face, but at least we get Iraq back to work, and help build real diplomatic ties with them and the rest of the world.

I'm no diplomat, but I know when someone is just "staying the course" to save face.

 

[her209]

We split Iraq into 3 countries and give Israel full control of Baghdad and call it a day.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Fuzzy...show me one piece of what was used as justification for starting this war, other than Saddam was a bad guy, that has turned out to be accurate.

Isn't that enough? Or are bad people okay, as long as they aren't killing the paleskins on our side of the big pond?

Lying? Maybe.

... or maybe not. As I have stated before, and no one has refuted, there is not one bit of evidence that Bush lied. Give it up.

Very wrong? Certainly.

Probably. Remember, he did have ten years to cover things up, courtesy of the all-powerful UN.

Please don't try and pass this off as "other countries fed us bad info" - our own analysts were saying the aluminum tubes weren't for nukes, the Niger story was bunk, etc, etc...

Our own analysts were also saying that these stories were true - which of our own analysts should he have believed (without the courtesy of hindsight)? Wasn't Joe Wilson credible?He was, after all, our ambassador. Who'dathunk that he would intentionally give the President bad information? In days past, I'm sure that would have been called treason.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Truth is even after being told what he was told is BS he still kept it going by slightly changing his rethoric to something along the lines of "He had the capability to produce weapons, you see, he had the intent, he hated America...". There's a lot more from plenty of other members of his administration that have been quoted so many times I lost track months ago.

Once again, when did Bush lie? What did he say that was determined to be a lie?

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: Tabb
For starters, get the troops the equipment they deserve. Like Desert Camoflage, Penatrator vests and Armored Humvees.

Interesting. I just got an e-mail from a friend about his advanced combat helmet and interceptor body armor. He's got the stuff and not a single small arms round has entered his base in nine months. The closest mortar attack was 3,000 meters away from him in the same time period.

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: Tabb
For starters, get the troops the equipment they deserve. Like Desert Camoflage, Penatrator vests and Armored Humvees.

Interesting. I just got an e-mail from a friend about his advanced combat helmet and interceptor body armor. He's got the stuff and not a single small arms round has entered his base in nine months. The closest mortar attack was 3,000 meters away from him in the same time period.

Sadly, this is the stuff the news channels refuse to comment on. After all, if things were portrayed in a positive way, it wouldn't be newsworthy.

I'm glad your friend has the advanced armor you've described.

 

[judasmachine]

One of the reasons you only hear those two problems is that you don't listen when someone does suggest a solution.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: Tabb
For starters, get the troops the equipment they deserve. Like Desert Camoflage, Penatrator vests and Armored Humvees.

Interesting. I just got an e-mail from a friend about his advanced combat helmet and interceptor body armor. He's got the stuff and not a single small arms round has entered his base in nine months. The closest mortar attack was 3,000 meters away from him in the same time period.

Interesting, because the local news in my state had footage of a local national guardsmen, who had his mother send him Motorola 2-Way WalkAbout radios because the military did not provide basic comm gear to everyone, and showed the improvised armor they add to their unarmored Humvees (FYI, they added plywood and sandbags to the sides and back, but unfortunately nothing to the bottom, leaving them highly vunerable to most roadside bombs).

 

[13rian]

Pliablemoose:

It's funny you post it the way you did. These "themes" probably did not have the intent on a resolution, but rather advocating through evidence that his actions were committed through deceptive purposes.

The way you make it sound is that people who are against it and don't have a solution to it, they shouldn't be talking. That's like turning a blind eye on something you believe is wrong. If you've seen some recent commercials about smoking, it seems like a pretty good example of how anti-war-on-iraq people feel. One of them has a girl about to drawn while there was another girl, her friend, standing on the dock 10ft away who did nothing but watch at first. When you see the girl through the girl on the dock's perspective, you'd think she'd jump in after her, but she simply turns around as if it wasn't happening. I think that's why people are so strongly speaking out, like P. Diddy, who just can't believe such an act is being committed.

Although this could actually apply to what Saddam was doing to the people under his tyranny, it doesn't justify why Bush initially went to war on an completely different issue and slowly turning it into this as well as have the capabilities of creating WMD's rather than actually having them.

FuzzyBee:

There's probably better examples of it, but since Colin Powell did represent the United States and therefore the President as well at the UN, those cartoon graphics of mobile gas mixing agent vehicles (whatever he labeled them) weren't exactly concrete evidence as he so strongly advocated.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Aelius

Truth is even after being told what he was told is BS he still kept it going by slightly changing his rethoric to something along the lines of "He had the capability to produce weapons, you see, he had the intent, he hated America...". There's a lot more from plenty of other members of his administration that have been quoted so many times I lost track months ago.

Once again, when did Bush lie? What did he say that was determined to be a lie?

If you don't want to see truth you will refuse to see it.

I have pointed this ideological flaw out before. Many people are so stuck to the idea that a sitting President could not possibly do what other people say he did that they will gladly justify anything he says by looking for any logic or straw they can possibly come up with to prove they are right.

I don't have a cure for you Fuzzy.

What you need is a live audience being torn appart with an M16 with the President at the trigger for you to come to grips with the simple question.... "why?"

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
2.) The war in Iraq.

Considering we're already there, have invaded, and an exit in the forseeable future would lead the country into a bloody civil war what are your proposed solutions to ending the war?

Reverse Paul Bremer's damaging changes to Iraq's government systems as described in Baghdad Year Zero and let the Iraqis elect any government they want, even if it's one we hate, then get out of there. We could've done better before Bremer inspired so much hatred against the US occupation, but that's the best we can hope for now.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Aelius

I have pointed this ideological flaw out before. Many people are so stuck to the idea that a sitting President could not possibly do what other people say he did that they will gladly justify anything he says by looking for any logic or straw they can possibly come up with to prove they are right.

I don't have a cure for you Fuzzy.

Yeah, you do. It's called evidence. Well, actually, you don't. Where I come from, calling somebody a liar is a pretty strong thing to do, and can have serious repurcussions.

What I suggest is that unless you have evidence of Bush lying, you stop spreading the lie yourself. Or at least have the courtesy to label yourself a fearmongerer.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Aelius

I have pointed this ideological flaw out before. Many people are so stuck to the idea that a sitting President could not possibly do what other people say he did that they will gladly justify anything he says by looking for any logic or straw they can possibly come up with to prove they are right.

I don't have a cure for you Fuzzy.

Yeah, you do. It's called evidence. Well, actually, you don't. Where I come from, calling somebody a liar is a pretty strong thing to do, and can have serious repurcussions.

What I suggest is that unless you have evidence of Bush lying, you stop spreading the lie yourself. Or at least have the courtesy to label yourself a fearmongerer.

Well if he wasn't lying he sure was incompetent.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: 13rian
Pliablemoose:


Although this could actually apply to what Saddam was doing to the people under his tyranny, it doesn't justify why Bush initially went to war on an completely different issue and slowly turning it into this as well as have the capabilities of creating WMD's rather than actually having them.

I have to admit, I caught the spin by the Bush campaign during the tail end of the election, rather than admitting they were wrong, they hyped how bad Saddam was.

Tried to make the post non-judgmental, forgive me. It shows that I feel we've passed the point of no return on both issues some time ago.

If the war in Iraq continues to go badly, I suspect the Democrats will have an easy win in 08' and even 06' and pick up some seats in congress, and this will lead to our exit from Iraq.

BTW, thanks to the posters in this thread, just trying to understand, I still remember the withdrawl from Vietnam, it wasn't one of our finest moments, and I don't want to add the fall of Baghdad to the list

The war is already hugely unpopular, and I don't see public sentiment doing anything but continuing this trend...

 

[GrGr]

[

OP:

Ok, several themes here & I'm curious if they're just going to be insurmountable..

1.) Bush lied to the public, & is responsible for thousands of deaths.

So where do we go from here? I see it posted over & over, but I don't see a solution or any middle ground. What is your proposed resolution to the claim about being misled into an unjust war?

2.) The war in Iraq.

Considering we're already there, have invaded, and an exit in the forseeable future would lead the country into a bloody civil war what are your proposed solutions to ending the war?

1) You do not reward warmongers and warprofiteers by re-electing them. You charge them with criminal conduct and drag them before a judge. That is self evident I should think but what do I know :roll:

2) Who says there would be civil war if the US left? The US created this mess and should take responsibility for it. That means get reasonable, responsible people in charge who have an international and arab mandate to deal with the situation. The US should provide the majority of the troops until the situation has calmed down, which it would if the reconstruction work got underway for real and the US with it's ulterior motives was removed from the driver seat in Iraq. But other nations would find it much easier to step up if the effort was not part of US geopolitical strategy. If the US stepped down and offered Mea Culpas and there was a geniune effort to rebuild Iraq for the Iraqi people (without any ulterior motives) things would look up pretty quickly. The Iraqis would deal with the insurgency themselves since the insurgency would then be contrary to their own interests.

 

[PatboyX]

moose, i think you are correct about not being able to pull out. i think the big problem most of us on the left have is that we dont have a solution. we (as in the dems) cant come up with a solution and we (as in the country) dont have a solution. and i think the truth is that there is none. there is no simple solution. and during the election we were presented a choice: kerry saying "this will stink for awhile but we will get the world behind us and do it" and bush saying "this is exactly what needed to be done, we will continue to be vigilant and we will prevail."
obviously, the bush idea of being positive does help win the people to your side but it doesnt change the fact that, regardless of who is in charge...this war is going to get worse before it gets better. for everyone.
i am willing at this point to stop trying to find flaws in the president and truly think about a positive movement in getting this war over.
part of me is hoping that bushs re-election will help to calm him down (now feeling that he is without a doubt the peoples choice, etc) and we can focus. hopefully a change-up in cabinet will make some headway into progress.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Aelius

I have pointed this ideological flaw out before. Many people are so stuck to the idea that a sitting President could not possibly do what other people say he did that they will gladly justify anything he says by looking for any logic or straw they can possibly come up with to prove they are right.

I don't have a cure for you Fuzzy.

Yeah, you do. It's called evidence. Well, actually, you don't. Where I come from, calling somebody a liar is a pretty strong thing to do, and can have serious repurcussions.

What I suggest is that unless you have evidence of Bush lying, you stop spreading the lie yourself. Or at least have the courtesy to label yourself a fearmongerer.

The evidence was provided long ago as I pointed out. You simply refuse to accept it exists. It's natural for someone like you to keep saying it doesn't exist. It reminds me of Bush refusing to back down under sever criticism from both much of the EU and the UN about proof of WMDs and instead went ahead with the war. I'm sure there are people here who may think perhaps Santa Clause is real too. Wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Truth is he knowingly went ahead and said and did what he did despite the logical questions of "where's the evidence?". Constantly saying that there is good hard evidence, as he said multiple times, despite most nations telling him "ok so where's the evidence, show it if you got it", he ignored them and just kept on sailing blindly into a war. This sort of behavior is completely unacceptable from someone in charge of anything, let alone the White House and the US.

He is just as responsible as anyone else in the Administration. More so perhaps because he did it without any question what so ever. He only stopped spewing that BS when the 9/11 report was released, being the only credible evidence shown on this whole issue at all and it pointed in the exact opposite direction Bush has been pointing.

The mere fact that people like you think that this simply means that it's other people's fault clearly shows the ideological flaw I pointed out before. Someone at the top, be it a President or a businessman, is considered infallible, unless no one else can be found to blame and no scapegoats exist to take the fall.

It's absolutely pathetic and it shows why your system has zero accountability. With this sort of thinking it never will have any.

At worst he is a murderer and should spend the rest of his life in a 8X4 room, along with the rest of the Administration, and at best he is criminally maleficent and should spend a few years in prison for each life lost due to this callous attitude towards life.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Ok, several themes here & I'm curious if they're just going to be insurmountable..

1.) Bush lied to the public, & is responsible for thousands of deaths.

So where do we go from here? I see it posted over & over, but I don't see a solution or any middle ground. What is your proposed resolution to the claim about being misled into an unjust war?

2.) The war in Iraq.

Considering we're already there, have invaded, and an exit in the forseeable future would lead the country into a bloody civil war what are your proposed solutions to ending the war?

(At least it's not another thread giving advice to the Dems about how to win an election )

1) Lies that lead to wars = Impeachment

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Ok, several themes here & I'm curious if they're just going to be insurmountable..

1.) Bush lied to the public, & is responsible for thousands of deaths.

So where do we go from here? I see it posted over & over, but I don't see a solution or any middle ground. What is your proposed resolution to the claim about being misled into an unjust war?

2.) The war in Iraq.

Considering we're already there, have invaded, and an exit in the forseeable future would lead the country into a bloody civil war what are your proposed solutions to ending the war?

(At least it's not another thread giving advice to the Dems about how to win an election )

1) Lies that lead to wars = Impeachment

Did Putin lie when he gave Bush evidence showing Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on the US after 9/11?

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

1) Lies that lead to wars = Impeachment

Do you think that's a realistic expectation?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Infohawk

1) Lies that lead to wars = Impeachment

Do you think that's a realistic expectation?

So Presidential accountability goes out the window as long as you have a plularity in Congress.... ok, I get it now.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Ok, several themes here & I'm curious if they're just going to be insurmountable..

1.) Bush lied to the public, & is responsible for thousands of deaths.

So where do we go from here? I see it posted over & over, but I don't see a solution or any middle ground. What is your proposed resolution to the claim about being misled into an unjust war?

2.) The war in Iraq.

Considering we're already there, have invaded, and an exit in the forseeable future would lead the country into a bloody civil war what are your proposed solutions to ending the war?

(At least it's not another thread giving advice to the Dems about how to win an election )

1) Lies that lead to wars = Impeachment

Did Putin lie when he gave Bush evidence showing Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on the US after 9/11?

Perhaps Putin wanted to return the favour the US gave Russia when Carter started to support the Mullahs in Afghanistan and drew Russia into a disastrous war.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Infohawk

1) Lies that lead to wars = Impeachment

Do you think that's a realistic expectation?

So Presidential accountability goes out the window as long as you have a plularity in Congress.... ok, I get it now.

Bush was accountable, just as he would have been if Saddam had been left with the ability to carry out any terrorist attack on the US. If he had done nothing after Putin gave him that evidence, I would have been the first to call for his head on a platter.....

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Ok, several themes here & I'm curious if they're just going to be insurmountable..

1.) Bush lied to the public, & is responsible for thousands of deaths.

So where do we go from here? I see it posted over & over, but I don't see a solution or any middle ground. What is your proposed resolution to the claim about being misled into an unjust war?

2.) The war in Iraq.

Considering we're already there, have invaded, and an exit in the forseeable future would lead the country into a bloody civil war what are your proposed solutions to ending the war?

(At least it's not another thread giving advice to the Dems about how to win an election )

1) Lies that lead to wars = Impeachment

Did Putin lie when he gave Bush evidence showing Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on the US after 9/11?

Perhaps Putin wanted to return the favour the US gave Russia when Carter started to support the Mullahs in Afghanistan and drew Russia into a disastrous war.

Russia was profiting immensely from sanctions and the extra impact it was having on their oil industry, they took the HIGH road and cut their own profits by turning that evidence over.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Infohawk

1) Lies that lead to wars = Impeachment

Do you think that's a realistic expectation?

So Presidential accountability goes out the window as long as you have a plularity in Congress.... ok, I get it now.

The law is the law is the law. I just asked if he felt it was a realistic expectation.